+34 672643706
editor@vitascientia.net
The Editor is responsible for deciding which submitted manuscripts will be published in Vita Scientia. This decision may be made in consultation with members of the Editorial Board or reviewers as needed. The Editor may reject a manuscript without additional review if it is found to be: (a) inappropriate in subject matter or format; (b) of insufficient quality; or (c) lacking in significant contribution. This decision should also consider the Editor’s judgment regarding the potential impact of possible revisions by the author.
The Editor must select reviewers with relevant expertise and sound judgement. Typically, manuscripts are reviewed by 2-3 reviewers, and supplementary materials may be included to aid in the evaluation process. The Editor is also responsible for ensuring that reviewers understand their responsibilities, which include maintaining confidentiality and preparing a timely, unbiased review. When there are disagreements among reviewers, or between reviewers and authors, the Editor may seek advice from the Editorial Board to ensure the manuscript receives a fair assessment. After review, the Editor will provide the corresponding author with copies of reviewers' comments. If a review contains excessively harsh language or personal attacks, the Editor may remove such content before forwarding the feedback to the author and notify the reviewer of these deletions. Such language should not influence the Editor's decision but may necessitate consulting an additional reviewer.
While the Editor is not obligated to reconsider a rejected manuscript, they may allow authors the opportunity to address critiques and submit a revised version within a reasonable timeframe. The Editor should ensure high standards for citing appropriate literature, emphasizing peer-reviewed sources. However, Editors should avoid encouraging authors to cite the journal itself solely to enhance its citation metrics.
For submissions in sponsored supplements or special issues, the Editor will apply the same standards and review process as with regular submissions, ensuring that articles are accepted based on academic merit without commercial influence.
The Editor and members of the Editorial Board of Vita Scientia are required to maintain strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts. Information about a submission should not be disclosed to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
If authors have a conflict of interest, the Editor may require them to include a disclosure statement within the manuscript before it is reviewed or accepted for publication.
Unpublished materials from a submitted manuscript must not be used by the Editor or any members of the Editorial Board in their own research without the explicit written consent of the author. This policy ensures that potential conflicts of interest are avoided, and that authors' intellectual property is respected.
The Editor of Vita Scientia is expected to perform their duties in a balanced, objective, and fair manner, without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, or the ethnic or geographical background of the authors.
In the event of ethical complaints or conflicts, the Editor should adopt reasonable procedures aligned with the policies of the Society, ensuring that authors are given a fair opportunity to respond to any concerns raised. All complaints should be thoroughly investigated, regardless of when the original publication was approved. Documentation related to these complaints must be retained for future reference.
Misconduct and unethical behavior may be reported to the Editor-in-chief of Vita Scientia by anyone at any time. Individuals reporting such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence to initiate an investigation. All allegations will be taken seriously and treated consistently until a resolution is reached.
The Editor should gather evidence while ensuring that allegations are not disclosed beyond those who need to be informed. Minor misconduct may be addressed without extensive consultation, and the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations. If there is a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards, the Editor should communicate this to the author or reviewer as a warning for future conduct.
In cases of serious misconduct or plagiarism that arise after a paper has been published, the Editor may need to notify the corresponding author. The decision to involve the corresponding author will depend on the evidence available and may involve consulting a limited number of experts.
When a formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication is necessary, the Editor should inform the author, the head of the author’s department, the funding agency, relevant abstracting and indexing services, and the readership of the publication simultaneously. Additionally, the Editor may impose a formal embargo on contributions from the individual involved for a specified period.