The Nova Biologica Reperta adheres to the principles of publication ethics and follows the policies, guidelines, and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the national regulations governing the prevention of academic misconduct and scientific fraud. The Journal complies with COPE procedures in addressing suspected cases of research misconduct and article retraction, and is committed to maintaining the highest standards of peer review.
Nova Biologica Reperta is an open-access journal that follows internationally recognized publishing standards through a double-anonymous peer review process. Under this model, neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other's identities, thereby ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific merit without prejudice or bias.
All submitted manuscripts, with the exception of editorials and letters to the editor, undergo an initial editorial assessment followed by a rigorous double-anonymous peer review process to evaluate the methodological quality, scientific validity, and soundness of the research. Manuscripts accepted by the Editor-in-Chief after successful peer review proceed to publication.
Double-anonymous peer review minimizes bias by focusing exclusively on the scientific content of the manuscript. It enhances the quality of scholarly publications, confirms the validity of research within a specific discipline, assists in identifying plagiarism, and plays a fundamental role in the advancement of science. Participation in peer review also enables reviewers to remain informed about the latest developments in their fields.
Each manuscript is normally evaluated by two independent reviewers selected according to their expertise and research experience. Reviewers provide detailed comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. The Editorial Board recognizes that most submitted manuscripts require revision before they can be considered for publication.
Authors are strongly encouraged to read the Instructions for Authors carefully before submitting their manuscripts. Manuscripts should be prepared strictly in accordance with the Journal's formatting requirements. Failure to comply with the prescribed format may result in the manuscript being returned to the corresponding author for revision prior to peer review.
Upon submission, the corresponding author will receive an acknowledgment of receipt by email together with the manuscript identification number for future correspondence.
Once the manuscript satisfies the Journal's technical and formatting requirements, it will be assigned to two independent expert reviewers for scientific evaluation. The peer-review process generally requires 2–4 months, depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.
Following receipt of the reviewers' comments, authors will be invited to revise their manuscript accordingly and submit a revised version. Upon satisfactory revision and final approval by the assigned reviewer(s) and the Editor-in-Chief, an Acceptance Certificate will be issued to the corresponding author.
After submission, the order of authorship may not be altered through the addition, deletion, or rearrangement of authors unless exceptional circumstances exist and the Editorial Office grants formal approval in accordance with the Journal's authorship policy.
During the review process, authors should communicate with the Editorial Office only regarding the status and progress of their manuscript.
All reviewers are selected and invited by the Editorial Board based on their academic expertise and research experience relevant to the submitted manuscript.
Reviewers are requested to submit their evaluation reports within one month of accepting the invitation. When necessary, reviewers may request an extension to complete their assessment.
Detailed information regarding reviewers' responsibilities and ethical obligations is available in the Journal's Publication Ethics and Reviewer Guidelines.
Editors and reviewers are required to comply with the ethical principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In particular, they must:
Submitted manuscripts are evaluated according to established criteria, including:
Reviewers assess manuscripts using the Journal's standardized evaluation form.
Reviewers are selected primarily on the basis of their subject-matter expertise and publication record. Authors may also suggest potential reviewers, provided that no conflict of interest exists between the suggested reviewers and the authors.
Based on the reviewers' recommendations, a manuscript may be:
The Editorial Board and reviewers are committed to working constructively with authors to improve the scientific quality of manuscripts whenever possible.
Authors may request that a particular editor or reviewer not be assigned to evaluate their manuscript, provided that a reasonable and well-documented justification is supplied.
When a revised manuscript is requested before a final editorial decision, authors should submit the revised version within one month.
If authors disagree with the editorial decision, they may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editorial Office will review all relevant documents—including the manuscript, reviewers' reports, correspondence, and supporting materials—and the Editor-in-Chief will issue a final decision within 15 working days.
Following each round of peer review, reviewers are requested to evaluate the revised manuscript together with previous review reports. The final editorial decision for every submitted manuscript is made exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Editorial Board, thereby ensuring a fair, transparent, and rigorous decision-making process.
Editorial decisions generally fall into one of the following categories:
The manuscript is considered scientifically sound, meets the Journal's quality standards, and is accepted for publication without further revision.
The manuscript requires limited revisions that do not substantially affect its scientific content. Authors are invited to address the reviewers' comments and submit a revised version. The revised manuscript is normally assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, who may accept the manuscript directly or request additional revisions if necessary.
The manuscript has scientific merit but requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication.
When one reviewer recommends major revision while another recommends rejection, the manuscript will be sent to a third independent reviewer who has not previously evaluated the submission. The final editorial decision will be made after considering all review reports.
If both reviewers recommend major revision, the manuscript will be returned to the authors for comprehensive revision. The revised manuscript will subsequently be forwarded to one of the original reviewers for comparative evaluation.
Following this assessment, one of the following decisions will be reached:
Where additional revision is requested, the manuscript will be returned to the corresponding author for further modification.
A manuscript will be rejected if it contains major scientific, methodological, or ethical deficiencies that cannot be satisfactorily resolved through revision.
A manuscript will also be rejected if both reviewers independently recommend rejection.
Following acceptance for publication, each manuscript undergoes scientific and technical editing by the Editorial Office.
At this stage, editors verify the accuracy and consistency of the manuscript by correcting minor editorial issues, including punctuation, references, formatting, grammar, and bibliographic information. They also ensure that all required information relating to the manuscript and its authors has been provided.
The edited manuscript is then returned to the corresponding author for proofreading and final approval.
This stage represents the final opportunity for authors to identify and correct substantive editorial issues before publication.
After page layout has been completed, only typographical, formatting, or pagination errors may be corrected. No substantial modifications to the scientific content of the manuscript will be permitted at this stage.
After the corrected proof has been received and all final editorial amendments have been completed, the manuscript will be published online.
The corresponding author will be notified immediately once the article becomes available on the Journal's website.
In certain circumstances, publication may be postponed to allow multiple accepted articles to be released simultaneously as part of a scheduled issue.
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 15 working days of receiving the initial decision.
The appeal should be submitted via email and must include a detailed justification for the request together with a comprehensive response to each of the reviewers' comments, where applicable.
If deemed appropriate, the manuscript may be assigned to an independent reviewer who has not previously participated in the evaluation process.
The Editor-in-Chief will consider all relevant documentation, including the manuscript, reviewers' reports, editorial correspondence, and any additional supporting materials before reaching a final decision.
The decision of the Editor-in-Chief shall be final.
The names, affiliations, email addresses, and other personal information provided through the Journal's online submission system will be used exclusively for the editorial and publication purposes of Nova Biologica Reperta.
Such information will not be disclosed, distributed, or made available to any third party for commercial or other purposes unrelated to the Journal's editorial activities.
The Journal is committed to protecting the confidentiality and privacy of all authors, reviewers, editors, and users in accordance with internationally accepted standards of publication ethics and data protection.
