Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Біологічні студії / Studia Biologica Journal publishes Original Research works, Review articles, Brief reports, Technical Advances, Reviews on new books, Scientific events chronicles, Comments on all areas of biological sciences (biochemistry, biotechnology, botany, environmental biology, genetics, medical biology, microbiology, physiology, zoology, agrobiology etc).
The Journal was launched in 2007 and publishes 4 issues per year.

The electronic version of the Journal is located on the portal of the Ivan Franko National University of Lviv and on the website of the V.I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine. 
The articles are published in Ukrainian and English languages.
All publications contain summaries reflecting the main results identical in Ukrainian and English.

Ethical and qualification declaration
This declaration is prepared on the basis of the Uniform Resource Locator (URL), which contains subdivisions in the main sections:
1. Publication and authorship*: 
- list of references and financial support should be noted in the manuscript;
- no plagiarism and no fraudulent data;
- same research is forbidden to publish in more than one j manuscript.
Permissions Guidelines. Written permission from the copyright holder is requested for reproducing any text, tables, or figures from previously published work. Permissions must be submitted together with the manuscript, and the publication from which the material is taken must be noted in the reference list.

CopyrightsBiologichni Studii / Studia Biologica Journal accepts the policy of open access to published content in accordance with the principle of free dissemination of scientific information and global exchange of knowledge for universal civil progress (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/  and Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License). When the manuscript is accepted no paper presenting the same information can be published elsewhere. If a part of contribution has appeared or will appear elsewhere, the authors must specify the details in the comments of their submission. Simultaneous submission of same manuscript to different journals is not acceptable. Published manuscripts may be published elsewhere only with the written permission of “Studia Biologica” journal. Authors should name the funding organization in the accepted version of the manuscript and acknowledge all financial supports and any other personal connections.

Conflicts of InterestAll authors of the submitted manuscript must recognize and disclose any existing conflict of interest, or potential conflict of interest, that may bias their work.

Scientific MisconductResearch misconduct which includes a fabrication of data, falsification of data, plagiarism, and unethical treatment of research subjects should be avoided, and special statement on that regards should be presented together with the manuscript. The “research misconduct” means any actions that involve purposeful manipulation of the scientific record such that it no longer reflects observed truth, or mistreatment of research subjects. If the editorial staff suspects misconduct by the authors or reviewers to both published and unpublished papers, it can ask the employers of the authors or reviewers, or other appropriate body to investigate the appearing case, or it can conduct the investigation by itself. The editorial staff will make all reasonable attempts to get an acceptable resolution of the problem.

2. Author’s responsibilities*:
- authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process;
- all authors should have a significant contribution to the research;
- statement that all data in the manuscript are real and authentic should be presented;
- all authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.

*Transparency:
• authors should read and understand the Instructions to Authors;
• authorship statement explaining who did what should be provided;
• funding information is necessary to be noted; 
• competing interest should be declared; 
• permission should be obtained for use of copyrighted material from other sources (including the Web); 
• documentation should be provided for any citations to unpublished work (e.g. articles in press/personal communications); 
• information about previous submissions to other journals (e.g. name of journal, reviewer comments) is necessary to be noted; 
• confirmation that the manuscript has been submitted solely to your journal and is not published, in press, or submitted elsewhere, should be presented in the Letter to the Editor.

3. Responsibility for the reviewers in the process of peer review*: 
- reviewers’ judgments should be objective;
- reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders;
- reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited;
- reviewed articles will be treated confidentially.

*Relationship with Reviewers:
• reviews should be conducted objectively;
• personal criticism of the author is inappropriate;
• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references as necessary, and not be defamatory or libellous;
• Reviewers should declare any competing interests;
• Reviewers should decline reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers; 
• Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and should not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their work;
• if a Reviewer wants to pass a review request onto a colleague, they should get the editor’s permission beforehand.

Reviewers will be asked to address ethical aspects of the submission such as:
• has the author published the results of this research before?
• has the author plagiarised another publication?
• is the research ethical and has the appropriate approval/consent been obtained?
• is there any indication that the data has been fabricated or inappropriately manipulated?
• have the authors declared all relevant competing interests?

4. Editorial responsibilities*:
- editors have a complete responsibility and authority to either reject or accept an article;
- editors should have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject/accept;
- a paper will be accepted only when reasonably certain;
- when errors are found, publication of correction or retraction will be promoted;
- anonymity of reviewers will be preserved.

*An authorship policy
• statements of each individual’s contribution to the research and publication are required;
• checklists should be used to prevent ghost authorship (see PLoS: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000023#s4)
• all authors are required to sign an authorship declaration;
• all authors should be included in communications (e.g. acknowledging receipt of a submission) not just the corresponding author;
• authorship should be clearly specified;
• details of ethical approval and informed consent for studies in humans should be provided;
• for randomised controlled trials registration number of the trial and the name of the trial registry should be noted;
• details of approval for animal experimentation should be provided.

5. Publishing ethics issues*:
- monitoring/safeguarding publishing ethics will be carried out by the editorial board;
- guidelines for retracting articles are noted below;
- integrity of the academic record should be maintained;
- compromising intellectual and ethical standards should be precluded from business needs;
- publication of corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies will be performed when needed.
- plagiarism and fraudulent data are forbidden.

Institutions where the paper authors work should:
• inform journals about cases of proven misconduct that affect the reliability or attribution of work that they have published;
• respond to journals if they request information about issues, such as disputed authorship, misleading reporting, competing interests, or other factors, including honest errors, that could affect the reliability of published work;
• initiate inquiries into allegations of research misconduct or unacceptable publication practice raised by the journal;
• have policies supporting responsible research conduct and systems in place for investigating suspected research misconduct.

The journal should:
• publish the contact details of the editor-in-chief who should act as the point of contact for questions relating to research and publication integrity;
• inform institutions if it suspects misconduct by their researchers, and provides evidence to support these concerns; 
• cooperate with investigations and respond to institutions’ questions about misconduct allegations;
• be prepared to issue retractions or corrections (according to the COPE guidelines on retractions) when provided with findings of misconduct arising from investigations;
• have policies for responding to institutions and other organizations that investigate cases of research misconduct.

Cases involving multiple institutions or journals:
• in collaborative research involving multiple institutions, one institution should be nominated to coordinate investigations and act as the point of contact unless there is an obvious leading institution (e.g. that administers the grant or employs the researchers). Disputes between institutions over the authorship or data ownership may require adjudication by an independent arbitrator agreeable to all parties.
• cases of plagiarism, breach of copyright or redundant publication usually involve several journals who should therefore cooperate with each other and share information as required (e.g. about submission dates and copyright transfer agreements) to resolve the issues.

Investigating previous publications:
• research and publication misconduct may not be an isolated incident. In many cases, when serious misconduct comes to light, investigation of the researcher’s earlier work reveals further problems. Therefore, when a researcher is found to have committed serious misconduct (such as data fabrication, falsification or plagiarism) the institution should review all the individual’s publications, including those published before the proven misconduct took place. In such cases, previous employers will be alerted to enable them to review work carried out by the discredited researcher when working at their institution, to determine the reliability of publications arising from that work.

6. Publication retracting*:
Journal Editors will consider retracting a publication if: 
• they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error); 
• the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication); 
• it constitutes plagiarism; 
• it reports unethical research. 
• they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors; 
• there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case; 
• they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive; 
• investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time. 
• a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error); 
• author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

*The purpose of retraction:
• retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and alerting readers to publications that contain such seriously flawed or erroneous data that their findings and conclusions cannot be relied upon. Unreliable data may result from honest error or from research misconduct.

Retractions are also used to alert readers to cases of redundant publication (i.e. when authors present the same data in several publications), plagiarism, and failure to disclose a major competing interest likely to influence interpretations or recommendations.

The main purpose of retractions is to correct the literature and ensure its integrity rather than punish authors who misbehave;
• the reasons and basis for the retraction will be noted; cases of misconduct from those of honest error will be distinguished; specification who is retracting the article will be noted. This information will be published in all versions of the journal (i.e. print and/or electronic); 
• retracted articles will not be removed from printed copies of the journal (e.g. in libraries) nor from electronic archives but their retracted status will be indicated as clearly as possible.

Plagiarism Policy: Ivan Franko National University Publisher follows strict policy in case of plagiarism. Anti-plagiarism software is employed to check the originality of an articles.


 

Section Policies

Experimental works

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Methods

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Science history

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Announcements

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Conference

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Editorial Evaluation Timeline
All submissions are initially evaluated in depth by the editors. Papers that are not deemed by the editors to be strong candidates for publication will be returned to the authors without detailed review, typically within 3–5 days. Otherwise, the manuscripts will be sent to the reviewers. The editors make all efforts to reach a decision on these papers within 3–4 weeks of the submission date. If revisions are a condition of publication, editors will carefully evaluate the reviewers’ comments and, whenever possible, will provide guidance on the important concerns to be addressed. We generally allow 2 months for revision and consider only one revised version of the paper. Accepted papers will be published in print within 3 months of acceptance and, in most cases, within 4–5 weeks online ahead of the print version will appear. Any major changes after acceptance are subject to review and may delay the publication.

Presubmission Inquiries
If the authors would like editorial input on whether their paper might be a strong candidate for consideration at Studia Biologica, they can send a presubmission inquiry. This should include an abstract plus a brief description of the results and an explanation of the interest and significance to broad readership of Studia Biologica, and should be addressed to igor.starunko@lnu.edu.ua. We will try to respond within 2–5 days.

Status Inquiries
You may e-mail igor.starunko@lnu.edu.ua with specific questions on the status updates as progress through the editorial process.

Peer review process
The Biologichni Studii/Studia Biologica Journal follows a blinded process of peer review. 
The manuscript is reviewed anonymously by two chosen by the editor independent specialists in the corresponding field of biology. If two positive reports are obtained, the paper is accepted for publication.  Authors have a right to appeal against a reviewer’s decision. In this case, the paper will be sent to the independent referee or to adjudicating member of the Editorial Board for assessment. A final decision on the appeal remains on the Editorial Board. The Editor informs not later then 2 month from submission the authors about the decision. Once the reviewer`s reports have been received, the authors have 30 days to revise the paper. The revised paper along with a point-by-point response to the reviewer reports and with the explanations on any changes made in the paper should be returned to the Editorial Office. The revised paper approved and signed by reviewers and Scientific Editor is considered as the final version. Any changes in the text, figures or tables are not permitted thereafter. If the manuscript is returned in a period of more than 30 days, the work will be considered as a new submission.
In the case of negative review, the Editorial Board sends a written notice and reviews to the corresponding author.

Authors may propose four candidatures of independent reviewers for their work, as well names of reviewers with conflict interests. The Editorial Board regards such wishes with understanding, though reserves the right to assign reviewers capable for the most qualified analysis of the work.
The Journal guarantees the confidentiality of all stages of submission, reviewing and preprint preparation. The Editorial Board asks authors not to share correspondence with the Journal to third parties, to not post reviews, comments of editors on any web sites without the agreement with the editorial staff, regardless of whether the manuscript was published.

Reviewing procedure

  1. Submitted manuscript is registered by the Editorial Staff at the time of receipt of the electronic version by e-mail.
  2. Scientific Editors take a decision as to who will be assigned to review a manuscript, following a field of research.
  3. A manuscript is sent to the assigned reviewers.
  4. Once the reviewer`s reports have been received, the Editorial Staff sends these reports to the authors. If two positive reports are obtained, the paper is accepted for publication. If a revision is required, the authors revise the paper, considering all reviewers’ observations and recommendations.
  5. The revised version of the paper then enters a second round of the peer review.
  6. If positive reviewers’ assessments are reported, the paper then is approved by the Scientific Editor and afterwards is considered and approved by the Editorial Board.
  7. Manuscript approved by the Editorial Board is sent to the Editorial Office to be made it ready for publication.

 

Open Access Policy

Biologichni Studii / Studia Biologica Journal accepts the policy of open access to published content in accordance with the principle of free dissemination of scientific information and global exchange of knowledge for universal civil progress (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/  and Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License)

 

Archiving

The full archive of the Bìologìčnì studìï/Studia Biologica is freely available without any prohibition at a National Library: V.I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine. Its on-line archive is posted on the portal of Ivan Franko National University of Lviv. 

 

Fee for publication

The publication in the scientific journal Biologichni Studii / Studia Biologica is free of charge!

 

Authorship

Authors are asked to sign an Open Access license agreement. All articles are distributed under Creative Commons Attribution license (CC-BY) that mean that Studia Biologica’s readers are entitled to use, reproduce, disseminate or display these articles provided that:  
1) the original authorship is properly and fully attributed;  
2) the journal and publisher are attributed as the original place of publication with correct citation details given;  
3) if an original work is subsequently reproduced or disseminated not in its entirety but only in part or as a derivative work, this is clear.

 

Errata

Changes/additions to accepted and published articles 

All content of published articles is subject to the editorial review process. If the authors wish to make changes in their article after acceptance, they should contact the editor and new content will be reviewed. If necessary, the editor makes necessary corrections and clarifications, publishes denials and apologies. 

  • If a new material is additional to the accepted article, it must be submitted for peer review as a new manuscript, referring to the original. 
  • If a new material must replace the original content of the accepted article, the editor may consider the publication of an erratum. 

Erratum 

An erratum refers to a correction of errors introduced to the article by the publisher. All publisher-introduced changes are highlighted to the author at the proof stage and any errors are ideally identified by the author and corrected by the publisher before final publication. Authors who noticed an error should contact the Journal Support Manager.