Editors contribute directly to publication quality by maintaining methodological scrutiny, ethical vigilance, and professional communication standards.

All editors are expected to apply evidence-based judgment, avoid bias, and prioritize patient-impact relevance where appropriate.

• Assess scope relevance to migraine and headache medicine.
• Evaluate methodological strength and reporting completeness.
• Identify major validity risks and required corrective actions.
• Disclose conflicts promptly and recuse when needed.
• Communicate feedback respectfully and specifically.

Strong recommendations identify exact validity concerns, explain impact on conclusions, and suggest actionable corrective pathways.

Where findings are promising but under-reported, provide concrete guidance that can convert borderline submissions into publishable evidence.

When rejection is recommended, reasons should be explicit, specific, and proportionate to methodological limitations.

Editors should separate methodological concerns from presentation issues to prioritize decision-critical revisions. Clear prioritization improves author response quality and re-review speed.

Consistent recommendation language helps authors understand required versus optional revisions. Decision communication quality is part of editorial professionalism.

When uncertainty remains after review, editors can request focused clarification rather than broad revision demands. Targeted requests improve efficiency and fairness.

Documented rationale for major decisions supports governance transparency and internal quality learning over time. Traceability is especially important in complex submissions.

Editors should proactively flag integrity concerns with specific evidence to support coordinated investigation. Early precision protects both authors and the review process.

Balanced editorial judgment combines reviewer input with policy standards and methodological interpretation discipline. This is central to publication quality control.