Biodiversity Data Journal (BDJ) is a community peer-reviewed, open-access, comprehensive online platform, designed to accelerate publishing, dissemination and sharing of biodiversity-related data of any kind. All structural elements of the articles – text, morphological descriptions, occurrences, data tables, etc. – will be treated and stored as DATA, in accordance with the Data Publishing Policies and Guidelines of Pensoft Publishers.

The journal will publish papers in biodiversity science containing taxonomic, floristic/faunistic, morphological, genomic, phylogenetic, ecological or environmental data on any taxon of any geological age from any part of the world with no lower or upper limit to manuscript size. For example:

• single taxon treatments and nomenclatural acts (e.g., new taxa, new taxon names, new synonyms, changes in taxonomic status, re-descriptions, etc.);
• data papers describing biodiversity-related databases, including ecological and environmental data;
• sampling reports, local observations or occasional inventories, if these contain novel data;
• local or regional checklists and inventories;
• habitat-based checklists and inventories;
• ecological and biological observations of species and  communities;
• any kind of identification keys, from conventional dichotomous to multi-access interactive online keys;
• descriptions of biodiversity-related software tools.

For more information, you may look at the Editorial Beyond dead trees: integrating the scientific process in the Biodiversity Data Journal and press release The Biodiversity Data Journal: Readable by humans and machines.

The Biodiversity Data Journal  (BDJ) and associated Pensoft Writing Tool (PWT), launched within the FP7 project ViBRANT, created several, globally unique, innovations:

1. The first work flow ever to support the full life cycle of a manuscript, from writing through submission, community peer-review, publication and dissemination within a single online collaborative platform.
2. The online, collaborative, article-authoring platform Pensoft Writing Tool (PWT) provides a large set of pre-defined, but flexible, Biological Codes and Darwin Core compliant, article templates.
3. Authors may work collaboratively on a manuscript and invite external contributors, such as mentors, potential reviewers, linguistic and copy editors, colleagues, who may watch and comment on the text before submission. These comments can be submitted along with the manuscript for editor’s consideration.
4. Import/export conversion of data files into text and vice versa, from text to data, such as checklists, catalogues and occurrence data in Darwin Core format, simply at the click of a button.
5. Automated import of data-structured manuscripts generated in various platforms (Scratchpads, GBIF Integrated Publishing Toolkit (IPT), authors’ databases).
6. A novel community-based pre-publication peer-review and possibilities to comment after publication (post-publication peer-review). Authors may also opt for an entirely public peer-review process. Reviewers may opt to be anonymous or to disclose their names.

For more information, you may look at the Editorial Beyond dead trees: integrating the scientific process in the Biodiversity Data Journal and press release The Biodiversity Data Journal: Readable by humans and machines.

• Originality: Papers and associated data should be sufficiently novel and contribute to a better understanding of the topic under scrutiny. Please consider the examples below to judge if your manuscript might be suitable for BDJ:
  • Example 1: Single species occurrence records (e.g., new country or province records) ARE NOT encouraged for submission in BDJ and will most probably be rejected, unless they contain detailed studies and new information on other aspects of species' morphology, genomics, biology, ecology,  distribution, etc. (see also Examples 2 and 3 below).
  • Example 2: A single species observation must be SIGNIFICANT, either because the species is important in some regard (e.g., medically, or by being an invasive species, or by being endangered, or by being important in biocontrol or biosecurity, etc.), or it expands the species range considerably and represent unexpected discovery of biogeographical or other significance. An additional argument for acceptability  of a manuscript could be the  presence of images and multimedia (acccompanied by any other new ecological/ethological data), if a species had never been illustrated, or filmed, or recorded for songs. Single species observations are considered novel, if they bring new information based on author(s) personal investigations and do not just repeat or compile already published information.
  • Example 3: Multiple species occurrence records are welcome, however occurrence data are considered novel, if they significantly extend the ranges (geographical, temporal or habitat type), or list new country/province records of several species, or concern taxa of high natural or social importance,  or feature taxa that are data-poor; occurrence data will NOT be considered novel and suitable for publication, if they only list new localities of a well-known and common (data rich) taxon within a well-studied region.
  • Example 4: A local checklist is considered novel, if it includes new data from a locality; a local checklist is NOT considered novel if it is mostly confirmatory and repetitive and lists common species from a locality in a well-studied region.
• Data are published: All data underpinning an article, including data tables on which graphs are produced, must be published alongside the paper, e.g. as supplementary files, or links to external repositories where data are deposited, and contain sufficient metadata to facilitate data discovery.

• Structure: Manuscripts should be concisely written, in a good academic style, and follow a logical sequence. Results should be clearly and concisely described and supported by the data published with the article, or data published elsewhere but linked to the article.

• Previous research: Previously published information should be considered and cited in compliance with the good academic practice. References should be complete and accurate, where possible including DOIs or links to the article.

Text and data submitted to the Biodiversity Data Journal will be formally peer-reviewed and evaluated for technical soundness and the correct presentation of appropriate and sufficient metadata. All manuscripts undergo a pre-submission technical evaluation in the Pensoft Writing Tool (PWT) environment. The scientific quality and importance of the paper and data will be further judged by the scientific community, through a novel community-based pre-publication and post-publication peer-review.

Reviewers may opt to be anonymous or to disclose their names. The deadlines for the peer-review and editorial processes are strict and limited to a maximum of two months after submission.

The peerreview process and deadlines described below are articulated on the assumption that the contributions are technically well-prepared and concisely written so that the peer-review is easy, straightforward and not requiring much time from the reviewer.

What is "community peer-review" ?

It is evident that the peer-review system is increasingly under strain. Our response to this situation is to decrease the load on each individual reviewer without in any way compromising the quality of the final product. The purpose of community peer-review is to distribute effort, increase transparency, engage the broader community of experts, and enhance the quality of the science we publish.

Stepwise description of the peer-review and editorial process

1. Upon submission, the manuscript is assigned to the Subject Editor responsible for the topic by the in-house Assistant Editor. The Subject Editor is alerted by email.

2. The Subject Editor reads the manuscript and decides if it complies with the journal's scope and should be processed for peer-review.

3. The Subject Editor sends review requests to two or three "nominated" reviewers and several other "panel" reviewers. 

Note-1: How editors invite reviewers? The journal's database will provide a list of potential reviewers and if necessary the editor can add additional names to the list. Review requests will be emailed by a ‘single-click’ option.

Note-2: "Nominated" and "Panel" reviewers. The difference between "Nominated" and "Panel" reviewers is that "Nominated" reviewers are expected to provide a formal review by the deadline; "Panel" reviewers are invited but not required to evaluate the manuscript. Both "Nominated" and "Panel" reviewers can propose changes and corrections, and make comments in the manuscript online and submit a concise reviewer's form.

Note-3: "Community" and "public" peer-review. "Community" peer-review means that during the peer-review process the manuscript is visible only to editor, the reviewers and the authors. We are planning to introduce soon an entirely public review process where authors may opt to make their manuscript available for comment by all registered journal users. Reviewers may opt to stay anonymous or disclose their names in either case.

4. The Subject Editor receives a notification email if the nominated reviewer agrees or declines to review the manuscript. In the latter case the editor can appoint alternative reviewers.

5. Reviews are expected within 10 days and can be extended on demand. The Subject Editor will then decide to accept, reject, or request revision of the manuscripts.

Note-4: Provision of reviews.  Reviewers will be prompted by automated email notification sent one day before the deadline. In case of delay, the review request can be cancelled automatically.

6. The authors must provide a revised version of their manuscript within one week, but can ask for an extension, if there is a demonstratable need.

7. After submission of the revised version, the Subject Editor compares it against the reviews through an easy-to-use online tool and decides to accept or reject the manuscript. The authors may be asked to make additional revisions, OR in case of substantial changes, the reviewing procedure will be started again.

8. The manuscript will be formatted, proof-read, copy-edited and published within two weeks after acceptance.

Guidelines for reviewers and editors

Peer-reviewers and editors of the Biodiversity Data Journal are expected to evaluate the completeness and quality of the manuscript text, related dataset(s) and their description (metadata), as well as the publication value of data. This may include the appropriateness and validity of the methods used, compliance with applicable standards during collection, management and curation of data, and compliance with appropriate metadata standards in the description of the data resources.

The following aspects of evaluation will be considered:

• Quality of the manuscript
  • Is the study sufficiently novel and contributes to a better understanding of the topic, or is the work rather confirmatory and repetitive?
  • Do the title, abstract and keywords accurately reflect the contents and data?
  • Is the manuscript consistent, suitably organised and written in grammatically correct English?
  • Are the relevant non-textual data and media (data sets, audio and video files) also available as supplementary files to the manuscript or as links to external repositories?
  • Have abbreviations and symbols been properly defined?
  • Does the manuscript put the data resource being described properly into the context of prior research, citing pertinent articles and datasets?
  • Are conflicts of interest, relevant permissions and other ethical issues addressed in an appropriate manner?
• Quality of the data
  • Are the data completely and consistently recorded within the dataset(s)?
  • Does the data resource cover scientifically important and sufficiently large region(s), time period(s) and/or group(s) of taxa to be worthy of publication?
  • Are the data consistent internally and described using applicable standards (e.g. in terms of file formats, file names, file size, units and metadata)?
  • Are the methods used to process and analyses the raw data, thereby creating processed data or analytical results, sufficiently well documented that they could be repeated by third parties?
  • Are the data correct, given the protocols? Authors are encouraged to report any tests undertaken to address this point.
  • Is the repository to which the data are submitted appropriate for the nature of the data?
• Consistency between manuscript and data
  • Does the manuscript provide an accurate description of the data?
  • Does the manuscript properly describe how to access the data?
  • Are the methods used to generate the data (including calibration, code and suitable controls) described in sufficient detail?
  • Is the dataset sufficiently novel to merit publication?
  • Have possible sources of error been appropriately addressed in the protocols and/ or the paper?
  • Is anything missing in the manuscript or the data resource itself that would prevent replication of the measurements, or reproduction of the figures or other representations of the data?
  • Are all claims made in the manuscript substantiated by the underlying data?

Pensoft journals support the open science approach in the peer-review and publication process. We encourage our reviewers to open their identity to the authors and consider supporting the peer-review oaths, which tend to be short declarations that reviewers make at the start of their written comments, typically dictating the terms by which they will conduct their reviews (see Aleksic et al. 2015, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.5686.2 for more details):

Principles of the open peer-review oath

• Principle 1: I will sign my name to my review
• Principle 2: I will review with integrity
• Principle 3: I will treat the review as a discourse with you; in particular, I will provide constructive criticism
• Principle 4: I will be an ambassador for the practice of open science

There are NO author guidelines in BDJ with regard to text formatting. The Pensoft Writing Tool (PWT) will guide you during the authoring and submission process. There are only two simple rules to follow, so please please read carefully the half page of text below before you start your manuscript!

The submission process in BDJ starts with writing a manuscript in the Pensoft Writing Tool (PWT) through fixed although flexible article templates to be selected on the PWT homepage (after clicking on the "Write new manuscript" button). The article templates cannot be changed once the writing process is started, therefore please consider the following:

1. How I can decide what article type to choose, if I want to publish:

• Free text paper (e.g., editorial, correspondence, opinion paper, etc.) -> Select Editorial / Correspondence.
• Taxonomic or nomeclatural acts (taxon treatments) -> Select Taxonomic paper, then open a treatment in the Taxon treatments section and define its type (either New taxon or Re-description). This article type should contain at least EITHER one taxon treatment, OR checklist OR identification key, otherwise it cannot be submitted.
• Systematic list of taxa with notes -> Select Taxonomic paper, then open a Checklist. This article type should contain at least EITHER one taxon treatment, OR checklist OR identification key, otherwise it cannot be submitted. The checklist itself is not a treatment.
• Species observations (new records, biology, ecollogy, conservation, etc.) -> Select Taxonomic paper, then open a treatment in the Taxon treatments section of the paper and define its type (Re-description or Species observation). This article type should contain at least EITHER one taxon treatment, OR checklist OR identification key, otherwise it cannot be submitted.
• Species inventory (by locality, region or habitat) -> Select Species inventory, then press on Add locality, or region, or habitat and list taxa recoorded from that locality, region or habitat. You may then add another locality, or region, or habitat and list taxa recorded from there.
• Dichotomic identification keys -> Select Taxonomic paper, then open Identification key(s). This article type should contain at least EITHER one taxon treatment, OR checklist OR identification key, otherwise it cannot be submitted. The identification key itself is not a treatment.
• Online interactive identification key-> Select Interactive key, then follow the format. This article type should contain a link to the described online key, which should be available in open access.
• Data paper (description of large data sets) -> Select Data paper, then follow the format. This article type should contain a link to the described data, which should be available in open access. Alternatively, data sets can be uploaded and published as supplementary files. See our Data publication guidelines.
• Software and online platforms -> Select Software description, then follow the format. This article type should contain a link to the described software or platform, which should be available in open access.

2. How I can cite references, figures and tables?

• Do not write in-text citations of references, figures or tables manually! The citations will be inserted automatically at the place of your cursor through the Cite a figure, Cite a table or Cite a reference commands. Once you select the place you want a citation, click on the desired reference, table or figure from the respective list.
• Before citing a reference, figure or table, you have to upload these, so that they become visible in the respective list of figures, tables or references.
• Do not number captions of figures or tables – they will be numbered automatically and can be re-ordered, if needed.
• All uploaded figures, tables and references must be cited in the text and vice versa.

By submitting to BDJ, authors agree to make the data that underpin or are described in their articles publicly available. Authors must include a separate "Data resources" section in their articles, listing datasets and where they are deposited (including accession numbers, DOIs or other persistent URL identifiers).

Please remember that publication of data associated with your article in machine-readable form (databases, data sets, data tables) in BDJ is mandatory!

BDJ provides various modes of data publishing:

• Import of data files in the text (e.g., Darwin Core occurrence data, checklists, data tables, literature references).
• Supplementary data files (up to 20 MB each) that support graphs, hypotheses, results, etc. published with the article.
• Deposition of large data sets in established international repositories (e.g. GBIF IPT, Dryad, NCBI GenBank, Pangaea, TreeBASE, Morphbank, and others).
• Marked up text published as XML to ensure machine harvesting.

Best practice guidelines for data publication

BDJ aims to integrate small data into the text whenever possible. Supplementary data files that underpin graphs, hypotheses and results can also be uploaded on the journal’s website and published with the article.

Nonetheless, this is usually not possible for large or complex data, for which we recommend deposition in an established open international repository:

• Large primary biodiversity data sets (e.g., institutional collections of species-occurrence records) should be published with the GBIF Integrated Publishing Toolkit (IPT); small data sets of this kind are imported into the article text through an Excel template, available in PWT.

• Genomic data should be deposited with INSDC (GenBank/EMBL/DDBJ), either directly or via a partnering repository, e.g. Barcode of Life Data Systems (BOLD). Transcriptomics data should be deposited in Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) or ArrayExpress.

• Phylogenetic data should be deposited at TreeBASE, either directly or through the Dryad Data Repository.

• Biodiversity-related geoscience and environmental data should be deposited in PANGAEA.

• Morphological images other than those presented in the article should be deposited at Morphbank. Images of a specific kind should be deposited in appropriate repositories if these exist (e.g., Morphosource for MicroCT data).

• Videos should be uploaded to video sharing sites like YouTube, Vimeo or SciVee and linked back to the article text. Similarly,  audio files should go to platforms like FreeSound or SoundCloud, and presentations to Slideshare. In addition, multimedia files can also be uploaded as supplementary files on the journal’s website. 3D and other interactive models can be embedded in the article’s HTML and PDF.

• Any other large data sets (e.g., ecological observations, environmental data, morphological and other data types) should be deposited in the Dryad Data Repository, either prior to or upon acceptance of the manuscript. Other specialised data repositories can be used if these offer unique identifiers and long-term preservation.

All external data used in a BDJ paper must be cited in the reference list, and links to these data (as deposited in external repositories) must be included in a separate data resources section of the article.

For more information, please see our detailed Data Publishing Policies and Guidelines for Biodiversity Data.

Publishing in Biodiversity Data Journal is free during its launch phase and thereafter will be subject to a minimal fee. A fee that anyone can afford!

To keep the costs low and affordable for all, all manuscripts submitted to BDJ must either be written in the Pensoft Writing Tool, or submitted from integrated external platforms, such as Scratchpads or GBIF Integrated Publishing Toolkit (IPT).

Text-based publications

License and Copyright Agreement

In submitting the manuscript to any of Pensoft’s journal, the authors certify that:

• They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
• The work described has not been published before (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review or thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
• They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
• They agree to the following license and copyright agreement:

Copyright

• Copyright on any article is retained by the author(s). Regarding copyright transfers please see below.
• Authors grant Pensoft Publishers a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.
• Authors grant Pensoft Publishers commercial rights to produce hardcopy volumes of the journal for sale to libraries and individuals.
• 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):

Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0)

Anyone is free:

  to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work 

  to Remix — to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

  Attribution. The original authors must be given credit.

• For any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are.
• Any of these conditions can be waived if the copyright holders give permission.
• Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.

The full legal code of this license.

Copyright Transfers

Any usage rights are regulated through the Creative Commons License. As Pensoft Publishers is using the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), anyone (the author, his/her institution/company, the publisher, as well as the public) is free to copy, distribute, transmit, and adapt the work as long as the original author is credited (see above). Therefore, specific usage rights cannot be reserved by the author or his/her institution/company, and the publisher cannot include a statement "all rights reserved" in any published paper.

This page was adapted from its equivalent at Copernicus Publications.

Licenses for data publication

Pensoft’s  journals use a variety of waivers and licenses, that are specifically designed for and appropriate for the treatment of data:

• Open Data Commons Attribution License, http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ (default)
• Creative Commons CC-Zero Waiver, http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and Licence, http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1-0/

The default data publishing license used by Pensoft is the Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-By), which is a license agreement intended to allow users to freely share, modify, and use the published data(base), provided that the data creators are attributed (cited or acknowledged). This ensures that those who publish their data receive the academic credit that is their due.

As an alternative, the other licenses, namely the Creative Commons CC0 (also cited as "CC-Zero" or "CC-zero") and the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and Licence (PDDL), are also strongly encouraged for use in Pensoft journals.

More about licenses in: Data Publishing Policies and Guidelines for Biodiversity Data.

Manuscripts for the Biodiversity Data Journal and other journals in the future can only be submitted from the online, collaborative, article-authoring Pensoft Writing Tool (PWT) that provides a large set of pre-defined, but flexible, article templates.

To facilitate the writing process, the PWT also provides an automated search and import function from external databases including: electronic registries; catalogues; occurrence data in Darwin Core format; and reference bibliographies.

In the PWT environment, the authors may invite external contributors, such as mentors, potential reviewers, linguistic and copy editors, colleagues, etc., who are not authors, but may watch and comment on the text during the preparation of the manuscript.

Please consider the following steps, illustrated at the figure below:

1. Start a manuscript in the Pensoft Writing Tool (PWT)
2. Validate and submit it when ready to the Biodiversity Data Journal (also to other journals in the future)
3. Make corrections and respond to reviewers and editors completely online
4. Submit the revised version at the click of a button
5. Work with the our copyeditors on final improvements
6. Enjoy publication within 3 days after final acceptance

For more information, you may also look at the Editorial Beyond dead trees: integrating the scientific process in the Biodiversity Data Journal and press release The Biodiversity Data Journal: Readable by humans and machines.

1. Does Biodiversity Data Journal publish only data?

NO! The journal focuses on data, but one can publish analyses and discussions, within the article, as in any other journal.

2. Does Biodiversity Data Journal require all data underlying an article to be published as well?

YES! All small data sets that underpin an article should be imported in the text (e.g., Darwin Core occurrence data, checklists, data tables, literature references) or uploaded as supplemnetary files (e.g., a data table used to create a graph). Large and complex data sets should be deposited in an internationally recognized repository (see Data publication section for details).

3. What kind of data does Biodiversity Data Journal publish?

Any kind of data related to biodiversity, for example: species occurrence data, local or regional checklists, inventories, genomic data, morphological descriptions, ecological observations, environmental data, etc.

4. What is the minimum "publishable" manuscript that can be submitted to the journal?

Any manuscript that brings novel information on any organism from any part of the world. Manuscripts are expected to demonstrate novelty, so it is unlikely that, for instance, a single observation would be sufficient. Please carefully consider our Criteria for publication before you decide to submit a manuscript to BDJ.

5. Why do you define fixed templates for articles?

Templates include some mandatory elements, but they are not fixed. Authors can additional sections or subsections in a manuscript. Using the templates is necessary because the journal's online peer-review and editorial system are designed to automate parts of the publication process to deliver both fast turnover and low cost. These systems do not accept manuscripts written in text processors (e.g., MS Word, or ODT) because they cannot be automated in this way.

6. What? Does Biodiversity Data Journal really NOT accept manuscripts written in MS Word?

NO, it does not! To keep the costs low and affordable for all, manuscripts submitted to the journal must either be written either within a specially designed tool (Pensoft Writing Tool, or PWT) or submitted from integrated external platforms, such as Scratchpads or GBIF Integrated Publishing Toolkit (IPT).

7. What does mean "public", and "community" peer-review?

"Community" peer review means that during the peer-review process the manuscript is visible only to editor, the reviewers and the authors; this is the traditional method in academic publishing and is the default option. Authors may opt, however, to make their manuscript available for comments from all registered journal users ("public" peer review). Reviewers may opt to stay anonymous or disclose their names in either case.

For more information, you may also look at the Editorial Beyond dead trees: integrating the scientific process in the Biodiversity Data Journal and press release The Biodiversity Data Journal: Readable by humans and machines.

8. What is a "Data Paper"?

A "Data Paper" is a scholarly journal publication whose primary purpose is to describe a dataset or a group of datasets, rather than to report a research investigation. As such, it contains facts about data, not hypotheses and arguments in support of the data, as found in a conventional research article. Its purposes are three-fold:

• to provide a citable journal publication that brings scholarly credit to data publishers;
• to describe the data in a structured human-readable form;
• to bring the existence of the data to the attention of the scholarly community.

If you are interested to learn more about it, you may have a look at our Data Publishing page, or the Data Paper Poster.

General
The publishing ethics and malpractice policies of Pensoft follow the relevant COPE guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines) and in case a malpractice is suspected, journal Editors will act in accordance with them.

Open access
Pensoft journals adheres 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 3.0 (CC-BY). 
For more details on Pensoft’s open access and copyright policy see the Copyright Information page.

Privacy statement
The names and email addresses present on journals’ websites will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of the journals and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Open data publishing and sharing
Pensoft encourages open data publication and sharing, in accordance with Panton’s Principles and  Pensoft’s Data Publishing Policies and Guidelines for Biodiversity Data.
Data can be published in various ways, such as data files or packages supplementary to a research article, or hosted in and linked to data repositories.
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 Dryad or Pangaea.
In Pensoft’s journals, open access to data is not compulsory, however highly recommended and encouraged. Open data publication is mandatory in the Biodiversity Data Journal, where authors must make available all research materials or data, associated with a manuscript upon its submission.

Submission, peer-review and editorial process
The peer-review and editorial process is 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. The later are also included in the respective email notification.

General: Publication and authorship

• All submitted papers are subject to rigorous peer-review process by at least two international Reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. 

• The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language. 

• The journals allow a maximum of two 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, (2) Major revisions, (3) Reject, but re-submission encouraged, (5) Reject. 

• If Authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit 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.

Responsibility of Authors

• Authors are required to agree that their paper will be published in open access under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC-BY) 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 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 of article processing charge for an open access article, or writing, language editing or editorial assistance).

• The corresponding Author should provide the declaration of any conflicts of interest on behalf of all the Authors. Conflicts of interest may be associated with employment, sources of funding, personal financial interests, and membership of relevant organisations, or others.

Responsibility of Reviewers

• 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 interests.

• The 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 his/her 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.

• The 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 a misunderstanding.

• Further, the Reviewers are asked to comment on originality, structure and previous research:

• Is the paper sufficiently novel and contributes to a better understanding of the topic under scrutiny, or is the work rather confirmatory and repetitive?

• 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 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 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

• The Editors in Pensoft’s journals carry the main responsibility for the scientific quality of the published papers and base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.

• 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 for 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 later 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, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining 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.

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.
A special case of misconduct is the plagiarism, which is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
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:http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines
Should a comment on potential misconduct be submitted by the Reviewers or Editors, an explanation will be sought from the Authors. If this is satisfactory and a mistake or misunderstanding has taken place, the matter can be resolved. If not, the manuscript will be rejected and the the Editors will impose a ban on that individual's publication in the journals for a period of three years.
In cases of published plagiarism or dual publication, an announcement will be made in both journals explaining the situation.

Appeals and open debate
We encourage academic debate and constructive criticism. Authors are always invited to respond to any editorial correspondence before publication. Authors do not have a right to neglect unfavorable comments about their work and to 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 and Editors should edit (or reject) personal or offensive statements.
The Author 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, that is prior to publication. If agreement cannot be reached, Editors may consider inviting additional reviewers, if appropriate.
Editor-in-Chief will mediate all discussions between Authors and a Subject Editor.
The journals encourage publication of open opinions, forum papers, corrigenda, critical comments on a published paper and Author’s response to criticism