Editorial Policies

All our Journals endorse the Code of Conduct for Editors of Biomedical Journals, produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics (www.publicationethics.org). We publish two general articles types based on solicited and unsolicited manuscripts. Receipt of all manuscripts will be acknowledged by e-mail correspondence within 2-4 working days and the corresponding author will be notified as to whether the submitted manuscript is considered to progress to external review by a minimum of 3 external experts. Prior to the peer-review process, the submitted manuscript will undergo an initial screening by one editorial staff member. The editorial staff member will assess the general quality of the manuscript based on topicality, clarity, importance and relevancy to the journal’s audience. 

Peer-review
Through our peer review- process, we ensure that manuscripts submitted scientifically accurate. Our journal endorses the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics. Full text of this guideline is available at http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.
All manuscripts are submitted to a peer-review process by a minimum of three or more external experts selected on their experience and expertise. The peer-review will be performed on a double-blind basis – where the identities of peer-reviewers as well authors are kept confidential. Peer reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interests that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased peer-review of the manuscript. The peer-review process includes a referee report document, used by the peer-reviewers to provide the editorial office with general comments to the editor and specific comments about the peer-reviewed manuscript to the corresponding author.

Author appeals to Editors decisions
In the case, an author believes that an editor has made an error in declining a manuscript, corresponding author (on behave of all authors) have the possibility to submit an appeal to the editor. The appeal should include a letter that clearly states the reason(s) why the author(s) consider(s) the editor's decision to be incorrect. The letter should provide detailed, specific responses to any comments relating to the rejection of the submitted manuscript.

Revision of manuscripts
In general, manuscripts require some degree of revision prior to full acceptance. The corresponding author of the manuscript should provide a clearly marked revised manuscript – in which the changes made should be highlighted. Detailed responses to reviewers’ comments, in the to the corresponding author send the document with the comments of the reviewers are also required. A second evaluation of the manuscript (revised manuscript) will be done and at this point, the peer-reviewers may decide to accept the revision of subject the revised manuscript to further peer-review. The final decision on acceptability for publication of the revised manuscript lies with the journal editor. 

Post-acceptance
The corresponding author will receive a proof of the article for approval and final sign-off of the editorial process.  

Digital Archiving Policy
We have recently signed a contract with the Dutch National Library (http://www.kb.nl) for depositing published articles at the e-Depot of the Dutch National Library in The Hague. For more information on this author service contact the Editorial Office (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.)

Copyright and author self-archiving policies
More information on our copyright policies and author self-archiving possibilities can be found in the Sherpa/Romeo database (http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/2405-710X/). Betasciencepress Publishers are categorised as Blue Publisher. This means authors "Can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF". For more specific information please contact the editorial office (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).