About

Focus and Scope

Alpine Entomology is the journal of the Swiss Entomological Society, formerly the "Journal of the Swiss Entomological Society". Alpine Entomology regularly publishes original research articles, reviews and short communications on insects and occasionally other arthropods from the Alpine region and other mountainous regions all over the world. Upon request, larger monographs or special issues may also be published. Papers touch upon multiple aspects of entomology, including taxonomy, phylogenetics, morphology, physiology, anatomy, behaviour, ecology, conservation, biogeography and applied entomology.

Alpine Entomology is an open access journal, available both online and in print. Submitted manuscripts are subject to peer review by major specialists in the field. After an article has been accepted for publication, it is quickly processed and made available on-line. The journal primarily publishes papers in English; however, manuscripts in German, French and Italian are also welcome, provided that they contain an English translation of the abstract. The journal is published in high-resolution PDF, semantically enriched HTML and machine-readable XML versions. Members of the Swiss Entomological Society receive a printed copy of the year’s volume.

You can find previous volumes of the journal here.


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.


Article types

  • Research Articles
  • Review Articles
  • Short Communications
  • Checklists
  • Monographs (on request)
  • Corrigenda
  • In Memoriam
  • Editorials
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Book Reviews

Author Guidelines


Main Text

Title: The title should be in a sentence case (only scientific, geographic or person names should be with a first capital letter, i.e. Elater ferrugineus L., Germany, etc.), and should include an accurate, clear and concise description of the reported work, avoiding abbreviations. The higher taxa within the title should be separated with commas and not with a semicolon, e.g.: (Coleoptera, Elateridae, Elaterini).

Authors and Affiliations: Provide the complete names of all authors, and their addresses for correspondence, including e.g., institutional affiliation (e.g. university, institute), location (street, boulevard), city, state/province (if applicable), and country. One of the authors should be designated as the corresponding author. It is the corresponding author's responsibility to ensure that the author list, and the individual contributions to the study are accurate and complete. If the article has been submitted on behalf of a consortium, all consortium members and their affiliations should be listed after the Acknowledgements section.

Abstract and Keywords: Please have your abstract and keywords ready for input into the submission module. Keywords should differ from the words used in the title and abstract.

Body Text: All papers should be in grammatically correct English. Non-native English speaking authors are required to have their manuscripts checked by a native English speaker prior to submission. Use either British/Commonwealth or American English provided that the language is consistent within the paper. Alpine Entomology also publishes manuscripts in German, French and Italian, provided that they contain an English translation of the abstract.

A manuscript must be written with precision, clarity, and economy, whenever appropriate in active voice and first person. Avoid the use of parenthetical comments and italics or bold for emphasis. This journal discourages the use of quotation marks except for direct quotations, words defined by the author, and words used in unusual contexts. Short quotations should be embedded in the text and enclosed in double quotation marks ("). Long quotations should be on a separate line, italicized, but without quotation marks. Single quotation marks are to be used only for a quotation that occurs within another quotation.

Spacing, Fonts, and Page Numbering: Single-space all material (text, quotations, figure legends, tables, references, etc.). Separate paragraphs with a blank line. Use a 12-point font (preferably Times New Roman or Arial).

Capitals: First capital letters should be used only in the beginning of a sentence, in proper names and in headings and subheadings, as well as to indicate tables, graphs and figure/s within the text. Software programmes or statistical procedures should be written with capital letters (e.g., ANOVA, MANOVA, PAUP).

Italicization/Underlining: Scientific names of species and genera, long direct quotations and symbols for variables and constants (except for Greek letters), such as p, F, U, T, N, r, but not for SD (standard deviation), SE (standard error), DF (degrees of freedom) and NS (non significant) should be italicized. These symbols in illustrations and equations should be in italics to match the text. Italics should not be used for emphasis, and not in abbreviations such as e.g., i.e., et al., etc., cf. Underlining of any text is not acceptable.

Abbreviations: Abbreviations should be followed by ‘.' (full stop or period; for instance: i.e., e.g., cf., etc.). Note that you shouldn't add a full stop at the end of abbreviated words if the last letter of the abbreviation is the same as the last letter of the full word. For example, you should abbreviate "Eds", "Dr", "Mr" without full stop at the end. All measures, for instance mm, cm, m, s, L, should be written without full stop.

On the use of dashes: (1) Hyphens are used to link words such as personal names, some prefixes and compound adjectives (the last of which vary depending on the style manual in use) (2) En-dash or en-rule (the length of an 'n') is used to link spans. In the context of our journal en-dash should be used to link numerals, sizes, dates and page numbers (e.g., 1977–1981; figs 5–7; pp. 237–258); geographic or name associations (Murray–Darling River; a Federal–State agreement); and character states combinations such as long–pubescent or red–purple. (3) Em-dash or em-rule (the length of an 'm') should be used rarely, only for introducing a subordinate clause in the text that is often used much as we use parentheses. In contrast to parentheses an em-dash can be used alone. En-dashes and em-dashes should not be spaced.

Footnotes: Avoid footnotes in the body text of the manuscript. It is always possible to incorporate the footnote into the main text by rewording the sentences, which greatly facilitates reading. Additionally, footnotes are not always handled well by the journal software, and their usage may cause a failure of submission. Footnotes are acceptable only below tables; instead of numbers, please use (in order): †, ‡, §, |, ¶, #, ††, ‡‡, §§, ||, ¶, ##.

Geographical coordinates: It is strongly recommended to list geographical coordinates as taken from GPS or online gazetteer, or georeferencer. Geographical coordinates must be listed in one of the following formats:

Definition: The locality consists of a point represented by coordinate information in the form of latitude and longitude. Information may be in the form of

  • Degrees, Minutes and Seconds (DMS),
  • Degrees and Decimal Minutes (DDM), or
  • Decimal Degrees (DD).

Records should also contain a hemisphere (E or W and N or S) or, with Decimal Degrees, minus (–) signs to indicate western and/or southern hemispheres.

Examples:

  • Example 1: 36° 31' 21" N; 114° 09' 50" W (DMS)
  • Example 2: 36° 31.46'N; 114° 09.84'W (DDM)
  • Example 3: 36.5243° S; 114.1641° W (DD)
  • Example 4: −36.5243; −114.1641 (DD using minus signs to indicate southern and western hemispheres)

Note on accuracy: Because GPS units are very commonly used today to record latitude/longitude, many authors simply give the GPS readings for their localities. However, these readings are much too accurate. For example, a GPS unit might give the latitude in decimal seconds as 28°16'55.87"N. Since one second of latitude is about 30 m on the ground, the second figure after the decimal in 55.87 represents 30 cm, yet a typical handheld GPS unit is only accurate at best to a few metres.

We therefore recommend two ways to report GPS-based locations. If you give the GPS reading without rounding off, make sure you include an uncertainty figure as a context for the over-accurate GPS reading. We recommend the Darwin Core definition of uncertainty (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#coordinateUncertaintyInMeters):

"The horizontal distance (in meters) from the given decimalLatitude and decimalLongitude describing the smallest circle containing the whole of the Location."

If you only give the GPS reading, please round it off to an implied precision appropriate to the error in the measurement, or to the extent of the area sampled. We suggest rounding off

  • to the nearest second in degree-minute-second format (28°16'56"N), which implies roughly ± 25-30 m at middle latitudes
  • to four decimal places in decimal degree format (28.2822°N), which implies roughly ± 10-15 m at middle latitudes
  • to two decimal places in decimal minute format (28°16.93'N), which implies roughly 15-20 m at middle latitudes

Altitude: Many GPS users simply record the elevation given by their GPS unit. However, GPS elevation is NOT the same as elevation above sea level. GPS units record the elevation above a mathematical model of the earth's surface. The difference between this elevation and elevation above sea level can be tens of metres. In any case, the accuracy of a GPS elevation is often the same as the usual accuracy in horizontal position, so a GPS elevation such as '753 m' is much too accurate and should be rounded off to 'ca 750 m'.

We strongly recommend the use of Example 2 (the DDM format). The other three are also possible but will be recalculated to DDM during the process of online mapping from the HTML version of the paper.

The only restriction on format is in creating a KML (Keyhole Markup Language) file. KML latitudes and longitudes must be in the DD format shown above in Example 4.

Please also consider submitting a table of localities with your manuscript, either as a spreadsheet or in CSV text format. By doing so you will make your specimen localities much more easily available for use in biodiversity databases and geospatial investigations. The geospatial table will be put online as supplementary material for your paper. A minimum table will have three fields: species (or subspecies) name, latitude and longitude. A full table will have the same data for each specimen lot as appears in the text of your paper. Please check latitude/longitude carefully for each entry.

Units: Use the International System of Units (SI) for measurements. Consult Standard Practice for Use of the International System of Units (ASTM Standard E−380−93) for guidance on unit conversions, style, and usage.

Statistics: Use leading zeroes with all numbers, including probability values (e.g., P < 0.001). For every significant F−statistic reported, provide two df values (numerator and denominator). Whenever possible, indicate the year and version of the statistical software used.

Web (HTML) links: Authors are encouraged to include links to other Internet resources in their article. This is especially encouraged in the reference section. When inserting a reference to a web-page, please include the http:// portion of the web address.

Supplementary files: Larger datasets can be uploaded separately as Supplementary Files. Tabular data provided as supplementary files can be uploaded as an Excel spreadsheet (.xls), as an OpenOffice spreadsheets (.ods) or comma separated values file (.csv). As with all uploaded files, please use the standard file extensions.

Headings and subheadings: Main headings: The body text should be subdivided into different sections with appropriate headings. Where possible, the following standard headings should be used: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, Acknowledgements, References. These headings need to be in bold font on a separate line and start with a first capital letter. Please do not number headings or subheadings.

  • Introduction − The motivation or purpose of your research should appear in the Introduction, where you state the questions you sought to answer, and then provide some of the historical basis for those questions.
  • Methods − Provide sufficient information to allow someone to repeat your work. A clear description of your experimental design, sampling procedures, and statistical procedures is especially important in papers describing field studies, simulations, or experiments. If you list a product (e.g., animal food, analytical device), supply the name and location of the manufacturer. Give the model number for equipment used. Supply complete citations, including author (or editor), title, year, publisher, and version number, for computer software mentioned in your article.
  • Results − Results should be stated concisely and without interpretation.
  • Discussion – A discussion is compulsory for all types of papers published by Alpine Entomology (excepted for Corrigenda, In Memoriam, editorials, letters to the editor and book reviews). If the geographical focus of the paper is not located in the Alps or in mountainous regions, a connection to an Alpine or a mountainous region has to be established in the discussion (see for more details: http://www.mountainbiodiversity.org/overview).

Focus on the rigorously supported aspects of your study. Carefully differentiate the results of your study from data obtained from other sources. Interpret your results, relate them to the results of previous research, and discuss the implications of your results or interpretations. Point out results that do not support speculations or the findings of previous research, or that are counter-intuitive. You may choose to include a Speculation subsection in which you pursue new ideas suggested by your research, compare and contrast your research with findings from other systems or other disciplines, pose new questions that are suggested by the results of your study, and suggest ways of answering these new questions.

  • Conclusion −This should state clearly the main conclusions of the research and give a clear explanation of their importance and relevance. Summary illustrations may be included.
  • References − The list of References should be included after the final section of the main article body. A blank line should be inserted between single-spaced entries in the list. Authors are requested to include links to online sources of articles, whenever possible! 

Where possible, the standard headings should be used in the order given above. Additional headings and modifications are permissible.

Subordinate headings: Subordinate headings (e.g. Field study and Simulation model or Counts, Measurements and Molecular analysis), should be left-justified, italicized, and in a regular sentence case. All subordinate headings should be on a separate line.


English Language Editing

This journal has well-defined policies for English language editing. Involving mandatory outsourced language editing services would considerably increase the price of the Article Processing Charges, which would become an additional obstacle for persons and institutions to publish in the journal. Therefore we rely both on the conscience of our authors to provide stylistically written texts and our editors and reviewers to filter out badly written manuscripts.

Authors are required to have their manuscripts edited by a native English speaker BEFORE submission. Authors have to confirm by checking a tick box in the submission process that they have followed the above requirement:

The text is checked by a native English speaker, duly acknowledged in the manuscript. I am aware that non-edited manuscripts could be rejected prior to peer-review.

The submission process includes an option to request a professional linguistic and copy editing at a price of EURO 15 per 1800 characters:

The text has not been checked by a native speaker and I request thorough editing prior to peer review at a price. I agree to cover the costs even if my manuscript is not accepted for publication.

The authors are NOT obliged to use our linguistic services, but they must ensure that their manuscripts have been checked by a native speaker.


Citations and References

Citations within the text: Before submitting the manuscript, please check each citation in the text against the References and vice-versa to ensure that they match exactly. Citations in the text should be formatted as follows: Smith (1990) or (Smith 1990), Smith et al. (1998) or (Smith et al. 1998) and (Smith et al. 1998, 2000, Brock and Gunderson 2001, Felt 2006).

References: It is important to format the references properly, because all references will be linked electronically as completely as possible to the papers cited. It is desirable to add a DOI (digital object identifier) number for either the full-text or title and abstract of the article as an addition to traditional volume and page numbers. If a DOI is lacking, it is recommended to add a link to any online source of an article. Please use the following style for the reference list (or download the Pensoft EndNote style): here

Published Papers:
Polaszek A, Alonso-Zarazaga M, Bouchet P, Brothers DJ, Evenhuis NL, Krell FT, Lyal CHC, Minelli A, Pyle RL, Robinson N, Thompson FC, van Tol J (2005) ZooBank: the open-access register for zoological taxonomy: Technical Discussion Paper. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62: 210-220.

Accepted Papers:
Same as above, but ''in press'' appears instead the year in parentheses.

Electronic Journal Articles:
Mallet J, Willmott K (2002) Taxonomy: renaissance or Tower of Babel? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18 (2): 57-59. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5347(02)00061-7 .

Paper within conference proceedings:
Orr AG (2006) Odonata in Bornean tropical rain forest formations: Diversity, endemicity and applications for conservation management. In: Cordero Rivera A (Ed) Forest and Dragonflies. Fourth WDA International Symposium of Odonatology, Pontevedra (Spain), July 2005. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia-Moscow, 51-78.

Book chapters:
Mayr E (2000) The biological species concept. In: Wheeler QD, Meier R (Eds) Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: A Debate. Columbia University Press, New York, 17-29.

Books:
Goix N, Klimaszewski J (2007) Catalogue of Aleocharine Rove Beetles of Canada and Alaska. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia-Moscow, 166 pp.

Book with institutional author:
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1999) International code of zoological nomenclature. Fourth Edition. London: The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.

PhD thesis:
Dalebout ML (2002) Species identity, genetic diversity and molecular systematic relationships among the Ziphiidae (beaked whales). PhD thesis, Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland.

Link/URL:
BBC News: Island leopard deemed new species http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Citations of Public Resource Databases: It is highly recommended all appropriate datasets, images, and information to be deposited in public resources. Please provide the relevant accession numbers (and version numbers, if appropriate). Accession numbers should be provided in parentheses after the entity on first use. Examples of such databases include, but are not limited to:

Providing accession numbers to data records stored in global data aggregators allows us to link your article to established databases, thus integrating it with a broader collection of scientific information. Please hyperlink all accession numbers through the text or list them directly after the References in the online submission manuscript.

All journal titles should be spelled out completely and should NOT be italicized.

Provide the publisher's name and location when you cite symposia or conference proceedings; distinguish between the conference date and the publication date if both are given. Do not list abstracts or unpublished material in the References. They should be quoted in the text as personal observations, personal communications, or unpublished data, specifying the exact source, with date if possible. When possible, include URLs for articles available online through library subscription or individual journal subscription, or through large international archives, indexes and aggregators, e.g., PubMedCentral, Scopus, CAB Abstracts, etc. URLs for pdf articles that are posted on personal websites only should be avoided.

Authors are encouraged to cite in the References list the publications of the original descriptions of the taxa treated in their manuscript.


Illustrations, Figures and Tables

Figures and illustrations are accepted in the following image file formats:

  • EPS (preferred format for diagrams)
  • TIFF (at least 300dpi resolution, with LZW compression)
  • PNG (preferred format for photos or images)
  • JPEG (preferred format for photos or images)
  • GIF
  • BMP
  • SVG

Should you have any problems in providing the figures in one of the above formats, or in reducing the file below 20 MB, please contact the Editorial Office at journals@pensoft.net

The size of the figures should largely correspond to the printed format (single-column 81 × 247 mm; two-column 165 × 247 mm).

Figure legends: All figures should be referenced consecutively in the manuscript; legends should be listed consecutively immediately after the References. For each figure, the following information should be provided: Figure number (in sequence, using Arabic numerals − i.e. Figure 1, 2, 3 etc.); short title of figure (maximum 15 words); detailed legend, up to 300 words.

Illustrations of measurable morphological traits should bear mute scale bars, whose real size is to be given in the figure captions.

Please note that it is the responsibility of the author(s) to obtain permission from the copyright holder to reproduce figures or tables that have previously been published elsewhere.

On the use of Google Maps

Please do NOT use maps produced by Google Earth and Google Maps in your publications, as these are subject of copyright! Here is an excerpt from Google Maps/Earth Additional Terms of Service:
Restrictions on Use. Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google (or, as applicable, from the provider of particular Content), you must not: (a) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof; (b) redistribute, sublicense, rent, publish, sell, assign, lease, market, transfer, or otherwise make the Products or Content available to third parties; (c) reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Service or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by applicable law; (d) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery, and visible map data; (e) delete, obscure, or in any manner alter any warning or link that appears in the Products or the Content; or (f) use the Service or Content with any products, systems, or applications for or in connection with (i) real time navigation or route guidance, including but not limited to turn-by-turn route guidance that is synchronized to the position of a user's sensor-enabled device; or (ii) any systems or functions for automatic or autonomous control of vehicle behavior; (g) use the Products to create a database of places or other local listings information.

On the use of open source Maps

We recommend the use of open source maps for publication in Alpine Entomology (e.g. www.openstreetmap.org).

Tables: Each table should be numbered in sequence using Arabic numerals (i.e. Table 1, 2, 3 etc.). Tables should also have a title that summarizes the whole table, maximum 15 words. Detailed legends may then follow, but should be concise.

Small tables can be embedded in portrait format within the text and their size should largely correspond to the printed format (single-column 81 × 247 mm; two-column 165 × 247 mm). Tables exceeding these dimension must be reformatted onto a portrait page or submitted as additional files. These will be typeset and displayed in the final published form of the article. Such tables should be formatted using the 'Table object' in a word processing program to ensure that columns of data are kept aligned when the file is sent electronically for review. Do not use tabs to format tables or separate text. All columns and rows should be visible, please make sure that borders of each cell display as black lines. Colour and shading should not be used; neither should commas be used to indicate decimal values. Please use a full stop to denote decimal values (i.e., 0.007 cm, 0.7 mm).

Larger datasets can be uploaded separately as Supplementary Files. Tabular data provided as supplementary files can be uploaded as an Excel spreadsheet (.xls), as an OpenOffice spreadsheets (.ods) or comma separated values file (.csv). As with all uploaded files, please use the standard file extensions.


Taxonomic Treatments

General guidelines

By publishing in this journal you are already creating a modern taxonomic product that is more accessible than previous print only works. The following guidelines are provided to ensure that other elements of the work follow modern standards and enable the full advantage of the ARPHA platform.

  • Include unique specimen identifiers for type material. Unique identifiers are for example museum collections specimen IDs. Unique identifiers can be provided also by international taxon-based databases that do not indicate ownership, such as AntWeb.org for ants, for example.
  • Holotype should not deposited in private collections.
  • Include images of type material or representative species. Imaging is not a technical problem anymore and is provided by many institutional collections or international taxon-based services (again, AntWeb.org is a good example as they will provide free imaging of ant type material if necessary).
  • Specimen data of material examined provided as auxiliary file as a .txt or .cvs file or table at end of document, based on the Darwin Core standard. Specimen file should include unique specimen identifiers when possible.
  • Include latitude, longitude, elevation, habitat, microhabitat information of primary type material. For format of geographical coordinates see section "Main text" above.
  • Provide dichotomous key of taxa or related taxa (i.e. species group) or links to online-based keys.
  • Single species descriptions should be clearly justified with regard as to why a more detailed larger scale, comparative revision was not conducted. For descriptions of single species see also section "Focus and Scope".

Sequence data

Manuscripts containing novel amino acid sequences (e.g. primer sequences) will only be accepted if they carry an International Nucleotide Sequence Databases (INSD) accession number from the European Biology Laboratory (EMBL), GenBank Data Libraries (GenBank) or DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ). We strongly recommend that authors include institutional catalog numbers for specimens preserved in collections, and information identifying sequences that are derived from type specimens (see below) when they deposit data in genetic databanks. A summary table with the INSD accession [catalog] numbers should be included in either Materials and Methods or Data Resources section of the paper. If specimens were not vouchered (tissued specimens should be vouchered whenever possible!), collection locality data and possibly photographs of tissued specimens must be provided. A nomenclature for genetic sequences for types and confidently identified nontype specimens has been proposed by Chakrabarty et al. (2013); a sequence from a holotype is identified as genseq-1, one from a paratype is identified as genseq-2, one from a topotype is genseq-3, etc. The genetic marker(s) used should also be incorporated into the nomenclature (e.g. genseq-2 COI).

Examples

Table 1. Ranking Sequence Reliability. Ranking of source materials of genetic sequences based on reliability of taxonomic identification. Examples of the source material are listed in the third column with the last column providing the corresponding GenSeq nomenclature (after Chakrabarty et al. (2013)).

Reliability Ranking

Source Materials

Examples

Corresponding GenSeq Nomenclature

Highest
1st

Name-bearing Types

Holotype, Lectotype, Syntype, Isosyntype, Neotype, Isotype

genseq-1

2nd

Other specimens of type series

Paratype, Paralectotypes, etc.

genseq-2

3rd

Topotypes (vouchered), or non-type specimens listed in original description or redescription

Topotype, Non-type specimen listed in original description or redescription

genseq-3

4th

Collections-vouchered non-types (not from original description or redescription)

Vouchered specimen

genseq-4

5th

Photo voucher only

No specimen voucher but photo voucher available

genseq-5

Lowest

No voucher

Non-vouchered

No classification

 

Table 2. Example Reporting Table. Examples of how links between genetic sequences and vouchers in institutional collections could be displayed as a table in publications reporting new sequences.

Species

Specimen Catalog #

GenBank #

GenSeq Nomenclature

COI

ND1

Typhleotris mararybe

LSUMZ 13636 (holotype)

HM590594

HM590606

genseq-1 COI, ND1

Paretroplus tsimoly

AMNH 229558 (paratype)

JZ590596

NA

genseq-2 COI

Nandopsis haitiensis

UMMZ 236321 (topotype)

BK590595

BK590607

genseq-3 COI, ND1

Halieutichthys intermedius

FMNH 96353 (non-type specimen voucher)

AY722169

AY722306

genseq-4 COI, ND1

Equulites absconditus

NMNH 12345PV2 (photo voucher)

NA

BG34621

genseq-5 ND1

 

International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

This journal will publish papers that strictly adhere to the rules of the last edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and its amendment. Authors are also advised to follow all recommendations of the Code and to consult the guidelines below, as well as ICZN's manual Best practice in the use of the scientific names of animals prior to submitting the manuscript.

General: Each first mentioning of an animal species name within the text must be provided with author(s)' name(s). Year of publication of an animal species should be given in taxonomic revisions with quotation of the work providing the original species’ description in the list of references.

New names: When new taxonomic acts are proposed, they should be explicitly indicated as being new by adding the respective abbreviation after the taxon name i.e., sp. n., comb. n., nomen n. Authors of newly described taxa should be given any time the taxon is mentioned, if different from the publication authors.

Examples:

  • Genus X-us Smith, new genus (author(s) of the publication and authority (-ies) of the taxon is/are identical);
  • X-us albus Jones & Peters, new species (the publication is authored by persons different in composition or combination from the authority (-ies) of the taxon itself, e.g. Smith, Jones & Peters or Peters & Jones).

We highly recommend that authors of new species are also included as co-authors of the work where the taxa are described. If the authors of the work do not want to include the authors of the taxonomic name then to be absolutely certain that the authority for the name is unequivocal there should be a statement in the work saying that these authors (of the name) are responsible for making the name available under the code (Article 50.1.2, etc.) i.e. they are responsible for coining the name and for satisfying all other criteria for availability.

New family-group names: Although all family group names are derived/based on their type genus, the type genus is to be compulsorily designated in any description of a family-group name published after 31st December 1999 (Article 16.2). It is not sufficient that the type genus is mentioned as belonging to the new family-group name; it must be stated that this is the type genus. We recommend a single type line as: Type-genus: Musca Linnaeus, 1758.

New genus-group names: The origin ("etymology", or "derivatio nominum") of name and its gender should be indicated. The type-species and the character of the proposed taxonomic act should be specified for new genus-group names. The type species name should be given in its original combination with an author and year. If the type species is now considered a junior synonym there need to be a clear mention of that. The fixation type should derive from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (see Articles 68 & 69; original designation, monotypy, absolute tautonymy, Linnaean tautonymy, subsequent monotypy, subsequent designation).

Example:

  • Sympycnus Loew

Type-species: Porphyrops annulipes Meigen, 1824 by subsequent designation of Coquillett (1910: 610) =pulicarius Fallen, 1823.

New species-group names: According to the ICZN Art. 11.9, but also Art. 11.3 the origin "etymology", or "derivatio nominum") new species-group names should be supplemented by information on whether the epithet is an 1) adjective or participle in the nominative singular; 2) noun in the nominative singular; 3) a noun in the genitive case; 4) an adjective used a substative in the genitive case; or 5) an arbitrary combination of letters (ICZN Art. 11.3). For species-group names, there are two separate statements of type information that are needed:

  • the statement of species’ type locality – that is the exact place whence the primary type origins, including exact collecting dataplace with geographical coordinates, geographical or political unit (Area/ District/ State) and country;also, if possible, supplementary locality information should be included – habitat type, method of collecting, date, collector’s names, host name (for parasites), etc.
  • there should be a separate statement about the type specimen, exact quotation of its original label, condition of specimen (dry pinned, in alcohol, slide, fossil, etc.) and repository (organization’s name and city).

Examples:

For a new species:

  • Type-locality: USA, Viriginia: Fairfax County, Kingstowne, 38°46'N, 77°07'W, broad-leaf forest, under bark, 10 July 2000, J. Smith leg.
  • Type-specimen: Holotype male, pinned, with genitalia in a separate microvial. Original label: "USA, VA, Fairfax, Kingstowne, 38°46'N, 77°07'W, 12 Oct 2003, BJ & FC Thompson" "USNM ENT 00033805" [Code 49 barcode], "HOLOTYPE / Xylota / x-us / Thompson [red handwritten label].

For a previously described species:

Lectotype male, pinned … [details] here designated to fix the concept of X-us albus Jones and to ensure the universal and consistent interpretation of the same. Or … [details then] by designation of Smith (1976: 999).

Previously published names: For a previously published name, please provide the year of description. Also use the parentheses convention for subsequent new combinations.

[Etymology]

Authors of new species name should state exactly what the epithet is in terms of the ICZN, as outlined in Article 11.9.1.1 to 11.9.1.4 as well as 11.3. A name may be a word in or derived from Latin, Greek or any other language (even one with no alphabet), or be formed from such a word. In short, a name can be declared as arbitrary combination (the best solution) or must be or be treated as:

I) a word of two or more letters, or a compound word, and, if a Latin or latinized word must be, or be treated as:

  1. an adjective or participle in the nominative singular (as in Echinus esculentus, Felis marmorata, Seioptera vibrans), or
  2. a noun in the nominative singular standing in apposition to the generic name (as in Struthio camelus, Cercopithecus diana), or
  3. a noun in the genitive case (e.g. rosae, sturionis, thermopylarum, galliae, sanctipauli, sanctaehelenae, cuvieri, merianae, smithorum), or
  4. an adjective used as a substantive in the genitive case and derived from the specific name of an organism with which the animal in question is associated (as in Lernaeocera lusci, a copepod parasitic on Trisopterus luscus).

II) An adjectival species-group name proposed in Latin text but written otherwise than in the nominative singular because of the requirements of Latin grammar is available provided that it meets the other requirements of availability, but it is to be corrected to the nominative singular if necessary.

Arranging sections within species treatments (sections in square brackets are requested for new descriptions only!):

[Name]
[Material]
    - [Type material]
    - Other material
[Diagnosis]
[Description]
[Etymology]
Distribution
Ecology (including phenology)
Conservation status (optional, we encourage authors to follow the IUCN categories and criteria, please see http://www.iucnredlist.org/static/categories_criteria_3_1#critical)
Discussion (compulsory)


Supplementary Files

Online publishing allows an author to provide data sets, tables, video files, or other information as supplementary information, greatly increasing the impact of the submission. Uploading of such files is possible in Step 4 of the submission process.

The maximum file size for each Supplementary File is 20 MB.

The Supplementary Files will not be displayed in the printed version of the article, but will exist as linkable supplementary downloadable files in the online version.

While submitting a supplementary file the following information should be completed:

  • File format (including name and a URL of an appropriate viewer if format is unusual)
  • Title of data
  • Description of data

All supplementary files should be referenced explicitly by file name within the body of the article, e.g. 'See supplementary file 1: Movie 1" for the original data used to perform this analysis.

Ideally, the supplementary files should not be platform-specific, and should be viewable using free or widely available tools. Suitable file formats are:

For supplementary documentation:

  • PDF (Adobe Acrobat)

For animations:

  • SWF (Shockwave Flash)

For movies:

  • MOV (QuickTime)
  • MPG (MPEG)

For datasets:

  • XLS (Excel spreadsheet)
  • CSV (Comma separated values)
  • ODS (OpenOffice spreadsheets)
As for images, file names should be given in the standard file extensions. This is especially important for Macintosh users, since the Mac OS does not enforce the use of standard file extensions. Please also make sure that each additional file is a single table, figure or movie (please do not upload linked worksheets or PDF files larger than one sheet).

Revising your article

Authors must submit the revised version of the manuscript using Track Changes/Comments tools of Word so that the Subject Editor can see the corrections and additions.

Authors must address all critiques of the referees in a response letter to the editor and submit it along with the revised manuscript through the online editorial system. In case a response letter is not submitted by the authors, the editor has the right to reject the manuscript without further evaluation.


Submission Guidelines


Submission Procedure

Already have a Username/Password ?

Go to Login

Need a Username/Password?

Go to Registration

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

Submission of manuscripts to this journal is possible only through the online submission module. We kindly request authors to consult the Focus and Scope section prior to submission. In order to submit a manuscript to the journal, authors are required to register with the journal and/or to login. Once logged in, you will find the online submission system either by clicking the "Submit a manuscript" button.

The manuscript submission process is separated into the following steps:

  • Step 1: Specifying the manuscript type and completing the submission checklist

  • Step 2: Typing in the author(s) names, contact information, title, abstract, keywords, and other metadata

  • Step 3: Uploading the submission file (see below for details on how to prepare it)

  • Step 4: Uploading additional and supplementary files (see below for details) and associated metadata

  • Step 5: Final verification of the submitted files and confirmation


Organizing Your Submission

Before starting your submission please make sure that your manuscript is formatted in accordance to the Authors Guidelines.

Please note that the maximum file size that may be uploaded through our online submission system is 20 MB.

Manuscripts submitted to this journal must be divided into separate files (no larger than 20 MB each) to allow their processing by our software. Before attempting an online submission, please consider preparing the following file types:

1. Submission file

Review the version of the manuscript in PDF format with all figures embedded. The total file size must be no larger than 20 MB.

2. Additional files

Original text file and high-resolution figures must be submitted during the same submission process as the additional files (Step 4) in one of the accepted file formats (see below). These may be compressed in order to reduce bandwidth during upload:

  • Text of the manuscript (DOC, DOCX, RTF, OpenDocument Format, ODF) with tables embedded in the text)

  • Figures (each figure as an individual file in one of the following image file formats: EPS, TIFF, JPEG, PNG, GIF, BMP, not larger than 20 MB each)

  • Equations (each equation as an individual file in one of the above mentioned image file formats)

3. Supplementary files (appendices)

Large datasets or multimedia files, usually published as appendices in conventional print journals, should be uploaded as supplementary files complete with the associated metadata on the online submission form. Supplementary files should have their own legends.

Most file formats are accepted. Text-only appendices must be in DOC, DOCX, RTF, or ODF formats.

Should you have any technical problems in submitting a manuscript to this journal, please contact the Editorial Office at journals@pensoft.net

We encourage authors to send an inquiry to the respective Subject Editor prior to submitting a manuscript. The purpose of the presubmission inquiry is to solicit rapid initial feedback on the suitability of the manuscript for publication in this journal. Pre-submission enquiries may also be sent to the Editorial Office at journals@pensoft.net


Article Processing Charges

Page charges vary depending on the following conditions:

Accepted manuscripts are subject to Article Processing Charges (APC). 

The fee is waived for members of the Swiss Entomological Society (SES) in the following conditions: 

  • The member of the SES is either first or corresponding author of the submission. 
  • The annual membership fee for the given year (CHF 60) has been paid.
  • The volume of the manuscript does not exceed 10 pages. CHF 20 will be charged for each additional page.

To become a member of the Swiss Entomological Society go to: https://naturalsciences.ch/organisations/seg/portrait/membership
or contact us at: emanuela.leonetti@unine.ch

If neither the first nor the corresponding author are members of the Swiss Entomological Society, APC are as follows:

1–16 pagesCHF 400
17–24 pagesCHF 600
25–32 pagesCHF 800
33–40 pagesCHF 1000

Longer articles are possible upon agreement with the Editor-in-Chief.

All charges must be paid to SES prior to publication.


Guidelines for Editors


How to Access a Manuscript

Manuscripts can be accessed only after login:

  1. Login is possible after registration. Our Editorial Office will register and provide login details to all first-time editors and reviewers. Reviewers receive an email with their login details usually prior to the first invitation to review a paper.

    Note: All users use their registration details to login in all three (Book, E-Book and the respective Journal) platforms of www.pensoft.net.

  2. The login credentials consist of:
    a.  Username: <your email address>
    b.  Password: <text string>
    Note: Please remember that you may have registered with two or more different email addresses, that is why you may have more than one valid account at www.pensoft.net. We advise using only one email address, hence one password associated to it, for all yours operations at www.pensoft.net

  3. Login details will be provided in an email after the first registration. Thereafter, the user may at any time change the password and correct personal details using their Pensoft account menu (clicking on his/her name in the upper right corner of the screen).

  4. In case you have forgotten your password, please write to request it from journals@pensoft.net. Alternatively, you may use the function: 
    Forgot your password?.

There are two ways to access a manuscript:

  1. After login, please go to the respective journal’s web page and click on the red-coloured My Tasks button in the upper right corner of the screen. This way, you will be able to see all manuscripts you are responsible for as author or reviewer or editor.

    Note: The manuscripts are grouped in several categories, e.g., In Review (no.), In layout (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.) etc. The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts that were assigned to you.

  2. Click on the active manuscript link provided in the email notification you have received from the online editorial system. The link will lead you direct to the respective manuscript.


General Responsibilities of Editors

The Subject, or Associate, editors in Pensoft’s journals carry the main responsibility for the scientific quality of the published papers. They take the final decision on a manuscript’s acceptance or rejection and their names are listed as Academic Editor in the header of each article.

The editorial process is facilitated through an online editorial system and a set of email notifications. The online editorial system informs the Subject Editor about any change in the status of a manuscript and associated peer review and editorial process, from submission to publication.

The online editorial system is constructed in a way to save time for Subject Editors to check the status of manuscripts. There is no need for editors to visit the journal’s website to keep track on the manuscript they are responsible for. The online system will inform the Subject Editor if a requested reviewer has accepted to do a review or has declined. The email notifications contain stepwise instructions what action is needed at each stage, as well as a link to the respective manuscript (accessible only after login – see How to Access a Manuscript).

The Subject Editors 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. It is the author’s responsibility to submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English. The Subject Editor should not hesitate to recommend either Reject, or Reject, but resubmission encouraged PRIOR to review process, in cases when a manuscript is scientifically poor and/or does not conform to journal’s style, and/or is written in poor English (see Note under point 1 below how to reject a manuscript prior to review). 

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


Stepwise Description of the Editorial Process

  1. Once a manuscript is submitted, the Editor-in-Chief or the Managing Editor assigns it to the Subject Editor responsible for the respective topic (e.g., science branch or taxon). The Subject Editor receives a notification email on the assignment.
    Note: The link to the respective manuscript is available in the review request email and all consequent reminder emails. The manuscript is accessible after login. Please see How to Access a Manuscript above in case you meet any difficulties.

  2. The Subject Editor has to read the manuscript and decide whether it is potentially suitable for publication and can be processed for review or rejected immediately. Reasons for rejection can be a low scientific quality, non-conformance to the journal’s style/policies, and/or linguistically or grammatically poor English language.
    Note: There are two ways to reject a manuscript prior to review process:
    -  Through an email to the Editorial office explaining the reason for rejection. The manuscript will be then rejected through the online editorial system and the respective notification email will be sent from the Editorial Office.
    -  Through the buttons Reject or Reject, but resubmission encouraged in the Editorial tab. Please note, however, that the buttons will be made active only after any justification for the rejection is provided in the textual field. 

    In case the manuscript is acceptable for peer review, the Subject Editor could invite reviewers by clicking on the Invite reviewers link. A list of reviewers will appear from which the editor can choose the appropriate ones or add new. 

  3. Once reviewers are chosen editor need to click the Invite reviewers green button at the end of the page which will generate emails templates with review invitations. It is highly recommended that the Subject Editor adds some personal words above the standard email text to invite the potential referee to review the manuscript.

  4. In case a reviewer is absent from our user's data base, the editor can add his/her name and email through the Add new reviewer link, which will appear once the search field reveal no results. It is possible that the needed reviewer has already been registered in the Pensoft database either as customer or author/reviewer of another journal. If this is the case, then his/her name, affiliation and other metadata will automatically appear once the e-mail field is populated in the Create user online form.

  5. The Subject Editor receives a notification email if the reviewer has agreed to review a manuscript or declined to do that. The editor takes care to appoint additional reviewers in case some of the invited reviewers have declined.

  6. Once all reviewers submit their reviews, the Subject Editor receives an email notification, inviting him/her to consider reviewer’s opinions, read through the manuscript and take a decision through the Proceed button.
    Note: Editorial comments can be added in the online editorial form; comments and corrections are expected to be added also in the manuscript file (either on the PDF version or in the text file), that should be uploaded during finalization of the editorial decision process. 

  7. At this stage, the editor should take a decision either to (1) accept the manuscript, or (2) reject it, or (3) open a second review round. In case the manuscript is not rejected, but recommended for Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Acceptance, the author is expected to submit a revised version within a certain period of time and the Subject Editor will be notified about that.
    Note 1: Authors must submit revised versions in a text file using Track Changes/Comments tools of Word so that the Subject Editor can see their corrections/additions. Authors are expected to reply to the essential critiques and comments of reviewers separately through the online editorial system.
    Note 2: During the second review round, the Subject Editor may decide to ask reviewers to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript. He/she may also make a decision based on the author’s responses and the revised version of the manuscript without asking reviewers' support.

  8. After acceptance, the manuscript goes to layout and proofreading. The Subject Editor will be notified by email when the final proof is uploaded on the journal’s website. The Subject Editor is expected to look at the proofs and notify the Editorial Office through email in case the proofs need improvement.

  9. The Subject Editor may always access information on the manuscripts which have been edited by him/her through the menu My Tasks –> Subject Editor on the journal’s web page – In Review (no.), In Edit (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.). The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts that were assigned.


Guidelines for Reviewers

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

How to Access a Manuscript

Manuscripts can be accessed only after login:

  1. Login is possible after registration. Our Editorial Office will register and provide login details to all first-time editors and reviewers. Reviewers receive an email with their login details usually prior to the first invitation to review a paper.

    Note: All users use their registration details to login in all three (Book, E-Book and the respective Journal) platforms of www.pensoft.net.

  2. The login credentials consist of:
    a.  Username: <your email address>
    b.  Password: <text string>
    Note: Please remember that you may have registered with two or more different email addresses, that is why you may have more than one valid account at www.pensoft.net. We advise using only one email address, hence one password associated to it, for all yours operations at www.pensoft.net

  3. Login details will be provided in an email after the first registration. Thereafter, the user may at any time change the password and correct personal details using their Pensoft account menu (clicking on his/her name in the upper right corner of the screen).

  4. In case you have forgotten your password, please write to request it from journals@pensoft.net. Alternatively, you may use the function: 
    Forgot your password?.

There are two ways to access a manuscript:

  1. After login, please go to the respective journal’s web page and click on the red-coloured My Tasks button in the upper right corner of the screen. This way, you will be able to see all manuscripts you are responsible for as author or reviewer or editor.

    Note: The manuscripts are grouped in several categories, e.g., In Review (no.), In layout (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.) etc. The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts that were assigned to you.

  2. Click on the active manuscript link provided in the email notification you have received from the online editorial system. The link will lead you direct to the respective manuscript.


General Responsibilities of Reviewers

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).

The 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 editor about this 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 interests.

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, in some cases, 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.

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?


Stepwise Description of the Peer Review Process

  1. The Reviewer receives a review request generated by the Subject Editor or the Editorial Office and is expected to either agree to provide a review or decline, through pressing the Will do the review or Unable to do the review link in the online editorial system. In case the Reviewer agrees to review the manuscript, he/she should submit the review within a certain time frame, which may vary in the different Pensoft journals.
    Note: The link to the respective manuscript is available in the review request email and all consequent reminder emails. The manuscript is accessible after login. Please look at the section How to Access a Manuscript above in case you meet any difficulties.

  2. The review should be submitted through the Proceed button. The review may consists of (1) a simple online questionnaire to be answered by ticking either Yes, No, or N/A; (2) comments addressed to the Author and the Editor; (3) associated files (corrected/commented manuscript file, review submitted in a separate text file, etc.).
    Note 1: Reviewers can insert corrections and comments in the manuscript review version (PDF) and/or in the manuscript text file (usually Microsoft WORD, rarely Open Office file). When working in the PDF, please use either the Text Edits or the Sticky Notes tools (available through the menu Tools -> Comments & Markup of the Acrobat Reader). When editing in Microsoft WORD please use the Track Changes / Comments tools.
    Note 2: Associated files should be submitted at the end of the review process by clicking on the Browse button, then selecting the respective file on your computer, and then by pressing the Upload button. A reviewer may upload as many files to support his/her review as needed.

  3. The Reviewer may decide to stay anonymous or open his/her identity by ticking the Disclose my name to author(s) box at the bottom of the reviewer’s form. Please be aware that your identity might be revealed in the comments or in Track Changes corrections of the Microsoft WORD or PDF file you correct. Therefore, please make sure that you delete your name and initials in the options section of your word processor or PDF writer if you want to remain anonymous.

  4. The review process is completed by selecting a recommendation from the set of 5 options: (1) Reject; (2) Reject, but resubmission encouraged; (3) Major Revision; (4) Minor Revision; (5) Accept. The system will ask for one more confirmation of the selected recommendation before submission. The submitted review cannot be changed after submission.
    Note 1: Reasons for rejection can be a low scientific quality, non-conformance to the journal’s style/policies, and/or grammatically poor English language.
    Note 2: It is also possible for review and associated files (e.g., a corrected manuscript file) to be sent as attached files to the email of the Editorial Office (see the comments on privacy above).

  5. Once a Reviewer submits a review of a manuscript, he/she receives a confirmation email from the journal.

  6. The submission of the review is also automatically reported to Publons. Reviewers are asked for confirmation whether they want their reviews to be recorded on Publons.

  7. When all Reviewers have submitted their reviews, the Subject Editor makes a decision to either accept, reject or request further minor/major revision.

  8. In all cases, the manuscript is sent back to the author for comments and further revision. The author needs to submit a revised version in due time.

  9. Reviewers are notified via email when the revised version of a manuscript they have reviewed is submitted by the author. They receive a link to the revised version along with the editorial decision and all reviews of the manuscript. Reviewers are also provided with a feedback form should they have any comments on the revised version. 

  10. When an article is published, all Reviewers who have provided a review for this manuscript receive an email notification. In the email, there is a link to download the published paper.

  11. The Reviewer may always access information on the manuscripts that are being / have been reviewed by him/her through the menu My Tasks –> Reviewer on the journal’s web page – In Review (no.), In Edit (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.). The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts that have been assigned to you.


Writing a Press Release

Pensoft’s experienced PR team puts a lot of effort in the wide dissemination of the works we publish through press releases, news aggregators, blogs, social network communication and the mass media.

It goes without saying that press releases and news stories can have a major effect on the impact and popularity of research findings. Moreover, they are of benefit to all parties involved: the authors, their institutions, funding agencies, publishers and the society in general. Thanks to a well-established dissemination network, Pensoft press releases regularly provide the basis for print, online, radio and TV news stories in reputed international media outlets, including National Geographic, BBC, Sky News, CNN, New York Times, The Guardian, Deutsche Welle, Der Standard, DR, etc.

Here are some examples of Pensoft's press releases, posted on EurekAlert, which have enjoyed high popularity and thousands of views within the first days following their publication:

Our PR team invites you to prepare (or request) a short press release on your accepted paper whenever you find your research of public interest. We have provided a template and instructions to guide you through the specific text format.

While the press release needs to be in English, in case you find it suitable for the promotion of your study, you are welcome to also submit a translation of the press release in the following languages: French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese and Chinese. Please note that all translations need to be based on the final English version of the press release as approved by our press officers.

We are always happy to promote your research by preparing a press release for you and coordinating our dedicated PR campaigns with the PR offices of our partnering institutions. You are welcome to approach us with your press release drafts or any queries regarding our PR campaign via email at either pressoffice@pensoft.net, or dissemination@pensoft.net.

To keep up with the latest news, subscribe to our blog and follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Google+. Also, keep an eye on EurekAlert! AAAS for our top breaking stories!

For the Tailored PR Campaign’s rates, please see Article Charges (Additional Services).


Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

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 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)). 
For more details on Pensoft’s open access and copyright policy see the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement page.

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. 

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 Biodiversity Data Journal, where authors must make available all research materials and data associated with a manuscript upon its submission.

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. 

  • 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 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.

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.

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?

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

  • 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 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 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.

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 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 it is satisfactory and the issue is the result of a either mistake or misunderstanding, the matter can be easily 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 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.