Instructions for authors

Basic information for manuscript submission

Full instructions are given below: this table provides only the essential information for submission.

Manuscript submission

Submission of manuscripts to this journal is possible only through the online submission system. 

We kindly request authors to consult the Aims and Scope prior to submission.

Registration and login are required to submit items online and to check the status of current submissions.

Already have a Username/Password? Go to Login

Need a Username/Password? Go to Registration

Once logged in, you will find the online submission system by clicking the "Submit a manuscript" button.

• Step 1: Specify the manuscript type and complete the submission forms (EASE Interactive Checklist for Submitting Authors  )
• Step 2: Type in the author(s) names and affiliation, title, abstract, keywords, and other metadata
• Step 3: Assign classification categories for your manuscript
• Step 4: Completing the submission metadata by adding details about any supporting agencies, conflict of interest, ethical statement, comments to the editors
• Step 5: Agree with the journal's Data Publishing Policy and specifying the availability of the data underpinning your article
• Step 6: Upload the submission file and any additional files
• Step 7: Upload supplementary files and associated metadata

When submitting the manuscript, the corresponding author should provide contact details for all authors and confirmation each co-author has approved the final version of the manuscript. 

Language

Manuscripts should be submitted in English. Before submittal we encourage you to consult the current version of the EASE Guidelines for Authors  and an author’s editor or language editor if necessary.

Types of manuscript

Original articles

Original articles are subject to in-house and external peer review by at least two independent experts in the field. Articles should be up to 4000 words of main body text. The number of figures and tables should not exceed 6. The maximum number of references is 30. Articles should comprise Introduction, Methods (including Statistical Methods and Ethics), Results, and Discussion (including Strengths and Limitations of the Study and Conclusions): Results and Discussion may be combined. An informative Abstract (Background, Objectives, Methods, Results, Conclusions) of up to 250 words and 4 to 6 Keywords are required. The abstract should contain the main findings with numerical and statistical values, if appropriate.
The title of the manuscript should be informative and include a study descriptor, for example "Editors’ attitudes about Plan S – a cross-sectional study" or "Implementing a new submission system in a journal – a case study".
We encourage our authors to follow the EASE Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines and to include sex and gender considerations where relevant. Authors should use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) carefully in order to avoid confusing both terms.

Reviews

Reviews aare subject to in-house and external peer review by at least one independent expert in the field. Reviews should be up to 4000 words of main body text. The number of figures and tables should not exceed 6. The maximum number of references is 40. An unstructured Abstract of up to 250 words and 4 to 6 Keywords are required.

Viewpoints

Viewpoints are the opinions or personal editorial experiences of the author(s). Viewpoints are subject to in-house and external peer review by at least one independent expert in the field. Manuscripts should be up to 2000 words of main body text. The maximum number of figures and tables should not exceed 2. The maximum number of references is 20. An unstructured Abstract of up to 100 words and 4 to 6 Keywords are required.

Correspondence

Correspondence is welcomed on items that have appeared in recent issues of ESE or that concern matters of interest to readers. These letters are checked and edited for clarity and consistency in-house by the editors and might be sent for peer review.
Manuscripts should be no more than 500 words, with no more than one figure or table. The maximum number of references is 5.

File format and text style

Manuscripts should be in document format (.docx or .odt extension), preferably in a 12-point typeface, with page numbers.

Clearly identify level 1 headings (main section) in bold and level 2 headings (subsection) in bold italics in the text, preferably using your text processor styles so they can be easily re-formatted after acceptance.

Tables should appear at the end of the manuscript and must be in text format (not as spreadsheets or image files). EASE members can consult the "Editing and design of tables" chapter of the EASE Science Editors’ Handbook for further guidance.

Figures must be in sharp focus and of high resolution (600 dpi, minimum width, 12 cm). On submission, please include the figures in the manuscript to facilitate review. On acceptance, each figure should be sent in a separate file saved in .tif or .jpg format. EASE members can consult the "Illustration basics" chapter of the EASE Science Editors’ Handbook for further guidance.

Style: Spelling should follow the Oxford English Dictionary, including –ize and -ization where appropriate. Use inclusive language (non-sexist, non-racist). Minimize abbreviations and define them  on first use,  except for SI units and terms that are widely accepted and understood by non-experts. Write the numbers one to nine in full in the text, except when they are attached to units of measure. Use double quotation marks for direct quotations and for terms used out of their usual context. Use single quotation marks only for quotations within quotations. Avoid redundant language and excessively complex sentences. As a general reference, please consult the most recent version of the EASE Guidelines for Authors and Translators.

Citations in the text should be indicated with superscript consecutive numbers. In the References section, list the first three authors but journal titles and page ranges should be given in full, with book and journal titles in italics. The DOI (digital object identifier) in a URL address (e.g.. https://doi.org/10.13003/5jchdy) should be given where available.

The following are examples of reference formats:

Journal article:

• Utrobičić A, Šimić J, Malički M, et al. Composition of editorial boards and peer review policies of Croatian journals indexed in Web of Science and Scopus. Eur Sci Ed. 2014;40(2):31–33.

Book chapter:

• O’Connor M, Cooter M, Ufnalska SB. Copy-editing scientific papers. In: Smart P, Maisonneuve H, Polderman A (eds). Science Editors’ Handbook, 2nd edition. London: European Association of Science Editors, 2013:3–6.

For more information and examples please consult Citing Medicine: The NLM Style Guide for Authors, Editors, and Publishers (2nd edition; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7256/).

Electronic sources: The reference should include the web address (URL) and the date the reference was accessed.

• Roig M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. https://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/plagiarism.pdf (accessed 22 August 2014).

Plagiarism, preprints and secondary publications

Manuscripts are checked for text similarity with the CrossRef Similarity Check software and manually checked to determine whether any non-original text flagged by the software shows evidence of plagiarism. Manuscripts containing material suspected of plagiarism will be handled by following the relevant COPE flowchart and guidelines from ICMJE.

Do not submit manuscripts whose content overlaps substantially with any already published items or other manuscripts submitted for publication elsewhere. We will consider manuscripts already available as preprints. If the article is accepted, authors will be requested to update any pre-publication versions with a link to the final published article.

Contributions based on published material, including meeting abstracts, should be identified as such at the time of submission and in the article. We will consider such manuscripts for publication, as long as original analyses or opinions are provided.

 We apply the core practices and of COPE and adhere to the ethical principles set down in the Singapore Statement on Research Integrity.
 

Authorship criteria

Authors of submissions reporting research findings should meet all four of the criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors  (ICMJE):

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Before submittal, authors should decide who qualifies for authorship and the order in which authors are listed on the manuscript. The editors of ESE do not adjudicate authorship decisions. Changes in the number or order of authors after the original submittal must be explained to the Chief Editor in writing. The editors of ESE reserve the right to refer any irregularities in authorship to the research officer or appropriate academic ethics authority at the first author’s or corresponding author’s institution or employer.

When choosing coauthors, we ask lead authors to be mindful of the benefits of diversity in authorship and to consider inviting coauthors who reflect diversity in every sense, including (but not limited to) background, career-stage, gender, geography, and race.

We encourage authors to use the CRediT taxonomy (credit.niso.org) to identify the contributions of each author, where appropriate.

Ethical approval of studies

All manuscripts reporting data from studies involving humans are required to provide proof of formal review and approval, or formal review and waiver, by an appropriate institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee. This approval and its number should be reported in the Methods section of the manuscript. Investigators whose institution does not have a formal IRB or ethics committee should follow the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. State in the Methods section how informed consent was obtained from study participants (i.e., oral or written) and whether participants received a fee or other type of compensation. Authors of research studies involving humans should not independently determine whether their research is exempt from IRB or ethical review; they should cite the institutional or regulatory policy for that determination and indicate whether the data are de-identified and publicly available or protected by participant consent or privacy safeguards. The Chief Editor may ask authors to provide documentation of the formal review and recommendation from the IRB or ethics committee.

If the manuscript reports the findings of a survey or interviews, the author must confirm that the participants gave their informed consent to participate in the study and for their personal details to be recorded if that is the case. If quotations or other attributable statements are included, these must be deidentified, or the manuscript must state that the person agreed to be named in the manuscript.

Data-sharing statement

For original articles, a data-sharing statement should be included with links to the data set, where applicable. For more information consult the ICMJE Recommendations - Data sharing.

If data sets are too large to include in the text or appendix, we encourage uploading onto a suitable data server, e.g., FigShare, Dryad or institutional repository, with appropriate citation in the article.

Competing interests

Potential financial and non-financial competing interests, including any relationship with editorial associations, commercial editing companies, medical communications companies or other organizations that might have an interest in the submission, must be declared at the end of the manuscript, just before the References section.

Funding information

All sources of funding should be declared as an acknowledgment at the end of the text. Authors should describe the role of the study sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.  If the funding source had no such involvement, the authors should state this. The corresponding author should confirm that he or she had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Peer review procedure

Manuscripts will be considered for peer review only if they are within the aims and scope of the journal, sufficiently original, have no serious scientific flaws, and have satisfactory grammar and English language. This selection process is usually completed within 2 weeks. Reviewers are selected by the editors. Authors can suggest up to 3 potential reviewers: please consider suggesting people who reflect diversity in every sense, including (but not limited to) background, career-stage, gender, geography, and race.

We use single-blind peer review. Reviewers see the authors’ names and affiliations. Reviewers are usually not identified to the authors but have the option to sign the review, in which case that information will be passed to the author.

The time required for the review process depends on the response of the reviewers. The expected time from submission to initial decision (revise or reject) is usually 2 months.
 

Submitting a revised manuscript

Revised manuscripts must be submitted online through the submission system. Two copies of the revised version should be provided, one of which should be highlighted (using the Track Changes function in Word, not highlighting) to show where changes (additions and deletions) have been made. Detailed responses to editors’ and reviewers’ comments, in a separate document, are also necessary.

Editorial Policies

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

We have no article processing charges, ie no charges are levied on authors.

Copyright Notice

License and Copyright Agreement

In submitting the manuscript to European Science Editing, authors certify that: 

• They are authorized by their co-authors to act on their behalf regarding the manuscript and in correspondence with the editorial team.
• The work described has not been published before (except in the form of an abstract or preprint, or as part of a published lecture or thesis); it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; its publication has been approved by all author(s) and responsible authorities of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
• They can provide written permission from the copyright holders to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
• They agree to the following licence and copyright agreement:

Copyright

• Copyright on any article is retained by the author(s). Regarding copyright transfers please see below. 
• Authors grant grant the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.
• Authors grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its original authors and citation details are identified. 
• The article and any associated published material is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0):
• Nothing in this licence impairs or restricts the right of an author or other creative artist to protect the integrity and ownership of their work.
• The journal is wholly owned by the European Association of Science Editors.

All content is published in good faith and opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the view of EASE.

Privacy Statement

The personal information used on this website is to be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal. It will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party. 

COPE Compliance

This journal endorses the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and will pursue cases of suspected research and publication misconduct (e.g. falsification, unethical experimentation, plagiarism, inappropriate image manipulation, redundant publication). For further information about COPE please see the website for COPE at http://www.publicationethics.org and journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

Errata, corrections, retractions and appeals

If a substantive error is discovered in an article, we will endeavour to correct the record as soon as possible, either by issuing a correction notice or by retracting the article. We follow the 2017 recommendation from JAMA on how to deal with corrections: see Christiansen S, Flanagin A. Correcting the Medical Literature: "To Err Is Human, to Correct Divine". JAMA. 2017;318(9):804–805. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.11833

If you believe a retraction is not justified and wish to appeal against a decision, you may appeal to the Chief Editor. Authors may only appeal once, so it is important to ensure that you present all the facts carefully. Appeals will be discussed by the editorial team and – if necessary – with EASE Council. Articles that undergo the appeal process may be sent out for further review. Please note that the decision reached at the conclusion of the appeal process is final.

Recommendations on the Use of AI in Scholarly Communication

EASE Recommendations on the Use of AI in Scholarly Communication
 

Background: The recent development of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Generative AI (GenAI) presents new challenges and opportunities in scholarly communication. This has resulted in diverse policies of journals, publishers, and funders around the use of AI tools. Research studies, including surveys, suggest that researchers are already using AIs at a significant scale to create or edit manuscripts and peer review reports. Yet AI accuracy, effectiveness, and reproducibility remain uncertain. This toolkit aims to promote responsible and transparent use of AI by editors, authors, and reviewers, with links to examples of current policies and practices. As AIs are fast evolving, we will monitor and update these recommendations as new information becomes available. Please contact us and share any opinions, policies, and examples that could help us improve this guide.

Recommendations for Editors, Journals, and Publishers 

• Create, publish, and monitor adherence to your AI policies 

• Collect and publish declarations of the journal’s, authors’, and reviewers’ use of AI 

We strongly recommend that editors, journals, and publishers develop policies related to the use of AI in their publishing practices and that they publish those policies on the journal’s website. For instance, policies for authors should be listed in the journal’s ‘Instructions to Authors’ or ‘Submission Guidelines’, while policies for reviewers should be in the journals’ ‘Reviewer Guidelines’. The policies should be clearly communicated to authors and reviewers through email communication and in the online submission system. The policies should also include information on how parties should raise concerns about possible policy infringement, consequences that any party might face in case of infringement, and possible means to appeal to journal decisions regarding these policies. Additionally, the policies should be supplemented with educational resources or links to information on the responsible use of AI (see for example Guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research developed by the European Research Area Forum). Editors should also consider announcing the release or update of AI policies through published editorials. 

We acknowledge that there may be disciplinary or operational difficulties (e.g., submission system limitations) that could affect the development and implementation of AI policies. However, clear checks and declaration forms can be created to collect information on AI use and any potential conflicts of interest associated with their use (e.g., disclosing if the AI used was developed by the publisher). 

We strongly recommend that all information regarding AI use for a particular manuscript are declared in appropriate manuscript sections, a separate AI declaration section (see an example here), or through the use of publication facts labels (see our detailed recommendations below). Finally, we strongly recommend monitoring adherence to the journal’s AI policy and providing regular reports on that adherence and any policy infringements. 

EASE recommendations on the topics that should be covered in AI policies for scholarly communication and how that use should be declared:

• Authorship/Contributionship: We strongly recommend that AIs should not be listed as co-authors on publications. Editors should consider the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), or the STM association (STM) materials for guidance on this topic. For instance, the ICMJE states that AIs cannot be authors: "because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are required for authorship". 

• Citations and literature review: We strongly recommend that AI outputs should not be cited as primary sources for backing up specific claims. Research has shown that citations and information provided by AIs can be inaccurate or fabricated. Authors and reviewers should be reminded to always read and verify the information they cite, as they are the responsible party for the information they present. Additionally, AI outputs may not be reproducible at a later time, so editors should consider whether authors need to capture and time stamp any outputs they mention or cite (see an example of authors showcasing responses of chatGPT for a  specific topic).       

• Data collection, cleaning, analysis, and interpretation: We strongly recommend that any use of AI for data collection, cleaning, analysis, or interpretation be disclosed in the Methods section of the manuscript or in an AI declaration section (see an example here). These statements should ideally be accompanied by appropriate robustness and reliability indicators, as well as steps to ensure their reproducibility.

• Data or code generation: We strongly recommend that any use of AI for data or code generation be disclosed in the Methods sections of the manuscript, as well as data and code declaration sections that some journals have, or in an AI declaration section (see an example here). Editors should be aware that generated data or code can be an excellent resource for educational purposes, but could also be misused for creation of fake data for hypothesis testing or other analyses. Furthermore, it might be difficult to distinguish between author(s) generating (part of) the code or data using an AI and then editing the AI output themselves, vs creating the code or collecting the data themselves and then using an AI for editing. 

• Visualisation – creation of tables, figures, images, videos, or other outputs: We strongly recommend that any use of AI for visualisation is disclosed in the Method section of the manuscript and in the captions or legends of those outputs. AI generated visualisations may require additional checks to insure their validity, as well as steps to ensure their reproducibility. Editors should consider an example of a policy banning the use of AI for these purposes, and an example of a retraction of a paper due to a "nonsensical" image).

• Writing, language, and style editing: We strongly recommend specifying whether and how authors should declare their use of AI for writing, language, or style editing. Editors can consider recommending that authors declare such use in the Acknowledgements section, or in an AI declaration section (see an example here). Alternatively, editors could specify that such use, similar to use of spell checking software, does not need to be declared. Editors should be aware that it might be difficult to distinguish between an author generating a (part of) text using an AI and then editing it, vs writing the initial text draft and then editing it using an AI. For a helpful overview of publishers’ policies related to this issue see this Scholarly Kitchen post (compiled in spring 2024).   

• Other research uses: We strongly recommend disclosing any AI use, even those not covered in the above sections. Such use should be disclosed in an appropriate section (e.g., Acknowledgments, Method section, or an AI  declaration section). For example, authors might choose to employ self-check AI tools for checking research reporting recommendations, image, code, or data integrity.  

• Peer Review: We strongly recommend specifying whether reviewers are allowed to use AI tools during peer review, and to consider distinguishing between the use of AI for language or style editing of the reviewer’s written comments versus AI creation of the review comments. Furthermore, journals should specify if and how they will use any tools that check if part(s) of the review were written by an AI, what are potential consequences of those findings, as well as what authors should do in cases when they suspect use of AI for those purposes (for instance, see a case of an author who raised concerns about review reports being written by AI, and the COPE’s discussion document on Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making). Any AI peer review policy should be highlighted in the review invitation emails and in the online submission platform. We are aware that several journals, publishers, and funding agencies have prohibited the use of AI tools by peer reviewers (e.g., Royal Society, National Institutes of Health, Elsevier) due to potential risks of bias, confidentiality concerns, and their unproven accuracy, effectiveness, and reliability. However, such bans are hard to implement, and it is not clear what, if any, repercussions for their use will be. For additional considerations regarding use of AI in peer review see here. 

• Editorial Work: We strongly recommend that any use of AI by the editor or editorial staff be disclosed on the journal’s website and in communications with authors and reviewers, including use of any screening tools that detect if (parts of) manuscripts or review reports were generated or edited by AI. We also recommend that editors, journals, and publishers consider declaring any checks performed by AI using publication facts labels. Finally, the journal’s AI policies should include information on how parties should raise concerns about possible AI policy infringement, consequences that any party might face in case of infringement, and possible means to appeal journal decisions regarding these policies.

Examples of AI policies (in alphabetical order):

Publishers: Elsevier, Springer-Nature,Taylor-Francis, Wiley

Associations: ICMJE, WAME

Journals: PLOS ONE 

Recommendations for Authors 

• Check journal or publisher policies on the use of AI

• Declare any use of AI during manuscript creation, editing, and revision (including during creation of review rebuttals)

Before submitting a manuscript, we strongly recommend authors check journal or publisher policies on the use of AI in scholarly communication (for example, by checking the journal website or directly contacting the journal). When a journal does not have an AI policy, or when that policy does not cover specific aspects of AI use of an interested party, we strongly recommend authors check and follow the EASE recommendations on how AI use should be declared. If the journal’s policies do not align with the authors’ own AI use, we recommend that authors do not deceive the journal, but rather contact the journal and ask for explanations or exceptions, or consider another journal as an outlet for their work. Authors should be aware that journals or their co-authors might use tools that detect if part(s) of the manuscript were generated or edited by an AI tool. As a self-checklist, authors might also consider using such tools. 

When authors suspect infringement of the journal’s AI policy, or that review reports or editor’s comments were generated by AI we advise that authors contact the editor with a clear description of that suspicion. Authors might also consider running the comments through the tools that detect AI involvement and include reports of such tools in their communication as possible evidence of AI use (see an example of a researcher who raised concerns about receiving AI written reports, as well as COPE’s discussion document on Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making. If authors’ follow-up with the editor and the editorial office doesn’t get any attention, we advise authors to contact the journal publisher or society with a copy of their previous communication to the editor and editorial office, or if those don’t exist, contacting the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), or STM Integrity Hub.

Recommendations for Peer Reviewers

• Check journal or publisher policies on the use of AI

• Declare any use of AI during peer review report creation and editing

When considering a peer review invitation from a journal, reviewers should check journal or publisher policies on the use of AI in speer review (for example, by checking the journal website and the review invite email). When the journal does not have an AI policy, or when that policy does not cover specific aspects of AI use of an interested party, we strongly recommend reviewers check and follow the EASE recommendations on how AI use should be declared and used in peer review. If the journal’s policies do not align with the reviewer’s AI use, we recommend that reviewers do not deceive the journal, but rather contact the journal and ask for explanations or exceptions, or consider rejecting the review invitation. Reviewers should be aware that journals or authors might run their review reports through tools that detect if part(s) of that report were created or edited by an AI. As a self-checklist reviewers might also consider using such tools. 

When reviewers suspect infringement of the journal’s AI policy, or that a manuscript or another reviewer’s comments were generated by an AI tool, we advise that reviewers contact the editor with a clear description of their suspicion. Reviewers might also consider running those outputs through the tools that detect AI use and include reports of such tools in their communication as possible evidence of AI use (see an example of a researcher who raised concerns about receiving AI written reports, as well as COPE’s discussion document on Artificial intelligence (AI) in decision making). If reviewers’ follow-up with the editor and the editorial office doesn’t get any attention, we advise they contact the journal publisher or society with a copy of their communication to the editor and editorial office, or if those don’t exist, contacting the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) or STM Integrity Hub.

Guidelines for Reviewers

This journal uses a single-blind peer review process. The reviewers are encouraged to disclose their identity, if they wish so. The peer review and editorial process is facilitated through an online editorial system and a set of email notifications. The online editorial system sends the Reviewer a review request, initiated by the Subject Editor or the Editorial Office. The online system will also inform about delays in the reviewing and will confirm a successful review submission. The email notifications contain stepwise instructions about the actions needed at each stage along with the link to the respective manuscript (accessible only after login – see section How to Access a Manuscript).

Reviewers are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but rather focus on its scientific quality and overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. If Reviewers recognize that a manuscript requires linguistic edits, we shall be grateful for them to inform both the Author and the Subject Editor in the report. It is the Author’s responsibility to submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English.

It often happens that even carefully written manuscripts may contain small errors in orthography or stylistics. We shall be thankful if Reviewers spot such errors during the reading process and correct them.

The manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two or three experts with the aim of reaching a first decision as soon as possible. Reviewers do not need to sign their reports, but are welcome to do so. They are also asked to declare any conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are asked whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, how interesting it is and whether the quality of the writing is acceptable. Where possible, the final decision is made on the basis of the peer reviews. In cases of strong disagreement between the reports or between the authors and peer reviewers, the editor can assess these according to his/her expertise or seek advice from a member of the journal's Editorial Board.

The ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions lies with the respective Subject Editor and/or, in some journals, with the Editor-in-Chief. All appeals should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief, who may decide to seek advice from the Subject Editors or the Editorial Board.

Reviewers are also asked to indicate which articles they consider to be especially interesting or significant. These articles may be given greater prominence and greater external publicity, including press releases addressed to science journalists and mass media.

During a second review round, reviewers may be asked to evaluate the revised version against their recommendations submitted during the first review round.

Reviewers are kindly asked to be polite and constructive in their reports. Reports that may be insulting or uninformative will be rescinded.

Reviewers are asked to start their report with a very brief summary of the reviewed paper. This will help the editor and the authors see whether the reviewer correctly understood the paper or whether a report might be based on misunderstanding.

Furthermore, reviewers are also asked to comment on originality, structure and previous research:

Originality: Is the paper sufficiently novel and does it contribute to a better understanding of the topic under scrutiny? Is the work rather confirmatory and repetitive?

Structure: Is the introduction clear and concise? Does it place the work into the context that is necessary for a reader to comprehend aims, hypotheses tested, experimental design or methods? Are Material and Methods clearly described and sufficiently explained? Are reasons given when choosing one method over another one from a set of comparable methods? Are the results clearly, but concisely described? Do they relate to the topic outlined in the introduction? Do they follow a logical sequence? Does the discussion place the paper in scientific context and go a step beyond the current scientific knowledge on the basis of the results? Are competing hypotheses or theories reasonably related to each other and properly discussed? Do the conclusions seem reasonable?

Previous research: Is previous research adequately incorporated into the paper? Are references complete, necessary and accurate? Is there any sign that substantial parts of the paper are copies of other works?

General Responsibilities of Reviewers

This journal uses a single-blind peer review process. The reviewers are encouraged to disclose their identity, if they wish so. The peer review and editorial process is facilitated through an online editorial system and a set of email notifications. The online editorial system sends the Reviewer a review request, initiated by the Subject Editor or the Editorial Office. The online system will also inform about delays in the reviewing and will confirm a successful review submission. The email notifications contain stepwise instructions about the actions needed at each stage along with the link to the respective manuscript (accessible only after login – see section How to Access a Manuscript).

Reviewers are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but rather focus on its scientific quality and overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. If Reviewers recognize that a manuscript requires linguistic edits, we shall be grateful for them to inform both the Author and the Subject Editor in the report. It is the Author’s responsibility to submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English.

It often happens that even carefully written manuscripts may contain small errors in orthography or stylistics. We shall be thankful if Reviewers spot such errors during the reading process and correct them.

The manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two or three experts with the aim of reaching a first decision as soon as possible. Reviewers do not need to sign their reports, but are welcome to do so. They are also asked to declare any conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are asked whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, how interesting it is and whether the quality of the writing is acceptable. Where possible, the final decision is made on the basis of the peer reviews. In cases of strong disagreement between the reports or between the authors and peer reviewers, the editor can assess these according to his/her expertise or seek advice from a member of the journal's Editorial Board.

The ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions lies with the respective Subject Editor and/or, in some journals, with the Editor-in-Chief. All appeals should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief, who may decide to seek advice from the Subject Editors or the Editorial Board.

Reviewers are also asked to indicate which articles they consider to be especially interesting or significant. These articles may be given greater prominence and greater external publicity, including press releases addressed to science journalists and mass media.

During a second review round, reviewers may be asked to evaluate the revised version against their recommendations submitted during the first review round.

Reviewers are kindly asked to be polite and constructive in their reports. Reports that may be insulting or uninformative will be rescinded.

Reviewers are asked to start their report with a very brief summary of the reviewed paper. This will help the editor and the authors see whether the reviewer correctly understood the paper or whether a report might be based on misunderstanding.

Furthermore, reviewers are also asked to comment on originality, structure and previous research:

Originality: Is the paper sufficiently novel and does it contribute to a better understanding of the topic under scrutiny? Is the work rather confirmatory and repetitive?

Structure: Is the introduction clear and concise? Does it place the work into the context that is necessary for a reader to comprehend aims, hypotheses tested, experimental design or methods? Are Material and Methods clearly described and sufficiently explained? Are reasons given when choosing one method over another one from a set of comparable methods? Are the results clearly, but concisely described? Do they relate to the topic outlined in the introduction? Do they follow a logical sequence? Does the discussion place the paper in scientific context and go a step beyond the current scientific knowledge on the basis of the results? Are competing hypotheses or theories reasonably related to each other and properly discussed? Do the conclusions seem reasonable?

Previous research: Is previous research adequately incorporated into the paper? Are references complete, necessary and accurate? Is there any sign that substantial parts of the paper are copies of other works?

Science Communication

Our journal and the PR team at Pensoft invites authors to contribute to the communication and promotion of their published research, thereby increasing the visibility, outreach and impact of their work. 

Authors are welcome to notify us whenever their institution is working on a promotional campaign about their work published in our journal. We are always happy to reshare and/or repost (where appropriate). 

You can contact our PR team at dissemination@pensoft.net to discuss the communication and promotion of your research.

Tailored PR Campaign

(Paid service*)

We encourage authors, who feel that their work is of particular interest to the wider audience, to email us with a press release draft** (see template and guidelines), outlining the key findings from the study and their public impact. Then, the PR team will work with them to finalise the announcement that will be:

• Issued on the global science news service Eurekalert!
• Sent out to our media contacts from the world’s top-tier news outlets
• Posted on ARPHA’s or Pensoft’s blog
• Shared on social media via suitable ARPHA-managed accounts

Following the distribution of the press announcement, our team will be tracking the publicity across news media, blogs and social networks, in order to report back to the author(s), and reshare any prominent media content.

Request our Tailored PR campaign service by selecting it while completing your submission form and you will be contacted once your manuscript is accepted for publication. Alternatively, contact our PR team (dissemination@pensoft.net), preferably upon the acceptance of your manuscript.

* The Tailored PR campaign is an extra service charged at EUR 150. However, we would consider discounts and even full waivers for studies of particular interest for the society.

**Please note that our PR team reserves the right to edit your press release at their discretion. No press announcements will be issued until we receive the author’s final approval to do so. The service is only available for studies published within the past 3 months.

Guest Blog Post

(Free service)

Authors are strongly encouraged to promote their work and its impact on society to the audience beyond their immediate public of fellow scientists by means of storytelling in plain language. Ideally, such guest blog posts will be:

• Written from the author’s own point of view, using conversational tone;
• Written in fluent English;
• Presenting some curious background information, in order to place the discovery in context;
• Including attractive non-copyright imagery.

Request our Guest blog post service by contacting the PR department (dissemination@pensoft.net), regardless of the status of your submission, as there are no time constraints for guest blog post publication. Particularly encouraged are follow-up contributions telling the story of, for example, a research paper that has led to an important policy to be set in place; or an article that has met remarkable attention or reactions in the public sphere.

Following the necessary final touches to the guest blog post by the PR team, the contribution will be:

• Posted on ARPHA’s or Pensoft’s blog
• Shared on social media via multiple and relevant ARPHA-managed accounts

Please note that the PR team reserves the right to refuse publication of a guest blog post on the occasion that it is provided in poor English, uses considerable amount of jargon or does not abide by basic ethical standards. Our PR team reserves the right to request changes to the text related to formatting or language. No blog posts will be issued until we receive the author’s final approval to do so.

Find past guest blog posts on Pensoft’s blog here. 

Web Services

OAI-PMH - oai_dc: https://ese.arphahub.com/oai.php?verb=ListRecords&set=ese&metadataPrefix=oai_dc

OAI-PMH - mods: https://ese.arphahub.com/oai.php?verb=ListRecords&set=ese&metadataPrefix=mods

RSS for metadata: https://ese.arphahub.com/rss.php

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

General

The publishing ethics and malpractice policies follow the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, WAME, and OASPA), the NISO Recommended Practices for the Presentation and Identification of E-Journals (PIE-J), and, where relevant, the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals from ICMJE.

Privacy statement

The personal information used on this website is to be used exclusively for the stated purposes of each particular journal. It will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party. 

Open access

Pensoft and ARPHA-hosted journals adhere strictly to gold open access to accelerate the barrier-free dissemination of scientific knowledge. All published articles are made freely available to read, download, and distribute immediately upon publication, given that the original source and authors are cited (Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0)).

Open data publishing and sharing

Pensoft and ARPHA encourage open data publication and sharing, in accordance with Panton’s Principles and FAIR Data Principles. For the domain of biodiversity-related publications Pensoft has specially developed extended Data Publishing Policies and Guidelines for Biodiversity Data. Specific data publishing guidelines are available on the journal website. 

Data can be published in various ways, such as preservation in data repositories linked to the respective article or as data files or packages supplementary to the article. Datasets should be deposited in an appropriate, trusted repository and the associated identifier (URL or DOI) of the dataset(s) must be included in the data resources section of the article. Reference(s) to datasets should also be included in the reference list of the article with DOIs (where available). Where no discipline-specific data repository exists authors should deposit their datasets in a general repository such as, for example Zenodo or others. 

Submission, peer review and editorial process

The peer review and editorial processes are facilitated through an online editorial system and a set of email notifications. Pensoft journals’ websites display stepwise description of the editorial process and list all necessary instructions and links. These links are also included in the respective email notification.

General: Publication and authorship

• All submitted papers are subject to a rigorous peer review process by at least two international reviewers who are experts in the scientific field of the particular paper. 
• The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language. 
• A declaration of potential Conflicts of Interest is a mandatory step in the submission process. The declaration becomes part of the article metadata and is displayed in both the PDF and HTML versions of the article.
• The journals allow several rounds of review of a manuscript. The ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions lies with the respective Subject Editor and, in some cases, with the Editor-in-Chief. All appeals should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief, who may decide to seek advice among the Subject Editors and Reviewers.
• The possible decisions include: (1) Accept, (2) Minor revisions, (3) Major revisions, (4) Reject, but re-submission encouraged and (5) Reject. 
• If Authors are encouraged to revise and re-submit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. 
• The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. 
• No research can be included in more than one publication.
• Editors-in-Chief, managing editors and their deputies are strongly recommended to limit the amount of papers co-authored by them. As a rule of thumb, research papers (co-)authored by Editors-in-Chief, managing editors and their deputies must not exceed 20% of the publications a year, with a clear task to drop this proportion below 15%. By adopting this practice, the journal is taking extra precaution to avoid endogeny and conflicts of interest, while ensuring the editorial decision-making process remains transparent and fair.
• Editors-in-Chief, managing editors and handling editors are not allowed to handle manuscripts co-authored by them.

Responsibility of Authors

• Authors are required to agree that their paper will be published in open access under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) license.
• Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work. 
• Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere. 
• Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 
• Authors should submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English and formatted in accordance with the journal’s Author Guidelines.
• Authors must participate in the peer review process. 
• Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes. 
• All Authors mentioned are expected to have significantly contributed to the research. 
• Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest. 
• Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript. 
• Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
• Authors should acknowledge all significant funders of the research pertaining to their article and list all relevant competing interests. 
• Other sources of support for publications should also be clearly identified in the manuscript, usually in an acknowledgement (e.g. funding for the article processing charge; language editing or editorial assistance).
• The corresponding author should provide the declaration of any conflicts of interest on behalf of all authors. Conflicts of interest may be associated with employment, sources of funding, personal financial interests, membership of relevant organisations or others.
• Manuscripts in revision have to be revised and resubmitted within a reasonable time span. The authors are aware that manuscripts not revised within 100 days after the revision decision will be rejected and have, if desired by the authors, to be submitted afresh.

Responsibility of Reviewers

• The manuscripts will be reviewed by two or three experts in order to reach first decision as soon as possible. Reviewers do not need to sign their reports but are welcome to do so. They are also asked to declare any conflicts of interests.
• Reviewers are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to focus on its scientific quality, as well as for the overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. If Reviewers recognize that a manuscript requires linguistic edits, they should inform both Authors and Editor in the report.
• Reviewers are asked to check whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, how interesting it is and whether the quality of the writing is acceptable.
• In cases of strong disagreement between the reviews or between the Authors and Reviewers, the Editors can judge these according to their expertise or seek advice from a member of the journal's Editorial Board.
• Reviewers are also asked to indicate which articles they consider to be especially interesting or significant. These articles may be given greater prominence and greater external publicity, including press releases addressed to science journalists and mass media.
• During a second review round, the Reviewer may be asked by the Subject Editor to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript with regards to Reviewer’s recommendations submitted during the first review round.
• Reviewers are asked to be polite and constructive in their reports. Reports that may be insulting or uninformative will be rescinded.
• Reviewers are asked to start their report with a very brief summary of the reviewed paper. This will help the Editors and Authors see whether the reviewer correctly understood the paper or whether a report might be based on misunderstanding.
• Further, Reviewers are asked to comment on originality, structure and previous research: (1) Is the paper sufficiently novel and does it contribute to a better understanding of the topic under scrutiny? Is the work rather confirmatory and repetitive? (2) Is the introduction clear and concise? Does it place the work into the context that is necessary for a reader to comprehend the aims, hypotheses tested, experimental design or methods? Are Material and Methods clearly described and sufficiently explained? Are reasons given when choosing one method over another one from a set of comparable methods? Are the results clearly but concisely described? Do they relate to the topic outlined in the introduction? Do they follow a logical sequence? Does the discussion place the paper in scientific context and go a step beyond the current scientific knowledge on the basis of the results? Are competing hypotheses or theories reasonably related to each other and properly discussed? Do conclusions seem reasonable? Is previous research adequately incorporated into the paper? Are references complete, necessary and accurate? Is there any sign that substantial parts of the paper were copies of other works?
• Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
• Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. 
• Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
• Reviewers should also call to the Editors’ attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Responsibility of Editors

• Editors in Pensoft’s journals carry the main responsibility for the scientific quality of the published papers and base their decisions solely on the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
• The Subject Editor takes the final decision on a manuscript’s acceptance or rejection and his/her name is listed as "Academic Editor" in the header of each article.
• The Subject Editors are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to focus on its scientific quality, as well as the overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. 
• Editors are expected to spot small errors in orthography or stylistic during the editing process and correct them.
• Editors should always consider the needs of the Authors and the Readers when attempting to improve the publication. 
• Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record. 
• Editors should preserve the anonymity of Reviewers, unless the latter decide to disclose their identities. 
• Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines. 
• Editors should act if they suspect misconduct and make all reasonable attempts to obtain a resolution to the problem. 
• Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
• Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between Authors, Reviewers and Board Members.
• Editors are allowed to publish a limited proportion of papers per year co-authored by them, after considering some extra precautions to avoid an impression of impropriety, endogeny, conflicts of interest and ensure that the editorial decision-making process is transparent and fair.
• Editors-in-Chief, managing editors and handling editors are not allowed to handle manuscripts co-authored by them.

Neutrality to geopolitical disputes

General

The strict policy of Pensoft and its journals is to stay neutral to any political or territorial dispute. Authors should depoliticize their studies by avoiding provoking remarks, disputable geopolitical statements and controversial map designations; disputable territories should be referred to as well-recognised and non-controversial geographical areas. Тhe journal reserves the right to mark such areas at least as disputable at or after publication, to publish editor's notes, or to reject/retract the paper.

Authors' affiliations

Pensoft does not take decisions regarding the actual affiliations of institutions. Authors are advised to provide their affiliation as indicated on the official internet site of their institution.

Editors 

Editorial decisions should not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. Decisions to edit and publish should not be determined by the policies of governments or other agencies outside of the journal itself.

Human and animal rights

The ethical standards in medical and pharmacological studies are based on the Helsinki declaration (1964, amended in 1975, 1983, 1989, 1996, 2000 and 2013) of the World Medical Association and the Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals of the World Association of Medical Journals (WAME).

Authors of studies including experiments on humans or human tissues should declare in their cover letter a compliance with the ethical standards of the respective institutional or regional committee on human experimentation and attach committee’s statement and informed consent; for those researchers who do not have access to formal ethics review committees, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki should be followed and declared in the cover letter. Patients’ names, initials, or hospital numbers should not be used, not in the text nor in any illustrative material, tables of databases, unless the author presents a written permission from each patient to use his or her personal data. Photos or videos of patients should be taken after a warning and agreement of the patient or of a legal authority acting on his or her behalf.

Animal experiments require full compliance with local, national, ethical, and regulatory principles, and local licensing arrangements and respective statements of compliance (or approvals of institutional ethical committees where such exists) should be included in the article text.

Informed consent

Individual participants in studies have the right to decide what happens to the identifiable personal data gathered, to what they have said during a study or an interview, as well as to any photograph that was taken. Hence it is important that all participants gave their informed consent in writing prior to inclusion in the study. Identifying details (names, dates of birth, identity numbers and other information) of the participants that were studied should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the participant (or parent or guardian if the participant is incapable) gave written informed consent for publication. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve in some cases, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic profiles, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning.

The following statement should be included in the article text in one of the following ways:

• "Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study."
• "Informed consent was obtained from all individuals for whom identifying information is included in this article." (In case some patients’ data have been published in the article or supplementary materials to it).

Gender issues

We encourage the use of gender-neutral language, such as 'chairperson' instead of 'chairman' or 'chairwomen', as well as 'they' instead of 'she/he' and 'their' instead of 'him/her' (or consider restructuring the sentence).

Conflict of interest

During the editorial process, the following relationships between editors and authors are considered conflicts of interest: Colleagues currently working in the same research group or department, recent co-authors, and doctoral students for which the editor served as committee chair. During the submission process, the authors are kindly advised to identify possible conflicts of interest with the journal editors. After manuscripts are assigned to the handling editor, individual editors are required to inform the managing editor of any possible conflicts of interest with the authors. Journal submissions are also assigned to referees to minimize conflicts of interest. After manuscripts are assigned for review, referees are asked to inform the editor of any conflicts that may exist.

Appeals and open debate

We encourage academic debate and constructive criticism. Authors are always invited to respond to any editorial correspondence before publication. Authors are not allowed to neglect unfavorable comments about their work and choose not to respond to criticisms. 

No Reviewer’s comment or published correspondence may contain a personal attack on any of the Authors. Criticism of the work is encouraged. Editors should edit (or reject) personal or offensive statements. Authors should submit their appeal on editorial decisions to the Editorial Office, addressed to the Editor-in-Chief or to the Managing Editor. Authors are discouraged from directly contacting Editorial Board Members and Editors with appeals.

Editors will mediate all discussions between Authors and Reviewers during the peer review process prior to publication. If agreement cannot be reached, Editors may consider inviting additional reviewers if appropriate. 

The Editor-in-Chief will mediate all discussions between Authors and Subject Editors.

The journals encourage publication of open opinions, forum papers, corrigenda, critical comments on a published paper and Author’s response to criticism.

Misconduct

Research misconduct may include: (a) manipulating research materials, equipment or processes; (b) changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the article; c) plagiarism. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. If misconduct is suspected, journal Editors will act in accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines.

Plagiarism and duplicate publication policy
A special case of misconduct is plagiarism, which is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism is considered theft of intellectual property and manuscripts submitted to this journal which contain substantial unattributed textual copying from other papers will be immediately rejected. Editors are advised to check manuscripts for plagiarism via the iThenticate service by clicking on the "ïThenticate report" button. Journal providing a peer review in languages other than English (for example, Russian) may use other plagiarism checking services (for example, Antiplagiat). 
Instances, when authors re-use large parts of their publications without providing a clear reference to the original source, are considered duplication of work. Slightly changed published works submitted in multiple journals is not acceptable practice either. In cases of plagiarism in an already published paper or duplicate publication, an announcement will be made on the journal publication page and a procedure of retraction will be triggered.

Responses to possible misconduct

All allegations of misconduct must be referred to the Editor-In-Chief. Upon the thorough examination, the Editor-In-Chief and deputy editors should conclude if the case concerns a possibility of misconduct. All allegations should be kept confidential and references to the matter in writing should be kept anonymous, whenever possible.

Should a comment on potential misconduct be submitted by the Reviewers or Editors, an explanation will be sought from the Authors. If it is satisfactory and the issue is the result of either a mistake or misunderstanding, the matter can be easily resolved. If not, the manuscript will be rejected or retracted and the Editors may impose a ban on that individual's publication in the journals for a certain period of time. In cases of published plagiarism or dual publication, an announcement will be made in both journals explaining the situation.

When allegations concern authors, the peer review and publication process for their submission will be halted until completion of the aforementioned process. The investigation will be carried out even if the authors withdraw the manuscript, and implementation of the responses below will be considered.

When allegations concern reviewers or editors, they will be replaced in the review process during the ongoing investigation of the matter. Editors or reviewers who are found to have engaged in scientific misconduct should be removed from further association with the journal, and this fact reported to their institution.

Retraction policies

Article retraction

According to the COPE Retraction Guidelines followed by this Journal, an article can be retracted because of the following reasons:

• Unreliable findings based on clear evidence of a misconduct (e.g. fraudulent use of the data) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).
• Redundant publication, e.g., findings that have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification.
• Plagiarism or other kind of unethical research.

Retraction procedure

• Retraction should happen after a careful consideration by the Journal editors of allegations coming from the editors, authors, or readers.
• The HTML version of the retracted article is removed (except for the article metadata) and on its place a retraction note is issued.
• The PDF of the retracted article is left on the website but clearly watermarked with the note "Retracted" on each page.
• In some rare cases (e.g., for legal reasons or health risk) the retracted article can be replaced with a new corrected version containing apparent link to the retracted original version and a retraction note with a history of the document.

Expression of concern

In other cases, the Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern, if evidence is available for:

• Inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.
• Unreliable findings that are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case.
• A belief that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive.
• An investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.

Errata and Corrigenda 

Pensoft journals largely follow the ICMJE guidelines for corrections and errata.

Errata

Admissible and insignificant errors in a published article that do not affect the article content or scientific integrity (e.g. typographic errors, broken links, wrong page numbers in the article headers etc.) can be corrected through publishing of an erratum. This happens through replacing the original PDF with the corrected one together with a correction notice on the Erratum Tab of the HTML version of the paper, detailing the errors and the changes implemented in the original PDF. The original PDF will be marked with a correction note and an indication to the corrected version of the erratum article. The original PDF will also be archived and made accessible via a link in the same Erratum Tab.

Authors are also encouraged to post comments and indicate typographical errors on their articles to the Comments tab of the HTML version of the article.

Corrigenda

Corrigenda should be published in cases when significant errors are discovered in a published article. Usually, such errors affect the scientific integrity of the paper and could vary in scale. Reasons for publishing corrigenda may include changes in authorship, unintentional mistakes in published research findings and protocols, errors in labelling of tables and figures or others. In taxonomic journals, corrigenda are often needed in cases where the errors affect nomenclatural acts. Corrigenda are published as a separate publication and bear their own DOI. Examples of published corrigenda are available here.

The decision for issuing errata or corrigenda is with the editors after discussion with the authors.

Editorial Team

For more detailed contact information, please visit the website here.

Editors

International Advisory Board

Subject Editors

Contacts

Ksenija Bazdaric             

Editor-in-Chief

Rijeka University,Faculty of Health Studies
Rijeka, Croatia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2977-3686

Dado Čakalo    

Editor

Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health
Zagreb, Croatia