Submitted manuscripts are first checked to ensure that they comply with instructions to authors and that all references, figures and tables meet the journal’s requirements.
All manuscripts sent to the journal are routinely screened using specialized anti-plagiarism soft-wares. In all cases where any possible irregularity exists, the editorial office will follow the principles stated in COPE (Committee on publication ethics) guidelines.
Only manuscripts complying with the above requirements and free of possible irregularities will be entered into the review process. The author(s) will be informed that the manuscript has been accepted for review.
Authors are invited to suggest the names of potential reviewers and the Editor may choose, without obligation or explanation, to use one or more of these. Authors may also specify the names of a person(s) which they do not wish to review their manuscript, in which case a brief explanation should be given.
All articles will be reviewed by at least two colleagues with expertise in the manuscript’s subject matter. The identities of the reviewers, chosen by the editor, will not be disclosed to the authors.
The average time from submission to a decision following the first review is approximately 4-6 weeks.
Based on the reviewers’ opinion, the Editor will choose one of the following alternatives:
- Minor revisions required;
- Major revisions required;
In cases where revision is required, the authors will be invited to amend their manuscript, which should be resubmitted as soon as possible, but not later than 4 weeks. The revised manuscript will be reappraised by the initial reviewers and notification of a final decision will be sent to the author in approximately 14 days.
After acceptance and prior to publication, authors will receive a PDF file with the edited version of their manuscript for final proofreading and will be asked to carefully check the completeness and accuracy of the text, tables and figures. Accepted articles will receive a DOI code and will be published ahead of print immediately after acceptance.
Conflicts of interest
Any existing or potential conflict of interest about a manuscript should be disclosed by all participants in the peer-review and publication process (authors, peer reviewers, editors, editorial board members). Authors should disclose any potential conflict of interest at the time of manuscript submission. The statement regarding the disclosure of conflicts of interest should be included in the manuscript and mentioned in the cover letter accompanying the manuscript.
Authors should disclose any potential conflict of interest at the time of manuscript submission. The statement regarding the disclosure of conflicts of interest should be included in the manuscript. Prior to the allocation of manuscripts for review, the Managing Editor checks for the existence of any potential conflict of interest. The reviewers will be asked to confirm that there is no conflict of interest about the review process of the manuscript. Reviewers should avoid the review of any manuscript in relation to which their opinion could be biased. Furthermore, reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they are reviewing before its publication to their own interest. Editors should exclude themselves from editorial and publication decisions in relation to manuscripts to which they have any conflict of interest.
In cases where the Managing Editor has any conflict of interest in connection with a manuscript, the entire work related to the review process of that manuscript will be undertaken by the Editor in Chief. In cases where the Editor in Chief has any conflict of interest in relation to a manuscript, the entire work related to the review process of that manuscript will be undertaken by one of the Associate Editors.
Submissions from members of the editorial board, editors and employees of the journal will be handled by the Editor in Chief, who will allocate the manuscripts for review to independent and blinded reviewers.
Submissions from members of the owner institution will be assigned for review to members of the editorial board or external reviewers, taking into consideration the necessity to avoid any potential conflict of interest in the process of reviewer allocation.
Editorial manuscripts sent by members of the editorial board, following an invitation by the Editor in Chief, will undergo a review process in the editorial office.
As an author, disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest should be done before the submission process. Consider the following questions and make sure you disclose any positive answers:
Did you or your institution at any time receive payment or services from a third party for any aspect of the submitted work?
Do you have financial relationships with entities that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work?
Do you have any patents and copyrights, whether pending, issued, licensed and/or receiving royalties related to the research?
Do you have other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work?
The editors and reviewers will be asked to consider the following potential conflicts of interest before accepting any editing or review assignment:
Are any of the authors, members of the same family as the editor or the reviewer, or a very close personal friend?
Reviewers should also not be a member of the same family as the editor.
Are you currently collaborating or have you collaborated on a research project or a publication with any of the authors within the past 2 years?
Are you currently collaborating or have you collaborated with any of the authors as an advisor or in any other direct supervisory capacity in the past five years?
Are you currently collaborating or have you collaborated with any of the authors as a student or in any other direct subordinate capacity in the past five years?
Are you affiliated with the same institution as the editor? Are you affiliated with the same institution as any of the authors? If so, has this resulted in interactions, collaborations, or mutual interests with the authors that would compromise your impartiality in conducting this review?
Are you a current member of a committee or department that coincides with an affiliation with the editor or any of the authors?
Do you have a business or professional partnership with any author?
Do you have financial interests or business relations with any organization involved in this research or in the preparation of the manuscript?
Do you have any financial interest or competing interests in the content of the manuscript that might affect your ability to perform an objective review?
Editors of Acta Biologica Marisiensis will not share information regarding the manuscripts submitted to ABM to any other than the authors and the reviewers.
At the time of reviewer allocation, reviewers will be instructed to keep the manuscripts and associated material strictly confidential. Reviewers should not publicly discuss author`s work and must not retain any manuscript for their personal use.
In case of manuscript rejection, the full content of the manuscript will be deleted from the editorial content of the Journal.
In case of manuscript acceptance and publication, the Journal will keep copies of all the manuscript-related materials for at least three years.
The identity of the reviewers will not be revealed to authors, under no circumstances.