Publication ethics are based on Elsevier recommendations and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Responsibility of authors
All authors must include disclosure of all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest. The editorial board will take appropriate measures to avoid conflicts of interest on an individual conflict basis.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the study. Other contributors may be listed in the acknowledgments.
Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. When the work and/or words of others is used, it should be appropriately cited or quoted.
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data.
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
The authors accept the conditions of publication by signing the “Permission for Publishing” where they certify that:
- authors will transfer the copyright to the journal;
- the work has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis);
- the work is not under consideration for publication elsewhere;
- the work is approved by all co-authors;
- the work is approved by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out; and
- the work, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form or in another language without the prior written consent of the copyright holder.
Responsibility, non-discrimination and confidentiality of the editor and editorial board
The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding whether the manuscript should be published. These decisions are based on the opinion of field editors, including the editorial review, technical review and anonymous double-blind peer reviews.
The editor-in-chief and other members of the editorial board evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit or their intellectual content without regard to any physical, social or mental characteristics of the author.
The editor-in-chief and any editorial member and staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, editorial reviewers, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
The editor and any editorial staff must not make use of unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript without the express written consent of the author.
Responsibility of reviewers
The essence of reviews is crucial in the process of ensuring the quality of published scientific articles and respect for publishing ethics that presents the same opportunities for all authors.
All papers in Acta Silvae et Ligni rely on a double blind peer review processes by at least two reviewers. In the reviewing process the editor ensures the removal of the author’s identification data (name, affiliation), which is forwarded to the reviewers. For each received article, the reviewer prepares and returns to the editorial office the completed “Review Form” within the agreed deadline. The reviewers are also encouraged to make direct corrections in the document, which makes it easier for the authors to improve the article. The editorial board, together with the Review Form, decides on the appropriateness of the contribution for publication.
We direct our reviewers on identifying
- the appropriateness of the experimental design or the relevance of the content;
- scientific or professional relevance and compliance with the contents of the journal and with;
- with the publishing rules of the journal. In the process of reviewing the file and text, we remove the author’s identification data (name, institution). Reviewers receive a digital form of the manuscript.
For each received manuscript, the reviewer prepares and returns to the editorial office a review form within the agreed deadline.
The editor-in-chief, based on the opinions of the reviewers, takes the final decision on accepting or rejecting the article. Responses and suggestions of reviewers in connection with articles or review procedures are welcome and encouraged by the editorial board.
The typology of the article is determined by the reviewers on the basis of the Document Typology of Documents/Works for Bibliography Management in COBISS.
The names and contact information provided in the review process will be used explicitly in this process and will not be transmitted for any other purpose. All materials (e.g. manuscripts, pictures, spreadsheets, databases) sent to the editorial board in the review process will be treated as confidential.
The names, employment and contact e-mail addresses of the authors are published together with the contribution.