Submission and decision process
Review and decision process
Internal and external experts evaluate scientific articles received by the journal. The journal adopted a double-way blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
The submission process
Please submit your manuscripts to Acta Prosperitatis via email to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Each new volume is published by June. Manuscripts received after April are considered for publication in the next year. Depending on the number of the submitted and accepted articles, call for papers can be closed earlier or re-opened later in the year.
Authors are expected to follow the Manuscript Guidelines, and the article is formatted and edited before submission.
The journal allows all users to freely and without restrictions access all of its contents without any restrictions on publication.
No fees are charged for the reviewing process and publication.
Upon receipt of the manuscript, technical editor check:
- compliance of the material with the profile of the journal;
- design and structure;
- compliance of work with ethical standards;
- uniqueness of the article through a specialized service TURNITIN.
At the stage of initial verification, the article can be returned to the authors for revision. Articles suitable for further review are sent for the first review to the chief editor, who determines the scientific value of the manuscript and appoints reviewers.
Reviewing of articles is carried out by members of the editorial board of the journal, as well as external experts from among the leading experts in this field who work in scientific fields that are relevant to the topic of the article and have published over the past 3 years on the subject of the reviewed article. The ethical aspects of reviewing are outlined in the Responsibility of Reviewers section.
When evaluating an article and writing a review, reviewers adhere to the following criteria:
- relevance of the topic;
- originality of work, novelty of the data obtained;
- the completeness and accuracy of the presentation of the problem in the literature review;
- clarity of presentation of the goals and objectives of the work, their compliance with the presented factual material;
- completeness of the description of materials and methods;
- the adequacy of the choice of research methods;
- adequacy of statistical analysis;
- compliance of the results with the stated objectives of the study;
- availability of an assessment of the received data;
- validity of conclusions;
- scientific significance of the results of work;
- practical significance of the results of work;
- visual presentation of the material (the presence of tables, figures);
- the presence of a comparison of own data with literature data;
- availability of necessary links to all relevant publications on the topic of work;
- the quality of the resume and the correct choice of keywords;
- compliance of work with ethical standards;
- the correctness of the reflection of results in conclusions or conclusions, if any.
In order to get the most complete and objective response to the article, the editors developed a peer-review questionnaire with a list of issues that the reviewer should evaluate the coverage of in the article. Based on this assessment, the reviewer makes his conclusion about the fate of the article:
a) the article is recommended for publication in its current form;
b) the article is recommended for publication, taking into account the correction of deficiencies noted by the reviewer;
c) it is recommended to transfer the article for additional review to another specialist;
d) reject the publication.
The average review period is 3 weeks. This period is controlled by the editors; depending on the situation and at the request of the reviewer, it can be extended.
The original reviews are kept in the journal for 5 years.
Correction of the article
The editors are in correspondence with the author indicated in the cover letter as the contact author. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the editorial board sends the contact reviewer a comment with a proposal to take into account the comments when preparing a new version of the article or to refute reasonably (partially or completely).
Finalization of the article should not take more than 1 month from the moment of sending a message to the authors about the need for changes. The article finalized by the author is re-sent for review.
If the author and the reviewer have encountered insoluble contradictions regarding the article, the editorial board has the right to send the article to another reviewer. In conflict situations, the article may be referred to one of the members of the editorial board. The final decision in such cases is made by the editor-in-chief.
Refusal to correct article
In case of refusal to finalize the materials, the authors must notify the editors in writing about their refusal to publish the article. If the authors do not return the revised version after 1 month from the day the review was sent, even if there is no message from the authors about the refusal to finalize the article, the editors remove it from the register.
The decision to refuse publication of the manuscript is made by the editor-in-chief and the editorial board in accordance with the recommendations of the reviewers. An article not recommended for publication is not reviewed again.
Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions regarding the adoption or rejection of articles:
1. In case of disagreement of the author with the decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of the article, the author contacts the editorial office of the journal in writing indicating the reasons for the appeal.
2. The conflict resolution commission of the relevant journal shall consider the author’s appeal.
3. A change of decision regarding an article is possible in the following cases:
- the author provided additional material to the manuscript, which was not taken into account during the initial review of the article;
- the author provided information about the conflict of interest, which was not provided during the initial review of the article;
- the author is concerned about biased reviews.
4. If there are sufficient grounds, the conflict resolution committee of the relevant journal makes a proposal to amend or uphold the initial decision regarding the publication of the article.
5. If necessary, the editors can attract an additional reviewer to make a final decision.
6. The decision following the review of the initial decision is final and is not subject to re-appeal.