Panorama Scholarly Group / Standards
Editorial Standards
A group-wide framework for selecting, reviewing, publishing, and maintaining trustworthy scholarly work.
Purpose and scope
Panorama Scholarly Group publishes research through journals, books, and related scholarly works. This standard sets shared expectations for editorial judgment, peer review, production, and post-publication stewardship across the group.
It applies to authors, editors, reviewers, editorial board members, production teams, and publishing staff. A journal or imprint may set more specific requirements for its field or format; those instructions should be read with this group-wide standard.
Editorial principles
Our editorial work is guided by four commitments. They apply to research articles, reviews, book proposals, edited collections, and other scholarly contributions.
Editorial independence
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance, integrity, and the stated scope of the publication. Commercial or personal interests do not determine acceptance.
Fair and respectful assessment
Submissions are assessed consistently and without discrimination. Authors, reviewers, editors, and staff are expected to communicate professionally throughout the process.
Transparency
We explain our editorial processes, identify relevant relationships, maintain accurate metadata, and make material changes to the record visible to readers.
Accountability
Decisions and concerns are handled through documented procedures. When the published record needs correction, we act promptly and preserve a clear version history.
Roles and responsibilities
Scholarly publishing is a shared process. Each participant has a distinct responsibility for the reliability, fairness, and clarity of the work that reaches readers.
Authors
Present the work accurately, acknowledge substantive contributions, report methods and limitations, disclose funding and relevant interests, obtain required approvals, and correct material errors after publication.
Editors
Apply the journal or imprint criteria consistently, protect confidentiality, manage conflicts, appoint appropriate reviewers, explain decisions clearly, and safeguard editorial independence.
Reviewers
Accept reviews only when qualified and available, disclose conflicts, keep manuscripts confidential, assess evidence fairly, and provide constructive comments that support an informed decision.
Publisher
Provide reliable submission and production systems, support editors and reviewers, preserve the version of record, maintain complete metadata, and respond to credible integrity concerns.
Peer review
Each publication describes its review model and decision pathway. Editors select reviewers with appropriate expertise and, where practicable, independence from the work and its authors.
- Reviewers assess the work against the publication’s stated scope, criteria, and article or book type.
- Manuscripts and reports remain confidential unless an open-review process has been announced.
- Comments should address the work and its evidence, not the identity, institution, nationality, or personal circumstances of the authors.
- Editors consider the full record and are not required to follow a reviewer’s recommendation.
- Authors should receive a decision that clearly explains the principal grounds for the outcome.
A positive decision means that the work met the publication’s requirements at the time of assessment. It does not mean that the publisher or editors endorse every claim in the work.
Research integrity
Authors must report their work honestly and with enough detail for readers to understand how conclusions were reached. Depending on the subject and method, this includes accurate descriptions of data, materials, methods, analysis, limitations, funding, approvals, and participant protections.
Panorama does not accept fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, manipulated images, peer-review manipulation, or concealment of material conflicts. Concerns are assessed through appropriate editorial and research-integrity procedures, with confidentiality and due process respected as far as possible.
For allegations, complaints, misconduct, and publication-ethics procedures, see the Publication Ethics policy.
Transparency and disclosure
Readers should be able to identify the people, resources, methods, and decisions that materially shaped a published work. Authors and contributors must therefore provide complete and accurate statements where relevant.
Contributions and authorship
Authorship should reflect substantial intellectual contribution and responsibility for the work. Other meaningful contributions should be acknowledged or described using the publication’s contribution statement.
Funding and interests
Funding sources, sponsor involvement, financial interests, professional relationships, and other relevant interests should be disclosed in the form required by the publication.
Data and materials
Data, code, materials, registrations, and access restrictions should be described accurately. Where sharing is not possible, authors should explain the applicable ethical, legal, or practical limitation.
Automated and generative tools
Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, and integrity of their submission. Material use of automated tools should be disclosed when required, and such tools cannot take authorship responsibility.
The scholarly record
Publication is the beginning of a work’s life in the scholarly record. We maintain the version of record, preserve accurate identifiers and metadata, and make important changes visible rather than silently replacing the original publication.
- Minor errors may be corrected under the publication’s correction practice.
- Material changes should have a separate correction, update, expression-of-concern, or retraction notice linked to the affected work.
- Retractions are clearly identified and linked to the original record; a retracted work is not presented as an ordinary current publication.
- Relevant DOI and discovery metadata should be updated so that the work’s status travels with its scholarly record.
Authors, readers, and reviewers may report a suspected error or integrity concern to the relevant journal or imprint. Reports are reviewed on their merits and may lead to a correction, clarification, investigation, or other appropriate action.
Appeals and concerns
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they can identify a material procedural error, a significant misunderstanding of the work, or evidence that the applicable policy was not followed. An appeal should address the decision and should not simply restate the original submission.
Appeals are considered by the responsible editor or an independent editor designated for that purpose. A publication may decline to reopen a decision when no new material information is provided. The outcome is normally final for that submission.
Complaints about editorial conduct, peer review, authorship, or the handling of a published work should be submitted to the relevant editorial office. The publishing team can help route a question when the appropriate journal contact is unclear.