Criteria for Publication
Publication Ethics - ESR Journal follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct, Guidelines and International standards for editors and authors. Authors are expected to comply with best practices in publication ethics, specifically regarding authorship, dual publication, plagiarism, figure manipulation, and competing interests.
Data Availability - Authors must follow standards and practice for data deposition in publicly available resources.
Editorial and Peer Review Process
Manuscript StatusAuthors can check the status of a manuscript at any time by sending email to editor. Authors will also be notified by email when a decision is made. Understanding manuscript statuses:
Editorial ProcessInitial checks - New submissions go through an in-house quality control check to ensure adherence to our policies and requirements, including:
We aim to check manuscripts as efficiently as possible, but timing may vary depending on whether we need to return the submission to the author for follow-up queries or additional information.
Editor assignment - After a manuscript passes the quality control check, it is assigned to an Academic Editor according to relevant expertise. The Academic Editor is asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the ESR Journal criteria for publication. Editors can choose to perform the evaluation on the basis of their own expertise, or assign external reviewers.
Peer review - The Academic Editor decides whether reviews from additional experts are needed to evaluate the manuscript. After agreeing to review a manuscript, external reviewers are typically granted 10 days to complete the assignment. We will follow up with late reviewers and keep authors informed if there are any delays.
Revisions - Authors who receive a decision of Minor Revision or Major Revision have 45 days to resubmit the revised manuscript.
Appeals - Authors may submit a formal appeal for rejected submissions. Appeal requests must be made in writing to firstname.lastname@example.org with the word “appeal” in the subject line. Authors must provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Academic Editor's comments.
The review process in briefFor general information, we have provided an overview of the editorial process, including how we identify the submissions that are appropriate for in-depth peer review.
Upon receiving the full submission, appropriate member of the Board of Editors will usually review the article him or herself and solicit at least one other external reviewer.
An online consultation session is opened with the reviewer(s) once two reviews have been received, with any outstanding reviewers prompted to submit their review and join the discussion. The Reviewing editor will draft a decision letter, with input welcome from the other reviewer(s).
Our aim is to provide clear and decisive instructions to authors, so that they know what they need to do to get the article published. If a revision is requested, the decision letter will usually include a single set of instructions; the full reviews in this case are not sent to the authors. If the decision is that the article cannot be revised in a reasonable time frame for publication in ESR Journal and must therefore be rejected, the letter will usually include the full reviews, with the reasons clearly explained.
AnonymityWe do not release the identities of the reviewers to the authors (unless requested by the reviewers themselves) but in the course of the discussion that forms part of the review process, each reviewer will know the identity of the other reviewer(s). We also request each reviewer’s permission to reveal his or her identity and report to another journal, if the work is rejected and the author requests the reports for the purposes of submission to another journal.
ConfidentialityThe review process is strictly confidential and must be treated as such by reviewers during the review process and subsequently. However, co-reviewing a manuscript with an experienced junior colleague can be an important learning experience that we are happy to support. To provide accountability and appropriate credit, the name of the co-referee should be disclosed to the editors and we would encourage all reviewers to consider sharing their names with the authors. Both reviewers should agree on the wording of the review, and the same principles relating to confidentiality and competing interests apply to both reviewers. The senior reviewer should be the main point of contact for the discussion between the reviewers, but the senior reviewer can confer with their co-reviewer during this discussion.
Other than co-reviewing for training purposes, reviewers should not contact anyone not directly involved with the assessment of the article, including colleagues or other experts in the field, unless this has been discussed and approved in advance by the Reviewing editor.
Competing interestsWe ask reviewers to recognise potential competing interests that could lead them to be positively or negatively disposed towards an article. Reviewers should inform the editors or journal staff if they are close competitors or collaborators of the authors. They should reveal whether they have a personal relationship with an author and whether they have reviewed the authors’ articles in the past. Reviewers must recuse themselves if they feel that they are unable to offer an impartial review. We will also make every effort to follow authors’ requests to exclude reviewers, provided that a specific reason is provided.
Selection criteriaESR Journal scope is broad and inclusive, covering the full range from all science disciplines. We seek to publish all highly influential research in all fields, whereby influence is interpreted in the broadest sense to cover the advance in understanding, potential to drive a field forward, and real-world outcomes. Articles must be methodologically and scientifically rigorous, ethically conducted, and objectively presented according to the appropriate community standards.
Writing the reviewYou will be asked for a general assessment and a summary of any substantive concerns (ideally in fewer than 500 words but longer reviews can also be submitted), and a list of minor comments. If you want to state that something is already known, and either contradicts or duplicates a major conclusion of the manuscript, please support this with appropriate references. When constructing your comments, you should follow these important ESR Journal editorial principles and justify any requests for additional work:
Please note that we will make all reasonable efforts to identify potential breaches of publishing ethics, and in case of any concerns, reviewers are encouraged to alert the journal’s editorial staff in the first instance as neutrally as possible. The editorial staff will consult the Reviewing editor and investigate further. Reviewers should not make allegations of misconduct within the review itself or within the online consultation.
Submitting the reviewYou will be asked to confirm that you do not have any competing interests to declare; that you disclose the name(s) of anybody with whom you have discussed the article, or who has assisted in the review process (including co-reviewing for training purposes); whether you want to remain anonymous; and whether you agree to allow us to share your full review and identity with other journals in the event of rejection.
The main part of the review consists of a general assessment and a summary of any substantive concerns (in fewer than 500 words), and a list of minor comments. Please be aware that in the event of acceptance, the decision letter containing the integrated review comments will be published (subject to author approval).
Corrections and Retractions
ESR Journal publishes corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern as appropriate, and as quickly as possible. We follow the COPE guidelines where applicable.
A notice of correction will be issued by ESR Journal to document and correct substantial errors that appear in online articles when these errors significantly affect the content or understanding of the work reported (e.g., error in data presentation or analysis) or when the error affects the publication's metadata (e.g., misspelling of an author's name). In these cases, ESR Journal will publish a correction that will be linked to the original article.
In very rare cases, we may choose to correct the article itself and re-post it online. If that course is taken, a correction notice will also be created to document the changes to the original article.
Authors who wish to alert ESR Journal to a situation where a correction may be warranted are requested to contact us with the relevant details (journal, full citation of the article, and description of the error) at: email@example.com
Authors are encouraged to post comments to their articles to note typographical errors, and other problems that do not significantly affect the scientific integrity of the work.
CrossMark - ESR Journal planing from 2016 to participate in the CrossMark service, which is a multi-publisher initiative to provide a standard way for readers to locate the most up-to-date version of an article.
As our colleagues editors from PLOS and eLife, we believe that research articles should primarily be judged on their individual merits, rather than on the basis of the journal in which they were published. We are working on implementation of PLOS Article-Level Metrics (ALM) on every article in our journal. Article-Level Metrics (ALMs) capture the manifold ways in which research is disseminated and can help users determine the value of an article to them and to their scientific community.
Your research is now welcome at ESR Journal!
Your paper is welcome at ESR Journal regardless of your field of study.