Editor guide to Sage editorial & publishing policies
Sage rewrote the section on editors publishing in their own journal. Editors in Chief now get a detailed process for submitting their own work — but also a new annual cap of 3 self-authored research articles, a requirement to appoint an alternative board member, a mandatory published conflict-of-interest statement, and an expectation not to reject good Sage submissions and send them elsewhere. Confidentiality was widened from one journal to all Sage journals.
New cap of 3 self-authored articles per year
If you edit a Sage journal, you're now expected to submit no more than 3 of your own research articles a year to it. That's a real restriction on where you can publish your work, and it didn't exist in the old version.
“Annually, Sage recommends no more than 3 of your own research articles are submitted to the journal you are an Editor in Chief.”
What you can do — Plan your own submissions for the year in advance, and talk to your Publishing Editor before exceeding 3 if you need to.
Editors told not to steer good papers to other publishers
A new line says Sage expects you won't reject high-quality submissions and recommend other journals. This limits your editorial judgment about where a paper is best placed, and it's framed as a business expectation rather than an ethics rule.
“Sage expects that journal editors will not reject high quality submissions from Sage journals and recommend alternative journals.”
What you can do — If you believe a strong paper genuinely belongs elsewhere, document your editorial reasoning and raise it with your Publishing Editor rather than acting silently.
More steps required to publish in your own journal
You now have to appoint an alternative board member, include a conflict-of-interest statement, and in many cases loop in a Sage staff member to run the process. The old rule was simply to stay out of the decision.
“We expect that you will not peer-review or accept your own research article, and that you will appoint an alternative member of the editorial board to handle your submission.”
What you can do — Before submitting, line up an Acting Editor and email SageTrackSupport@sagepub.com with your Manuscript ID and the Acting Editor's name.
Wider confidentiality expectation
The confidentiality request grew from 'Sage and your journal' to 'Sage journals' — meaning you're asked to keep quiet about a broader pool of information when you sit on other boards or talk with colleagues.
“please keep information and data relating to Sage journals confidential”
Public note on board-submission process no longer recommended
Sage dropped its advice to publish, in your author guidelines, how submissions from your editorial board are handled. Readers and authors now learn about conflicts only from the statement on each article, not from an upfront journal policy.
“We recommend including a note about the process for reviewing submissions from the journal's Editorial Board within your guidelines for authors, in order to ensure complete transparency.”
What you can do — Consider keeping that note in your author guidelines anyway — nothing stops you from being more transparent than required.
| 63 | 63 | If you are new to the role of Editor, you may find the COPE [Short guide to ethical editing for new editors](https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/short-guide-ethical-editing-new-editors) useful, as well as their [Core practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) guidelines. |
| 64 | 64 | |
| 65 | 65 | We ask our Editors to ensure their actions are aligned wherever possible with COPE guidelines and encourage you to discuss any queries or concerns with your Publishing Editor. |
| 66 | 66 | |
| 67 | 67 | The independence of our Editors to select and publish content for their journal is something we strongly uphold and maintain. |
| 68 | 68 | |
| 69 | You may wish to publish your research in your own journal, and this is acceptable, provided that you are not involved in the decision-making process for these papers. We recommend including a note about the process for reviewing submissions from the journal's Editorial Board within your guidelines for authors, in order to ensure complete transparency. | |
− REMOVEDTransparency-note recommendation dropped The old advice to add a note in your author guidelines explaining how editorial board submissions are reviewed has been removed. The new conflict-of-interest statement requirement covers similar ground, but the public author-facing note is no longer recommended. | ||
| 69 | You may wish to publish your research in the journal where you are appointed Editor in Chief. We expect that you will not peer-review or accept your own research article, and that you will appoint an alternative member of the editorial board to handle your submission. If no board member has the required EiC systems permissions, see 'Support for publishing research in your own journal'. To ensure that the journal remains objective, inclusive and diverse, we ask that Editors in Chief limit the number of their own research submissions in the journals they edit. Annually, Sage recommends no more than 3 of your own research articles are submitted to the journal you are an Editor in Chief. | |
± CHANGEDNew limit on how many of your own papers you can submit Editors in Chief are now asked to submit no more than 3 of their own research articles per year to the journal they edit. The old text had no limit at all — it just said publishing in your own journal was fine as long as you stayed out of the decision. + ADDEDYou must hand your own submission to another board member Instead of just staying out of the decision, an Editor in Chief must now actively appoint an alternative editorial board member to handle their submission, and must not peer-review or accept their own article. | ||
| 70 | 70 | |
| 71 | We appreciate that you will probably sit on the Editorial Boards of other journals in your field. We ask that if attending meetings or discussing journal matters with colleagues to please keep information and data relating to Sage and your journal confidential. We do consider acting as an Editor (i.e. in an Editor-in-Chief capacity) on a directly competing journal to be a conflict of interest. Please talk to your Publishing Editor if you have any queries or concerns about this. | |
| 71 | As per our [conflicting interests](https://nam12.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/) policy, we request that a conflict of interest statement is included in the submission, and published in the final article online alongside any additional disclosures you may have. For example: | |
+ ADDEDConflict-of-interest statement must be published with the article A conflict of interest statement is now required in the submission and gets published in the final article online, along with any other disclosures. Sage supplies two sample wordings to copy. | ||
| 72 | 72 | |
| 73 | **Disclosure Statement (no additional conflicts):** | |
| 74 | Author \[Full Name\] is a member of the Editorial Board of \[Journal Title\]. The author did not take part in the peer review or decision-making process for this submission and has no further conflicts to declare. | |
| 75 | ||
| 76 | **Disclosure Statement (with additional conflicts):** | |
| 77 | Author \[Full Name\] is a member of the Editorial Board of \[Journal Title\] and did not take part in the peer review or decision-making process for this submission. Additional conflicts of interest may be disclosed as appropriate (e.g., "Author \[Full Name\] provides consulting services to XXX and receives fees from XXX for scientific advice"). | |
| 78 | ||
| 79 | Support for publishing your own research in the journal | |
| 80 | ||
| 81 | If no board member has the required EiC systems permissions, please contact the journal's dedicated Peer Review Associate (PRA) or [SageTrackSupport@sagepub.com](mailto:SageTrackSupport@sagepub.com) to arrange support from an Editor Submissions Specialist (ESS). Sage does not provide editorial board members Sage Track permissions to handle editor-authored submissions. | |
+ ADDEDBoard members won't be given permissions to handle editor papers Sage states plainly that it does not hand editorial board members the system permissions needed to process an editor's own submission — a staff member does it instead. | ||
| 82 | ||
| 83 | The PRA or ESS will work with the appointed, alternative board member to complete EiC-level tasks on their behalf, progressing the submission through peer review to final decision. | |
| 84 | ||
| 85 | For article types that do not require peer review (for example, Editorials), the manuscript can be progressed directly to an Accept decision and exported to Production, without the need for an Acting Editor. | |
| 86 | ||
| 87 | How the Process Works | |
| 88 | ||
| 89 | **1: Submit your manuscript** | |
| 90 | ||
| 91 | Submit your manuscript to the journal, ensuring an appropriate conflict of interest statement is included (null statements may be used for articles not requiring peer review). | |
| 92 | ||
| 93 | **2: Request support** | |
| 94 | ||
| 95 | Contact [SageTrackSupport@sagepub.com](mailto:SageTrackSupport@sagepub.com) or your Peer Review Associate (PRA) to request support, including the Manuscript ID and Acting Editor name. The PRA or an Editor Submissions Specialist (ESS) will reach out to you and the Acting Editor within 2 working days. | |
+ ADDEDStep-by-step support process added for editor-authored papers A whole new section explains what to do if no board member has the right system permissions: contact the Peer Review Associate or SageTrackSupport, and a specialist will run the process on the acting editor's behalf. It lists five steps from submission through export to production, with a 2-working-day response promise. Papers that don't need peer review (like editorials) can go straight to accept. | ||
| 96 | ||
| 97 | **3: Admin Checklist** | |
| 98 | ||
| 99 | The PRA/ESS will ensure that an appropriate conflict-of-interest (COI) statement is provided. | |
| 100 | ||
| 101 | **3: Peer review** | |
| 102 | ||
| 103 | The Acting Editor will be responsible for overseeing the peer review process and, once the reviews are received, making a recommendation on your manuscript. | |
| 104 | ||
| 105 | If the journal does not have an Associate Editor workflow, the PRA/Editor Submissions Specialist will work with the Acting Editor to solicit suitable peer reviewer and decision recommendations over email, inviting reviewers and processing decisions on the submission system on their behalf. | |
| 106 | ||
| 107 | **4: Decision** | |
| 108 | ||
| 109 | The Acting Editor will consider the reviews received and make a recommendation. | |
| 110 | ||
| 111 | The PRA/ESS will ensure the quality of peer review is sufficient, before processing the Decision on Sage Track. | |
| 112 | ||
| 113 | The PRA/ESS will support revised submissions through to final decision. | |
| 114 | ||
| 115 | **5\. Export to Production** | |
| 116 | ||
| 117 | Where Accepted, the PRA/ESS will export the manuscript to Production. | |
| 118 | ||
| 119 | We appreciate that you will likely sit on the Editorial Boards of other journals in your research area. We ask that if attending meetings or discussing journal matters with colleagues to please keep information and data relating to Sage journals confidential. **We do consider acting as an Editor (i.e. in an Editor-in-Chief capacity) on a directly competing journal to be a conflict of interest**. Please talk to your Publishing Editor if you have any queries about acting in an editorial capacity where you may be handling submissions at other publishers. Sage expects that journal editors will not reject high quality submissions from Sage journals and recommend alternative journals. | |
± CHANGEDConfidentiality now covers all Sage journals, not just yours The confidentiality request used to cover information about Sage and 'your journal'. It now covers 'Sage journals' generally, which is a wider set of information you're asked to keep quiet about. + ADDEDNew expectation not to redirect good papers away from Sage A new sentence says Sage expects editors will not turn down high-quality submissions to Sage journals and point authors to other publishers instead. ± CHANGEDWording softened on raising competing-journal concerns The line inviting editors to talk to their Publishing Editor changed from 'queries or concerns' about competing journals to 'queries about acting in an editorial capacity where you may be handling submissions at other publishers'. | ||
| 120 | ||
| 73 | 121 | #### What Sage expects from you |
| 74 | 122 | |
| 75 | 123 | - [What Sage expects from you]() |
| 76 | 124 | |
| 77 | 125 | We ask our Editors to: |
| 78 | 126 | |