Special Issue Workflow and Policies

How the Special Issue Process Works

This page sets out the complete editorial and peer review process governing manuscripts submitted to special issues of Galaxy through the Conference Collaboration Programme. It is intended for conference organisers, Guest Editors, and invited authors, all of whom are expected to be familiar with its provisions before the collaboration commences.

Stage One: Invitation to Submit

Following an approved conference, the editorial office — or the Guest Editor acting under instruction from the editorial office using a journal-approved invitation template — issues formal invitations to selected conference presenters, inviting them to submit an extended paper for consideration in the special issue. The selection of presenters to be invited is made in consultation with the Guest Editor, drawing on the Guest Editor’s knowledge of the conference programme and the thematic and methodological coherence of the proposed special issue.

Authors who receive an invitation are not obliged to submit. Those who do submit are expected to have read the Extended Paper Requirements and the Manuscript Submission Standards before preparing their manuscript. The editorial office does not provide pre-submission developmental feedback on manuscript content.

Stage Two: The Extended Paper Standard

A manuscript submitted through the Conference Collaboration Programme must be a substantially developed extension of the conference paper or presentation. A lightly revised or near-identical version of the conference paper does not meet the submission threshold and will be declined at the initial screening stage without proceeding to peer review.

In practice, the development required involves:

• Expanding and sustaining the central argument to a standard appropriate for peer review
• Engaging substantially and critically with relevant scholarship, including recent contributions to the field
• Stating and substantiating an original scholarly contribution explicitly within the manuscript
• Complying fully with the journal’s length and formatting requirements
• Producing a manuscript that is materially distinct from the conference paper in argument, methodological development, and scholarly depth

Prior Publication and Eligibility

• A paper presented orally and not published in written form is eligible
• A paper uploaded to an institutional repository or personal website is eligible, provided the submitted manuscript constitutes a substantially new work
• A paper published in conference proceedings must be disclosed; the extended paper must be sufficiently distinct to constitute an independent scholarly contribution
• A paper previously published in a peer-reviewed journal or edited volume is not eligible
• A manuscript under simultaneous consideration at another journal is not eligible — simultaneous submission is a breach of publication ethics and will result in immediate rejection

Stage Three: Submission Requirements

Manuscripts must be submitted through the journal’s standard submission portal. Authors must indicate at the point of submission that their manuscript is intended for the relevant special issue.

Stage Four: Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening before assignment to peer review. The purpose of this stage is to determine whether a submission is complete, appropriately formatted, ethically compliant, and sufficiently developed to warrant the commitment of reviewer time. It is not an assessment of scholarly merit. Screening is conducted entirely by the editorial office; the Guest Editor is not involved.

The screening assessment covers:

• Scope alignment with the journal and the special issue theme
• Conformance with formatting and length requirements
• Adequacy of English for scholarly review
• Prior publication or simultaneous submission
• Removal of author-identifying information
• Satisfaction of the extended paper standard
• Plagiarism screening
• Any apparent ethical concerns

Following screening, a manuscript will either proceed to peer review, be returned for minor formatting or technical correction, or be declined at screening. A screening decline is not a decision on scholarly merit. Authors whose manuscripts are declined at screening may revise and resubmit within the special issue deadline, provided all identified issues are comprehensively addressed.

Stage Five: Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening stage are assigned to double-blind peer review. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, and author identities are not disclosed to reviewers. This model applies without exception to all submissions. Authors must ensure that their submitted manuscript file contains no information that could identify them to a reviewer.

Each manuscript is assigned to two independent peer reviewers, selected by the editorial office on the basis of subject expertise, availability, and the absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers must not have a current or recent co-authorship or supervisory relationship with the submitting author, must not be members of the conference organising committee, and must not have been associated with the conference in a capacity that could create bias.

Reviewers assess manuscripts against: originality and scholarly contribution, argument and analysis, engagement with relevant scholarship, methodological clarity and rigour, structure and organisation, writing quality and academic register, citation and referencing, and scope alignment. Reviewers are asked to submit assessments within twenty-one days of accepting a review assignment.

Stage Six: Editorial Decision

All editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief of Galaxy. No other party — including the Guest Editor, the conference organiser, or the editorial board — holds final decision authority on acceptance or rejection.

Stage Seven: Revision and Resubmission

Authors who receive a Minor Revision or Major Revision decision are required to submit a revised manuscript accompanied by a detailed response letter addressing every point raised by the reviewers and the editorial office. Where the author has chosen not to adopt a recommendation, a scholarly justification for that decision must be provided. Revised manuscripts submitted without a response letter, or with a response letter that does not address reviewer comments systematically, will be returned before the revision is processed.

Manuscripts that received a Major Revision decision return to peer review upon resubmission. Where possible, the same reviewers who assessed the original submission are invited to review the revised version. A further Major Revision or Reject decision remains possible if the revision does not adequately address the concerns identified.

Authors who require an extension to a revision deadline must request this in writing before the deadline passes. Manuscripts not resubmitted by the deadline without an approved extension will be treated as withdrawn from the special issue.

Stage Eight: Acceptance, Production, and Publication

A manuscript is considered finally accepted only when the Editor-in-Chief has issued a formal written acceptance confirmation to the author. Authors should not make public announcements of acceptance until this confirmation has been received.

Accepted manuscripts undergo copy-editing by the editorial office and are returned to authors as proofread versions for correction within seven days. At the proof stage, only correction of errors is acceptable. Authors of accepted manuscripts retain copyright in their work. Upon acceptance, authors grant the journal a licence to publish, distribute, and archive the article under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. Each published article is assigned a DOI and made available on an open-access basis.

The Guest Editor is invited to submit a scholarly editorial introduction of between 1,000 and 2,000 words to accompany the published issue, framing the research context and situating the accepted papers within the relevant scholarly conversations. The editorial introduction is subject to editorial review and approval by the Editor-in-Chief before publication.

Ethical Issues Arising During Review

• Plagiarism or self-plagiarism: Review suspended pending investigation. Confirmed plagiarism results in rejection and may bar the author from future submissions.
• Duplicate submission: Results in immediate rejection.
• Authorship disputes: Handled in accordance with COPE guidelines; review suspended until resolved by the authors.
• Reviewer misconduct (breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflict, misappropriation of ideas): Reviewer removed from the assignment and from the journal’s reviewer pool.

Appeals

An author who considers that a rejection decision was made on procedural grounds — for example, that a manifest conflict of interest on the part of a reviewer was not identified and managed, or that the review process deviated materially from the published protocol — may submit a written appeal to the editorial office within twenty-one days of receiving the decision.

Appeals must be made on procedural or factual grounds and supported by specific evidence. Disagreement with the scholarly judgement of reviewers or the Editor-in-Chief does not constitute grounds for appeal. Appeals are reviewed by a senior member of the editorial board not involved in the original decision, and the outcome is communicated within thirty days. The outcome of the appeal process is final.

Process Summary

• Conference Collaboration Overview — the programme’s purpose, philosophy, and editorial principles
• Proposal and Application Guidelines — requirements, evaluation criteria, and the formal application process
• Apply for Collaboration — submit a formal collaboration proposal

Last Updated: April 2026  •  Back to top