CBI Pro-Akademia

Rozwiń menu ▼

Contact

Katarzyna Woźniak
Katarzyna Woźniak
Technical Editor
e-mail:

Contact

Monika Stojan
Monika Stojan
Technical Editor
e-mail:

AI Partners

The image shows our cooperation with the online plagiarism detection service PlagScan

The task “Maintenance
of the anti-plagiarism system” is being
financed by an agreement 605/P-DUN/2018
from the resources of Polish Ministry of Science
and Higher Education dedicated to
the activity popularising the science.

Zadanie „Utrzymanie systemu antyplagiatowego”
finansowane w ramach umowy
605/P-DUN/2018 ze środków Ministra
Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego przeznaczonych
na działalność upowszechniającą naukę

 

 

Crossref Member Badge

 

 

Editorial policy

Editorial Responsibilities

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to Acta Innovations will be published. The Editor-in-Chief and Managing Editor is guided by the Editorial Policy and constrained by legal requirements in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to decide not to publish submitted manuscripts in case it is found that they do not meet relevant standards concerning the content and formal aspects.

Editor-in-Chief/Editor must hold no conflict of interest with regard to the articles they consider for publication. If an Editor feels that there is likely to be a perception of a conflict of interest in relation to their handling of a submission, the selection of reviewers and all decisions on the paper shall be made by the Editorial Board Member under condition that the member(s) holding a conflict of interest are withdrawn from the selection.

Editor-in-Chief/Editor shall evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content free from any racial, gender, sexual, religious, ethnic, or political bias.

The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board must not use unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscripts without the express written consent of the authors. The information and ideas presented in submitted manuscripts shall be kept confidential and must not be used for personal gain.

Editors and the Editorial Board shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors before, during and after the evaluation process.

Authors’ responsibilities

Authors warrant that their manuscript is their original work, that it has not been published before and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Parallel submission of the same paper to another journal constitutes misconduct and eliminates the manuscript from consideration by Acta Innovations.

Papers previously reported at a congress, symposium, workshop etc. will be also considered for publishing (under the same or different title) if they have not been published in proceedings as full papers. A paper that has already been published in another journal cannot be reprinted in Acta Innovations.

It is the responsibility of each author to ensure that papers submitted to Acta Innovations are written with ethical standards in mind. Authors affirm that the article contains no unfounded or unlawful statements and does not violate the rights of third parties. The Publisher will not be held legally responsible should there be any claims for compensation.

Criteria for publication

To be published in Acta Innovation, a paper must be scientifically valid and technically sound in methodology and analysis. A novelty of the work should be clearly indicated. Manuscripts are not assessed based on their perceived importance, significance or impact; the research community makes such judgements after publication. We are happy to publish papers of niche scope, that lie between disciplines but always with a clear vision about the impact the results and innovation can be made to the area.

Reporting standards

A submitted manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit reviewers and, subsequently, readers to verify the claims presented in it. The deliberate presentation of false claims is a violation of ethical standards.

Authors are exclusively responsible for the contents of their submissions and must make sure that they have permission from all involved parties to make the data public.

Authors wishing to include figures, tables or other materials that have already been published elsewhere are required to obtain permission from the copyright holder(s). Any material received without such evidence will be assumed to originate from the authors.

Authorship

Authors must make sure that all only contributors who have significantly contributed to the submission are listed as authors and, conversely, that all contributors who have significantly contributed to the submission are listed as authors. If persons other than authors were involved in important aspects of the research project and the preparation of the manuscript, their contribution should be acknowledged in a footnote or the Acknowledgments section.

Ghostwriting firewall

Integrity in science is one of the foundations of quality. Readers should be assured that the authors of publications present the results of their work in a transparent, fair and honest way, regardless of whether they are the direct authors, or using the support of a specialized entity (natural or legal). The highest editorial standards are proved by transparency of information on entities that contribute to the creation of publications (technical input, material, financial, etc.). This is a manifestation of not only good manners, but also social responsibility.

On contrary, "ghostwriting" and "guest authorship" are examples of breach of ethical standards in science. "Ghostwriting" is a situation when someone has made a substantial contribution to this publication, without revealing his or her participation as one of the authors or without mention of his or her role in the acknowledgments in the publication. "Guest authorship" ("honorary authorship") is a situation when the author's share is negligible or even inexistent, and yet iher or she is the author / co-author of the publication.

To prevent cases of "ghostwriting" and "guest authorship" the authors are required to disclose and notify the Editor of the contribution of individual authors in the creation of publications (with their affiliations and information on contributions from each author, i.e. who is the author of the concept, principles, methods used in the preparation of the paper). The corresponding author holds the main responsibility for providing correct information in this respect.

The Editorial Board stresses that "ghostwriting" and "guest authorship" are examples of scientific misconduct. Any detected cases will be revealed, including notification of the relevant bodies (institutions employing the authors, scientific societies and associations).

The Editorial Board will document all forms of scientific misconduct, especially violations of the aforementioned rules of ethics.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Authors are required to properly cite sources that have significantly influenced their research and their manuscript. Information received in a private conversation or correspondence with third parties, in reviewing project applications, manuscripts and similar materials must not be used without the express written consent of the information source.

Conflict of interest

Authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might have influenced the presented results or their interpretation.

Plagiarism

By submitting a manuscript to Acta Innovations, the authors confirm that the manuscript does not contain plagiarized and self-plagiarized content. More info about procedures.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal Editor or publisher and cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper.

By submitting a manuscript, the authors agree to abide by the Acta Innovations’ Editorial Policies.

The review process

Manuscripts that appear to be scientifically valid upon initial assessment will be sent for formal review. After considering the reviewer reports, the Editorial Board will make one of the following decisions: 1) Accept, 2) Request a minor revision, where authors revise their manuscript to address specific concerns, 3) Request a major revision, where authors revise their manuscript to address significant concerns and perhaps undertake additional work, 4) Reject.

Upon submission of a revised manuscript, the Editorial Board may wish to ask the original reviewers for further advice. We therefore request that reviewers are willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. But Editorial Board will not send resubmitted papers to referees if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the reviewers' criticisms.

Step by step of the review process 

Stage 1. Initial assessment 

Managing Editor is responsible for the initial assessment step. It involves, e.g.: 

1. Sending email to the corresponding author confirming the successful submission. 

2. The assessment of the compliance of the submitted manuscript to the thematic profile of Acta Innovations and assessment of the originality of content using the anti-plagiarism program.

a) When the manuscript is in line with the scope of Acta Innovations and does not contain plagiarism, the Managing Editor submits the article for further processing to the Editorial Board.

b) When the manuscript does not comply with the scope of the journal or contains plagiarism, the Managing Editor sends the Author information about the rejection with a justification and with the plagiarism report (if needed). 

Stage 2. Reviewing step 

Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and it is the responsibility of our Editorial Board to choose appropriate reviewers. Their choice is based on multiple factors, including expertise, specific recommendations, and previous experience. Invitations to review a manuscript are confidential. 

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor without delay. 

Reviewers should be mindful that they are assessing the manuscript on technical soundness and scientific validity. This refers to both the methods and analysis: the methods must be appropriate and properly conducted, and the conclusions drawn must be fully supported by the data. We ask that referees do not assess the importance or significance of a paper - the research community will make this judgement after publication. The review should consider the following questions: 

  • Is the paper technically sound?

  • Are the claims convincing? If not, what further evidence is needed? 

  • Are the claims fully supported by the experimental data? 

  • Is the statistical analysis of the data sound? 

  • Does the availability of data adhere to the expected standards of your research community? 

  • Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of previous literature? 

  • If the impact on the research area is clearly addressed? 

  • If the manuscript is unacceptable in its present form, does the study seem sufficiently promising that the authors should be encouraged to consider a resubmission in the future? 

  • Is the manuscript clearly written? If not, how could it be made more accessible? 

  • Are they any special ethical concerns arising from the use of animals or human subjects? 

Please note that it is Acta Innovations policy to remain strictly neutral with respect to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations, and the naming conventions used in maps and affiliation are left to the discretion of authors. Referees should not, therefore, request authors to make any changes to such unless it is critical to the clarity of the scientific content of a manuscript. 

The aim is to achieve that at least 90% of all reviewers evaluating scientific publications are external, and are not associated to the Editorial Board of Acta Innovations or to the publisher. 

Confidentiality: Editorial Board and reviewers must treat the review process as strictly confidential, and not discuss the manuscript with anyone not directly involved in the review. It is acceptable to consult with laboratory colleagues, but we ask that they are identified to the Editorial Board. Consulting with experts from outside the referee's own laboratory may also be acceptable, but please check with the Editorial Board before doing so, to avoid involving anyone who may have been excluded by the authors. 

Timing: We are committed to providing rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community. We therefore ask reviewers to provide a report promptly; ideally within 10 days of receiving a manuscript, but this may be extended by prior arrangement. If referees anticipate a delay, we ask them to inform the Editorial Board and the publishing office so we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternative referees. 

Anonymity: We do not release reviewers' identities to authors or to other reviewers, except when reviewers specifically ask to be identified. We prefer that reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond. 

We ask referees not to identify themselves to authors without the Editorial Board knowledge. If they wish to reveal their identities, this should be done via the publishing office. 

We deplore any attempt by authors to confront reviewers or determine their identities. We neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewers' identities, and we encourage referees to adopt a similar policy. 

Editing referees' reports: As part of our editorial policies, we do not edit reviewer reports and any comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted, regardless of what we may think of the content. On rare occasions, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information about other matters. We ask referees to avoid comments that may cause needless offence but authors should recognize that criticisms are not necessarily unfair simply because they are expressed in robust language. 

Competing interests: We aim to respect requests of our authors to exclude specific Editorial Board or referees. We also try to avoid referees who have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors, who have commented on drafts of the manuscript, who are in direct competition to publish the same finding, who we know to have a history of dispute with the authors, or who have a financial interest in the outcome. It is not possible for the Editorial Board or publishing team to know of all potential biases, so we ask referees to draw attention to anything that might affect their review, and to decline invitations to review in cases where they feel unable to be objective. 

We recognize, however, that competing interests are not always clear-cut, and the above circumstances need not automatically undermine the validity of a report. Indeed, the people best-qualified to evaluate a paper are often those closest to the field, and a sceptical attitude towards a particular claim does not mean that a referee cannot be persuaded by a new evidence. Editorial Board try to take these factors into account when weighing referees' reports. 

Referees who have reviewed a paper for another journal might feel that it is unfair to the authors for them to re-review it for Acta Innovations. We disagree - the fact that two journals have independently identified a particular person as well-qualified to review a paper does not, in our view, decrease the validity of their opinion. 

Reviewers should alert the Editor to any well-founded suspicions or the knowledge of possible violations of ethical standards by the authors. Reviewers should recognize relevant published works that have not been cited by the authors and alert the Editor to substantial similarities between a reviewed manuscript and any manuscript published or under consideration for publication elsewhere, in the event they are aware of such. Reviewers should also alert the Editor to a parallel submission of the same paper to another journal, in the event they are aware of such. 

Resolving inconsistencies: In the case that the authors have serious and reasonable objections to the reviews, the Editorial Board makes an assessment of whether a review is objective and whether it meets academic standards. If there is a doubt about the objectivity or quality of review, the Editor-in-Chief will request the Scientific Board about the opinion or will assign additional reviewer(s). Additional reviewers may also be assigned when reviewers’ decisions (accept or reject) are contrary to each other or otherwise substantially incompatible. 

As a standard, 10 business days are foreseen for the review process. The Reviewer submits a written review in electronic form to the Editorial Board. The review must end with explicit information about the approval or rejection of the article for publication. 

The Editorial Board assesses the reviews and communicates to the author corresponding author about the final decision. For reviews that require only minor changes, the Author(s) is asked to make them within 5 business days and return the corrected manuscript. In case of major revision Author(s) have up to 1 month to submit the corrected manuscript. Always submitted manuscript have to be accompanied by the letter with a clear answer to all raised comments. Authors also are requested to send a manuscript with all changes clearly indicated. 

Submitted manuscript is reassessed by the Editorial Board against the initial comments of reviewers and if required it is resent for the 2nd round of revision. If needed, the Editorial Board may ask additional reviewer for assessment of the manuscript.  

The final decision about the acceptance of the manuscript for publication is a responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief after getting the opinion of the Editorial Board and in exceptional cases of Scientific Board.  

Stage 3. Language correction stage 

For articles that raise doubts about the correctness of the English language, the final version of the article may be sent to a native speaker for language improvement. The language correction phase is expected to last 10 business days. Managing editor sends the author the final version of the article, language improved by a native speaker and after receiving the final approval of the author (5 working days), the article is published in the next issue of Acta Innovations. 

Stage 4. Publication stage 

Managing Editor informs the Author about the DOI, date of publication and the number of Acta Innovations issue within the article will be published. 

Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour

Anyone may inform the editors and/or Editorial Staff at any time of suspected unethical behaviour or any type of misconduct by giving the necessary information/evidence to start an investigation. All measures will be made according to the ethical guideline.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in the published works do not express the views of the Editors. The authors take legal and moral responsibility for the ideas expressed in the articles. Publisher shall have no liability in the event of issuance of any claims for damages. The Publisher will not be held legally responsible should there be any claims for compensation.