Conflict of interests
All authors are asked to reveal any actual or potential conflict of interest with other individuals or organizations within 3 years of beginning the submitted work that could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, their work. Please note we are serious about illegal actions such as copyright violation. The authors are normally asked to complete an agreement to transfer all the rights to the published paper to RTN when they submit their work.
Types of papers
Original articles, critical reviews, communications, laboratory notes.
Please prepare your manuscript in Microsoft Word format using a template and submit it to us through our online submission system. Please declare that the work is original, has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Also in order to promote the reviewing process, we recommend introducing 3 or more possible referees by yourself, however not from your institution. Referees from countries different than of the author’s are preferred. In addition, please note that it is responsibility of the authors to check their manuscripts for possible plagiarism. Authors should enclose a declaration regarding potential conflicts of interests, according to the respective declaration template.
Articles should contain the following sections:
- Author(s) name(s) and affiliation(s) (institutional email is necessary for the corresponding author).
- Abstract (essential information of the work in maximum 150 words: technical details and scientific background should not be specified at this point).
- Graphical abstract (1200*900px *.png or *.tiff; graphical abstract should be also attached as the separate file).
- Keywords (5-10 keywords need to be added: in particular, reasonably common keywords within the given discipline).
- Introduction (in the introduction part authors must carefully analyse the literature and provide the reasons as to why they are undertaking this research. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Authors must also clearly state the novelty of the paper in this part and specify the differences between this work and previously published works. Key goals of the work should be precisely specified. This part should be prepared in the reasonable way for the broad range of readers).
- Results and discussion (In the case of experimental works).
- Discussion (in the case of review works).
- Materials and methods (in the case of experimental works: commercial sources and / or methods of obtaining all materials for research should be precisely described. The research methodology should be described in such a way as to ensure full reproducibility of the experiments).
- Conclusions (the short summary of the results obtained: citation of extended works within this sections is forbidden. Technical details should not be specified at this point).
- Acknowledgements (if necessary).
- References (reference styles are presented within the template).
Address for the submission: firstname.lastname@example.org
Peer review process
In the first stage of the review process, the submitted article is processed for the originality and the content of the paper. This part of the process is accomplished within the Journal’s board and we check for similar articles to make sure the work is not published under similar titles with possibly other notations. Additionally, figures should be original and must not be copied from other papers and they must be characterised by good quality and resolution. All equations must be typeset properly and they should not be in figure format. In addition, all tables must be in table format. The problems within this area can determine the return of the article to authors. Low level of originality or detection of plagiarism can cause rejection of the article without possibility of resubmission.
In the next stage, the article is examined via peer-review process, involving two or more reviewers recruited from specialists of respective scientific disciplines. The following recommendations are possible:
- rejection without the possibility of resubmission (low originality, plagiarism, low scientific value),
- rejection with the possibility of resubmission (after fundamental rewriting the manuscript and/or additional experiments),
- major revision required (additional experiments are necessary, or important edition of the interpretation of results etc. – after this recommendation, re-review process is preferred),
- minor revision required (technical details must be improved, additional description of the results, language standard – after this recommendation, re-review process is not necessary and depends on the editor’s decision),
- acceptance (paper should be accepted in the current form).
Article processing fee
Scientiae Radices does not charge any fee for either reviewing the paper or article processing charges (APCs). Authors retain the copyright and full publishing rights without restrictions (CC-BY open access licence).
Scientiae Radices only accepts papers which are written professionally. In case a paper needs edition before peer review, authors are directed to agencies who could help to correct papers. In such a case, authors may need to bear some costs of this service directly.