General Notes

Manuscripts of papers intended for publication should be prepared according to the instruction and submitted through the electronic Journal system by understanding that they have not been published, submitted or accepted for publication elsewhere.

The manuscript should be written in English language.

The authors will be asked to supply the title of the paper, abstract, keywords and AMS classification, and to suggest of the Editorial Board whose area lies closest to the subject.

The Journal will not consider more than two submissions in one year from a given author (including when the author is a co-author). Authors must note that, if they have received a 'revise-and-resubmit' verdict from the Editor on one paper, then that paper, for the Journal's purposes, counts as still under consideration until the notified period for resubmission has run out. If an author wishes to submit a new paper after having received a 'revise-and-resubmit' verdict and before the resubmission period has passed, the earlier paper must be formally withdrawn before the newer one will be considered.

Every manuscript considered for publication is passed to referees for peer review, and then it is subject to final approval by the Editorial Board.

Authors need to format their final submissions in line with journal's template and upload their paper as PDF and Tex files.

Authors can download a sample LaTex manuscript here. Author(s) are also asked to provide all accompanying files, according to the guidelines in preparation manuscript below.

The submitted manuscripts must be in their final form, essential changes at the proof stage will be considered only exceptionally.

The Editors cannot be held responsible for possible loss of the manuscript. Therefore the authors should keep a copy of all submitted files.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

1. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

This journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record. We have strict policy in dealing with potential acts of misconduct. Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and ultimately the entire scientific endeavour. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation can be achieved by following the rules of good scientific practice, which include:

• The manuscript has not been submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration.

• The manuscript has not been published previously (partly or in full), unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work (please provide transparency on the re-use of material to avoid the hint of text-recycling (“self-plagiarism”).

• A single study is not split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time (e.g. “salami-publishing”).

• No data have been fabricated or manipulated (including images) to support your conclusions

• Authors whose names appear on the submission have contributed sufficiently to the scientific work and therefore share collective responsibility and accountability for the results.

• Manuscripts are sent out for review on the condition that any unpublished data cited within are properly credited and the appropriate permission has been sought. Where licensed data are cited, authors must include at submission a written assurance that they are complying with originators' data-licensing agreements.

Changes of Authorship:

• After acceptance of a manuscript: Any requests to rearrange author names in an article are not accepted.

• Requesting to add or delete authors at revision stage, proof stage, or after publication is a serious matter and may be considered when justifiably warranted. Justification for changes in authorship must be compelling and may be considered only after receipt of written approval from all authors and a convincing, detailed explanation about the role/deletion of the new/deleted author. In case of changes at revision stage, a letter must accompany the revised manuscript. In case of changes after acceptance or publication, the request and documentation must be sent via the Publisher to the Editor-in-Chief. In all cases, further documentation may be required to support your request. The decision on accepting the change rests with the Editor-in-Chief of the journal and may be turned down. Therefore authors are strongly advised to ensure the correct author group, corresponding author, and order of authors at submission.

In Addition:

• Upon request authors should be prepared to send relevant documentation or data in order to verify the validity of the results. This could be in the form of raw data, samples, records, etc.

• When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate correction statement or erratum.

• Authors are highly advised to read the Plagiarism Policy , Conflict of interest and User Licence sections.

• Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

• Promptness: Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

• Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

• Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

• Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s). Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

• Disclosure and conflict of interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating 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 submission.