About

Focus and Scope

Biosystematics and Ecology (BiosystEcol) is a scientific peer-reviewed, open access journal, designed to rapidly publish contributions on a wide range of ecology and biosystematics related topics. The journal is a continuation of the established Biosystematics and Ecology Series of the Commission for Interdisciplinary Ecological Studies (KIOES) of the Austrian Academy of Sciences (OeAW). The key focus is to provide biodiversity data, such as catalogi, checklists and interdisciplinary research to the scientific community while ensuring maximum possible accessibility, usability, and transparency.

The journal is open to contributions (floristic/faunistic/mycological, morphological, genomic, phylogenetic, ecological, or environmental data) on any taxon of any geological era from any part of the world with no lower or upper limit to manuscript size. We welcome papers on species ecology, as well as research on ecology in general, and interdisciplinary papers in particular. BiosystEcol publishes the following article types:

  • Book reviews
  • Correspondence
  • Corrigenda
  • Data paper
  • Editorial
  • Forum papers
  • Institutional/Society announcement
  • Interdisciplinary perspectives
  • Methods description
  • Obituary
  • Opinions
  • Research article
  • Reviews
  • Short communication

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Peer Review

Text and data submitted to this journal will be formally peer reviewed and evaluated for technical soundness and the correct presentation of appropriate and sufficient metadata. All manuscripts undergo a pre-submission technical evaluation in the ARPHA Writing Tool (AWT) environment. The scientific quality and significance of the paper and data will be further judged by the scientific community, through a novel, community-based pre-publication peer review.

The journal uses a single-blind review process. The editorial board endeavors to decide upon the manuscript within two months after submission.

The peer-review process and deadlines described below are articulated on the assumption that the contributions are technically well-prepared and concisely written, so that the peer-review is straightforward and not requiring additional clarification.

What is "community peer review"?

It is evident that the peer-review system is increasingly under strain. Our response to this situation is to decrease the load on each individual reviewer without in any way compromising the quality of the final product. The purpose of community peer review is to distribute effort, increase transparency, engage the broader community of experts, and enhance the quality of the science we publish.

Stepwise description of the peer review and editorial process

1. Upon submission, the manuscript is assigned to the Subject Editor responsible for the topic by the in-house Assistant Editor. The Subject Editor is alerted by email.

2. The Subject Editor reads the manuscript and decides if it complies with the journal's scope and should be processed for peer review.

3. The Subject Editor sends review requests to two or three "nominated" reviewers and several other "panel" reviewers. 

Note-1: How editors invite reviewers? The journal's database will provide a list of potential reviewers and, if necessary, the editor can add additional names to the list. Review requests will be emailed by a ‘single-click’ button.

Note-2: "Nominated" and "Panel" reviewers. The difference between "Nominated" and "Panel" reviewers is that "Nominated" reviewers are expected to provide a formal review by the deadline; "Panel" reviewers are invited but not required to evaluate the manuscript. Both "Nominated" and "Panel" reviewers can propose changes and corrections, and make comments in the manuscript online and submit a concise reviewer's form.

Note-3: "Community" and "public" peer review. "Community" peer review means that during the review process the manuscript is visible only to the editor, the reviewers and the authors. We are planning to introduce soon an entirely public review process where authors may opt to make their manuscript available for comment by all registered journal users. Reviewers may opt to stay anonymous or disclose their names in either case.

4. The Subject Editor receives a notification email if the nominated reviewer agrees or declines to review the manuscript. In the latter case the editor can appoint alternative reviewers.

5. Reviews are expected within 20 days and can be extended on demand. The Subject Editor will then decide to accept, reject, or request revision of the manuscripts.

6. The authors must provide a revised version of their manuscript within one week, but can ask for an extension, if needed.

7. After submission of the revised version, the Subject Editor compares it against the reviews and decides to accept or reject the manuscript. The authors may be asked to make additional revisions, OR in case of substantial changes, the reviewing procedure will be started again.

8. The manuscript will be formatted, proof-read, copy-edited and published within two weeks after acceptance.

Guidelines for reviewers and editors

Reviewers and editors are expected to evaluate the completeness and quality of the manuscript text, related dataset(s), models, workflows or software and their description (metadata), as well as the publication value of data, models, software or workflows. This may include the appropriateness and validity of the methods used, compliance with applicable standards during collection, management and curation of data, and compliance with appropriate metadata standards in the description of the data resources.

The following aspects of evaluation will be considered:

  • Originality 
    • Is the paper sufficiently novel and does it contribute to a better understanding of the topic under scrutiny? Is the work rather confirmatory and repetitive?
  • Previous research
    • Is previous research adequately incorporated into the paper?
    • Are references complete, necessary and accurate?
    • Is there any sign that substantial parts of the paper are copied from other works?
  • Quality of the manuscript
    • Do the title, abstract and keywords accurately reflect the contents and data?
    • Is the manuscript consistent, suitably organised and written in appropriate English?
    • Are the relevant non-textual data and media (data sets, audio and video files, models, software) also available as supplementary files to the manuscript or as links to external repositories?
    • Have abbreviations and symbols been properly defined?
    • Are conflicts of interest, relevant permissions and other ethical issues addressed in an appropriate manner?
  • Quality of the data
    • Are the data completely and consistently recorded within the dataset(s)?
    • Does the data resource cover scientifically important and sufficiently large region(s), time period(s) and/or group(s) of taxa to be worthy of publication?
    • Are the data consistent internally and described using applicable standards (e.g. in terms of file formats, file names, file size, units and metadata)?
    • Are the methods used to process and analyses the raw data, thereby creating processed data or analytical results, sufficiently well documented that they could be repeated by third parties?
    • Are protocols for data aquisition clearly presented and reproducable?
    • Is the repository to which the data are submitted appropriate for the nature of the data?
  • Consistency between manuscript and data
    • Does the manuscript provide an accurate description of the data?
    • Does the manuscript properly describe how to access the data?
    • Are the methods used to generate the data (including calibration, code and suitable controls) described in sufficient detail?
    • Is the dataset sufficiently novel to merit publication?
    • Does the manuscript put the data resources being described properly into the context of prior research, citing pertinent articles and datasets?
    • Have possible sources of error been appropriately addressed in the protocols and/ or the paper?
    • Is anything missing in the manuscript or the data resource itself that would prevent replication of the measurements, or reproduction of the figures or other representations of the data?
    • Are all claims made in the manuscript substantiated by the underlying data and findings?

Peer Review Policy

This journal uses a double-blind peer review process, which means that both reviewer and author's names are concealed throughout the review process. To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not reveal their identity.

Please consider the Editor and Reviewer Guidelines in the About webpage of this journal for more details and stepwise instructions on the editorial and peer review process.


Indexing and Archiving Policy

The articles published in the journal are indexed by a high number of industry leading indexers and repositories. The journal content is archived in CLOCKSS, Zenodo, Portico and other international archives. The full list of indexes and archives are shown on the journal homepage.

The authors are allowed to publish preprints of their manuscripts on ARPHA Preprints or other preprint servers. The deposition and distribution of preprints and final article versions is highly encouraged.


Guidelines for Authors

Biosystematics and Ecology uses the highly automated and user-friendly ARPHA Writing Tool (AWT), which navigates you during the authoring and submission process. A Tips & Tricks practical guide to the technicalities within the tool is also available. 

The submission process in BiosystEcol starts with creating a manuscript in AWT via the Start new manuscript button. AWT offers a number of fixed yet flexible article templates for each article type available in BiosystEcol. Please note that the article templates cannot be changed once the writing process has started. The editorial office (biosystecol@oeaw.ac.at) is at the author’s disposal for any guidance with the AWT and for alternative submission methods.

Manuscripts will be accepted for publication only if the following criteria are fulfilled:

  • Papers and associated data must contribute to a better understanding of the topic under scrutiny. Studies that have already been published or submissions that are currently under consideration for publication elsewhere will not be accepted for publication.
  • Previously published information should be considered and cited in compliance with the good academic practice. References should be complete and accurate. All figures included in manuscripts should be copyright free and duly acknowledge the original source.
  • All data underpinning an article, including data tables on which graphs are produced, must be published alongside the paper, e.g. as supplementary files, or links to external repositories where data are deposited, and contain sufficient metadata to facilitate data discovery.
  • Manuscripts must be submitted in English - either British/Commonwealth or American English or German. Authors should confirm the English/German language quality of their texts or alternatively request thorough linguistic editing prior to peer-review at a price. Manuscripts written in poor English or German are a subject of rejection prior to peer-review.
  • Manuscripts should be concisely written, in a good academic style, and follow a logical sequence. The voice - active or passive - and the tense used should be consistent throughout the manuscript. Results should be clearly and concisely described and supported by the data published with the article, or data published elsewhere but linked to the article.

Materials and Methods

In line with responsible and reproducible research, as well as FAIR data principles, we highly recommend that authors describe in detail and deposit their science methods and laboratory protocols in the open access repository epub.oeaw.

Once deposited on epub.oeaw, protocols and methods will be issued a unique digital object identifier (DOI), which could be then used to link a manuscript to the relevant deposited protocol. By doing this, authors could allow for editors and peers to access the protocol when reviewing the submission to significantly expedite the process.  

Furthermore, an author could open up his/her protocol to the public at the click of a button as soon as their article is published.

Stepwise instructions:

1. Prepare a detailed protocol via epub.oeaw.

2. Click Get DOI to assign a persistent identifier to your protocol.

3. Add the DOI link to the Methods section of your manuscript prior to submitting it for peer review.

4. Click Publish to make your protocol openly accessible as soon as your article is published (optional).

5. Update your protocols anytime.


Preprints

The journal is integrated with the ARPHA Preprints platform, thereby allowing authors to post their pre-review manuscript as a preprint by simply checking the relevant box while completing the submission of their manuscript.

Due to the integration, the authors are not required to re-format or submit any additional files, as the system uses the manuscript to automatically generate a preprint. Subject to a basic editorial screening, the preprint will be posted on ARPHA Preprints within a few days after the manuscript’s submission.

By choosing to post their manuscript as a preprint, the authors provide their consent for their identity to be revealed to all, including potential reviewers. As a consequence, the double blind review process offered by the journal cannot be guaranteed for manuscripts posted as preprints.

Explore the Benefits of posting a preprint or visit ARPHA’s blog to learn more about ARPHA Preprints.

Find more about how to submit your preprint in the ARPHA Manual.


Data Publishing Guidelines

By submitting to this journal, authors agree to make the data that underpin or are described in their articles publicly available. Authors must include a separate "Data resources" section in their articles, listing datasets and where they are deposited (including accession numbers, DOIs or other persistent URL identifiers). For more information, please see our detailed Strategies and guidelines for scholarly publishing of biodiversity data

Please remember that publication of data associated with your article in machine-readable form (databases, data sets, data tables) in this journal is mandatory!

We provide various modes of data publishing:


Data Quality Checklist and Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

An empowering aspect of digital data is that they can be merged, reformatted and reused for new, imaginative uses that are more than the sum of their parts. However, this is only possible if data are well curated. To help authors avoid some common mistakes we have created this document to highlight those aspects of data that should be checked before publication.

By "mistakes" we do not mean errors of fact, although these should also be avoided! It is possible to have entirely correct digital data that are low-quality because they are badly structured or formatted, and, therefore, hard or impossible to move from one digital application to another. The next reader of your digital data is likely to be a computer program, not a human. It is essential that your data are structured and formatted so that they are easily processed by that program, and by other programs in the pipeline between you and the next human user of your data.

The following list of recommendations will help you maximise the re-usability of your digital data. Each represents a test carried out by the platform developers when auditing a digital dataset at the request of an author. Following the list, we provide explanations and examples of each recommendation.

Authors are encouraged to perform these checks themselves prior to data publication. For text data, a good text editor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_text_editors) can be used to find and correct most problems. Spreadsheets usually have some functions for text checking functions, e.g. the "TRIM" function that removes unneeded whitespace from a data item. The most powerful text-checking tools are on the command line, and the website "A Data Cleaner's Cookbook" (https://www.polydesmida.info/cookbook/) is recommended for authors who can use a BASH shell.

When auditing datasets for authors, the editorial team does not check taxonomic or bibliographic details for correctness, but we will do basic geochecks upon request, e.g. test to see if the stated locality is actually at or near the stated latitude/longitude. We also recommend checking that fields do not show "domain schizophrenia", i.e. fields misused to containing data of more than one type.

Proofreading data takes at least as much time and skill as proofreading text. Just as with text, mistakes easily creep into data files unless the files are carefully checked. To avoid the embarrassment of publishing data with such mistakes, we strongly recommend that you take the time to run these basic tests on your data.


CHECKLIST

Characters

- The dataset is UTF-8 encoded

- The only characters used that are not numbers, letters or standard punctuation, are tabs and whitespaces

- Each character has only one encoding in the dataset

- No line breaks within data items

- No field-separating character within data items (tab-separated data preferred)

- No "?" or replacement characters in place of valid characters

- No Windows carriage returns

- No leading, trailing, duplicated or unnecessary whitespaces in individual data items

 

Records

- No broken records, i.e. records with too few or too many fields

- No blank records

- No duplicate records (as defined by context)

 

Fields

- No empty fields

- No evident truncation of data items

- No unmatched braces within data items

- No data items with values that are evidently invalid or inappropriate for the given field

- Repeated data items are consistently formatted

- Standard data items such as dates and latitude/longitude are consistently formatted

- No evident disagreement between fields

- No unexpectedly missing data


 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Characters 

  • The dataset is UTF-8 encoded

Computer programs do not "read" characters like "A" and "4". Instead, they read strings of 0's and 1's and interpret these strings as characters according to an encoding scheme. The most universal encoding scheme is called UTF-8 and is based on the character set called Unicode. Text data should always be shared with UTF-8 encoding, as errors can be generated when non-UTF-8 encodings (such as Windows-1252) are read by a program expecting UTF-8, and vice-versa. (See also below, on replacement characters)

 

  • The only characters used that are not numbers, letters or standard punctuation are tabs and whitespaces

Unusual characters sometimes appear in datasets, especially when databases have been merged. These "control" or "gremlin" characters are sometimes invisible when data are viewed within a particular application (such as a spreadsheet or a database browser) but can usually be revealed when the data are displayed in a text editor. Examples include vertical tab, soft hyphen, non-breaking space and various ASCII control characters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_character).

 

  • Each character has only one encoding in the dataset

We have seen individual datasets in which the degree symbol (°) is represented in three different ways, and in which a single quotation mark (') is also represented as a prime symbol, a right single quotation mark and a grave accent. Always use one form of each character, and preferably the simplest form, e.g. plain quotes rather than curly quotes.

  • No line breaks within data items

Spreadsheet and database programs often allow users to have more than one line of text within a data item, separated by linebreaks or carriage returns. When these records are processed, many computer programs understand the embedded linebreak as the end of a record, so that the record is processed as several incomplete records:

 

item A  itemB1          itemC

               itemB2

 

becomes

 

itemA           itemB1

itemB2          itemC

  • No field-separating character within data items (tab-separated data preferred)

Data are most often compiled in table form, with a particular character used to separate one field ("column") from the next. Depending on the computer program used, the field-separating character might be a comma (CSV files), a tab (TSV files), a semicolon, a pipe (|) etc.

Well-structured data keeps the field-separating character out of data items, to avoid confusion in processing. Because commas are commonly present within data items, and because not all programs understand how to process CSVs, we recommend using tabs as field-separating characters (and avoiding tabs within data items!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tab-separated_values

  • No "?" or replacement characters in place of valid characters

When text data are moved between different character encodings, certain characters can be lost because the receiving program does not understand what the sending program is referring to. In most cases, the lost character is then represented by a question mark, as in "Duméril" becoming "Dum?ril", or by a replacement character, usually a dark polygon with a white question mark inside.

It is important to check for these replacements before publishing data, especially if you converted your data to UTF-8 encoding from another encoding.

  • No Windows carriage returns

On UNIX, Linux and Mac computers, a linebreak is built with just one character, the UNIX linefeed '\n' ('LF'). On Windows computers, a linebreak is created using two characters, one after the other: '\r\n' ('CRLF'), where '\r' is called a 'carriage return' ('CR'). Carriage returns are not necessary in digital data and can cause problems in data processing on non-Windows computers. Check the documentation of the program in which you are compiling data to learn how to remove Windows carriage returns.

  • No leading, trailing, duplicated or unnecessary whitespaces in individual data items

Like "control" and "gremlin" characters, whitespaces are invisible and we pay little attention to them when reading a line of text. Computer programs, however, see whitespaces as characters with the same importance as "A" and "4". For this reason, the following four lines are different and should be edited to make them the same:

Aus bus (Smith, 1900)

Aus bus (Smith, 1900)

Aus bus (Smith,  1900)

Aus  bus   (Smith, 1900 )

Records

  • No broken records, i.e. records with too few or too many fields

If a data table contains records with, for example, 25 fields, then every record in the table should have exactly 25 data items, even if those items are empty. Records with too few fields are often the result of a linebreak or field separator within a data item (see above). Records with too many fields also sometimes appear when part of a record has been moved in a spreadsheet past the end of the table.

  • No blank records

Blank records contribute nothing to a data table because they contain no information, and a tidy data table has no blank lines. Note, however, that a computer program looking for blank lines may not find what looks to a human like a blank line, because the "blank" line actually contains invisible tabs or whitespaces.

  • No duplicate records (as defined by context)

It can be difficult to find duplicate records in some datasets, but our experience is that they are not uncommon. One cause of duplicates is database software assigning a unique ID number to the same line of data more than once. Context will determine whether one record is a duplicate of another, and data compilers are best qualified to look for them.

Fields

  • No empty fields

 Fields containing no data items do not add anything to the information content of a dataset and should be omitted.

  •  No evident truncation of data items

The end of a data item is sometimes cut off, for example when a data item with 55 characters is entered into a database field with a 50-character maximum limit. Truncated data items should be repaired when found, e.g.

Smith & Jones in Smith, Jones and Bro

repaired to

Smith & Jones in Smith, Jones and Brown, 1974

No unmatched braces within data items

These are surprisingly common in datasets and are either data entry errors or truncations, e.g.

Smith, A. (1900 A new species of Aus. Zool. Anz. 23: 660-667.

5 km W of Traralgon (Vic

  • No data items with values that are evidently invalid or inappropriate for the given field

For example, a field labeled "Year" and containing years should not contain the data item "3 males".

  •  Repeated data items are consistently formatted

The same data item should not vary in format within a single dataset, e.g.

Smith, A. (1900) A new species of Aus. Zool. Anz. 23: 660-667.

Smith, A. 1900. A new species of Aus. Zoologischer Anzeiger 23: 660-667.

Smith, A. (1900) A new species of Aus. Zool. Anz. 23, 660-667, pl. ix.

  • Standard data items such as dates and latitude/longitude are consistently formatted

Data compilers have a number of choices when formatting standard data items, but whichever format is chosen, it should be used consistently. A single date field should not, for example, have dates represented as 2005-05-17, May 19, 2005 and 23.v.2005.

  • No evident disagreement between fields

If there are fields that contain linked information then these fields should be checked to ensure that they do not conflict with each other. For example, the year or an observation cannot be after the year it was published.

Examples:

Year            Citation

1968            Smith, A. (1966) Polychaete anatomy. Academic Press, New York; 396 pp.

 

Genus         Subgenus

Aus             Bus (Aus)

  • No unexpectedly missing data

This is a rare issue in datasets that have been audited, but occasionally occurs. An example is the Darwin Core "verbatimLocality" field for a record containing a full latitude and longitude, but with the "decimalLatitude" and "decimalLongitude" fields blank.

  • Spelling of Darwin Core terms

Darwin Core terms are usually considered case sensitive, therefore you should use their correct spelling (http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/).


Data Review Guidelines

Pensoft Publishers provide data auditing and quality check prior to peer-review, including optional data correcting services, which might be a solution for those authors or their institutions who really care about the quality and re-use of their data. This, however, does not exclude the need for a proper peer review of data, therefore reviewers are kindly asked to look upon some other quality parameters of data published in association with research articles or as data papers in accordance with the following guidelines: 

Quality of the Manuscript

  • Does the manuscript conform to the focus and scope of this journal?
  • Does the manuscript contain unpublishable — for example fraudulent or pseudoscientific — content?
  • Does the manuscript contain sufficiently detailed information to merit publication?
  • Do the title, abstract and keywords accurately reflect the contents of the manuscript?
  • Is the manuscript internally consistent and suitably organized?
  • Is the manuscript written in grammatically and stylistically correct English?
  • Are the methods relevant to the study and adequately described?
  • Did the authors cite most of the literature pertinent to the subject?
  • Are relevant non-textual media (e.g. tables, figures, audio, video) used to an appropriate extent and in a suitable manner?
  • Have abbreviations and symbols been properly defined?
  • Are the illustrations of sufficient quality?
  • Does the manuscript put the data resource being described properly into the context of prior research, citing pertinent articles and datasets?
  • Are conflicts of interest, relevant permissions and other ethical issues addressed in an appropriate manner?

Quality of the Data

  • Are the data freely and openly available under an appropriate Creative Commons license or waiver?
  • Is the repository to which the data are submitted appropriate for the nature of the data?
  • Are the data completely and consistently recorded within the dataset(s)?
  • Does the data resource cover scientifically important and sufficiently large region(s), time period(s) and/or group(s) of taxa to be worthy of a separate publication?
  • Are the data consistent internally and described using applicable standards (e.g. in terms of file formats, file names, file size, units and metadata)?
  • Are the methods used to process and analyse the raw data, thereby creating processed data or analytical results, sufficiently well documented that they could be repeated by third parties?
  • Are the data plausible, given the protocols? Authors are encouraged to report any tests undertaken to address this point.

Consistency between Manuscript and Data

  • Does the manuscript provide an accurate description of the data?
  • Does the manuscript properly describe how to access the data?
  • Are the methods used to generate the data (including calibration, code and suitable controls) described in sufficient detail?
  • Is the dataset sufficiently unique to merit publication as a data paper?
  • Are the use cases described in the data paper consistent with the data presented? Would other possible use cases merit comment in the paper?
  • Have possible sources of error been appropriately addressed in the protocols and/ or the paper?
  • Is anything missing in the manuscript or the data resource itself that would prevent replication of the measurements, or reproduction of the figures or other representations of the data?
  • Are all claims made in the manuscript substantiated by the underlying data?

How It Works

Manuscripts for the BiosystEcol can be submitted from the online, collaborative, article-authoring ARPHA Writing Tool (AWT) that provides a large set of pre-defined, but flexible, article templates. The editorial office (biosystecol@oeaw.ac.at) is at the author’s disposal for any guidance with the AWT and to discuss alternative submission methods.

To facilitate the writing process, the AWT also provides an automated search and import function from external databases including electronic registries; catalogues; occurrence data in Darwin Core format; and reference bibliographies.

In the AWT-environment, the authors may invite external contributors, such as mentors, potential reviewers, linguistic and copy editors, colleagues, etc., who are not authors, but may watch and comment on the text during the preparation of the manuscript.

Please consider the following steps:

  1. Start a manuscript in the ARPHA Writing Tool (AWT), contact the editorial office if necessary
  2. Validate and submit it when ready to the BiosystEcol
  3. Make corrections and respond to reviewers and editors online
  4. Submit the revised version at the click of a button
  5. Work with the copyeditors on final improvements
  6. Enjoy publication within few days after final acceptance

Topical collections

Topical collections are collections of articles grouped together by a shared topic or interest group, such as an emerging area of research, proceedings of a conference, outcomes of a research project or a Festschrift volume.

Article collections aim to aid the dissemination and outreach of multiple research outcomes and also bring together research teams from around the globe working on similar topics, thus increasing the opportunities for collaboration, sharing and re-use of research. Article collections bring credit, increased discoverability, visibility and recognition to both their collection editors and participating authors.

Topical collections can be opened in BiosystEcol and can be permanent or made subject to a submission deadline. It is only up to the Collection editor(s) to decide whether and when the collection is to be closed for submission (given a timely public announcement is provided). The articles are published on a rolling basis, as soon as they are ready for publication, and can be part of different journal issues, published across many years.

Article collections are managed by a Collection editor and associated Guest editors. To pitch a Topical collection, either contact the Editor-in-Chief or submit an Open an article collection proposal. Before pitching a Topical collection, please make yourself aware of the specificity of the focus, scope and policies of the journal and the associated responsibilities and benefits for you as a Collection editor.


How It Works

The following guidelines apply for Topical collections in BiosystEcol.

  1. Collections may have subcollections, for example, topical subcollections.

  2. Opening and managing a collection

    1. The article collections are managed by a Collection editor and Guest editors. The Collection editor is responsible for approving or declining manuscripts submitted to the article collection; assigning a Guest editor to each manuscript for handling the peer review process; and managing the collection on the journal’s website (e.g. change the collection’s description or the order of the papers). The Collection editor has the full rights of a Guest editor and can also handle manuscripts.

    2. Before pitching a collection, assure that you are ready to appoint other Guest editors, if necessary. The Collection editor and the Guest editors are also expected to commission an initial set of manuscripts to be submitted soon after the opening of the collection.

    3. Submit the Article collection proposal form or contact the Editor-in-Chief via email. The collections should fully comply with the journal’s focus, scope and editorial policies.

    4. Online proposals are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief via the journal’s editorial office (biosystecol@oeaw.ac.at) for approval.

    5. Upon approval of the proposal, the journal’s editorial office will set up the collection on the journal’s website.

    6. Open collections will be promoted through the journal’s website and social media in collaboration with the Collection and Guest editors. 

    7. Editors of Topical collections with no set submission deadlines need to inform the journal’s editorial office if they wish to close the collection for submissions in a timely manner. 

  3. Authors opt for assigning their manuscript to a collection during submission. In case the manuscript is declined from the collection, it undergoes the regular evaluation and peer review process at the journal.

  4. Once the manuscript passes the initial pre-review screening by the Editor-in-Chief and the journal's editorial office, it is forwarded to the Collection editor to either approve or decline it for the collection. The Collection editor is notified about each new submission to the collection via email sent by the system.

  5. After reading the paper, the Collection editor can:

    1. accept it in the collection and assign it to a Guest editor.

    2. decline it from the collection and send it back to the journal's editorial office.

  6. Once a manuscript is assigned to a Guest editor, he or she takes on the responsibility to invite reviewers and provide an editorial decision for revision, rejection or acceptance of the manuscript, based on the reviews and personal evaluation.

  7. The editorial decisions are automatically forwarded to the authors by the system.

  8. The journal’s Editor-in-Chief has the full rights to intervene in the editorial process at his or her discretion. Depending on the journal’s policy, the journal’s Editor-in-Chief might need to approve the Guest editor’s final decision before the manuscript is accepted for publication.


Benefits of Editing a Collection

The main advantages to open and edit an article collection can be summarised as follows:

  1. Credit and recognition for the Collection and Guest editors who take care to organise and manage the article collection.

  2. Facilitates discoverability and usability of topically related studies, which in turn benefits both authors and readers.

  3. Increases the visibility of related papers, even when papers might otherwise lack in viewership. 

  4. Prompts simultaneous citation of multiple articles related to a certain subject.

  5. Facilitates citation and referencing of the whole issue as a complete entity.

To show our gratitude to the collection editors, we are also providing a free publication to collection editors in the collection they edit and manage.


Editor’s Responsibilities

By proposing an article collection (Topical collection), you agree to act as a Collection editor, whose main responsibilities are:

  • Working with the editorial office to set up the article collection on the journal’s website.

  • Appoint Guest editors for the article collection.

  • Approve or decline each manuscript submitted to the article collection.

  • Assign a Guest editor for each manuscript submitted to the article collection.

  • Assure that the article collections complies with any relevant requirements, as set up by the journal and the agreement (if any).

  • Inform the journal’s editorial office about any changes or issues concerning the management of the collection in due time.

You will also be granted the user rights of a Guest editor necessary to handle manuscripts in the system (i.e. assign reviewers and provide an editorial decision on the acceptance/rejection of the manuscript). 

The responsibilities of a Guest editor are:

  • Handling the peer review of the manuscripts they have been assigned to.

  • Making an editorial decision for revision, acceptance or rejection of the manuscripts they have been assigned to, based on the reviews provided and personal evaluation.

  • Taking into consideration the recommendations of the journal’s Editor-in-Chief.

For more information about the editorial workflow, visit How it works?


No Publication Charges

All accepted manuscripts are published free of charge until further notice. Publication costs are covered by the Austrian Academy of Sciences.


Additional Services for Authors (Optional, not included in the publication waiver scheme)

Optional service

Price

Notes

Linguistic services

€ 15 per 1800 characters

For texts that require additional editing by a native English speaker

Tailored PR campaign

€ 150*

Press release, dedicated media and social networks promotion

Auditing of the Darwin Core data associated with manuscript**

€ 75 for datasets up to 10000 records. For large datasets (10,000 + records) please contact Dr. Bob Mesibov for pricing

On demand

Cleaning of the Darwin Core data associated with my manuscript**

€ 225 for datasets up to 10000 records. For large datasets (10,000 + records) please contact Dr. Bob Mesibov for pricing

On demand

Scientific illustrations & image processing to complement articlesask for a quote at designer@pensoft.netOn demand

*This service can be discounted or waived for articles of outstanding importance for the science and society.
**Reviewers do not usually have time to check through large data files included with manuscripts. If you would like us to have your data files checked, we offer the services of Dr. Bob Mesibov who is a data auditor.
Suitable data files for checking would be large tables of occurrence records or of genetic data. These can be checked for duplicate and broken records, misuse of fields, disagreements between fields, character encoding problems and incorrect or inconsistent formatting. Georeferencing can also be checked, on request. Please note that this service does not apply to taxonomic, nomenclatural or bibliographic details in data files.


Guidelines for Editors


How to Access a Manuscript

Manuscripts can be accessed only after login:

  1. Login is possible after registration. Our Editorial Office will register and provide login details to all first-time editors and reviewers. Reviewers receive an email with their login details usualy prior to the first invitation to review a paper.
  2. The login credentials consist of:
    a.  Username: <your email address>
    b.  Password: <text string>

  3. Login details will be provided in an email after the first registration. Thereafter, the user may at any time change the password and correct personal details using their own account menu (clicking on his/her name in the upper right corner of the screen).

  4. In case you have forgotten your password, please write to request it from biosystecol@oeaw.ac.at. Alternatively, you may use the function: 
    Forgot your password?.

There are two ways to access a manuscript:

  1. After login, please go to the journal’s web page and click on the button Your Tasks in the upper right corner of the screen. This way, you will be able to see all manuscripts you are responsible for as an author, reviewer, or editor.

    Note: The manuscripts are grouped in several categories, e.g., In Review (no.), In layout (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.) etc. The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts that were assigned to you.

  2. Click on the active manuscript link provided in the email notification you have received from the online editorial system. The link will lead you directly to the respective manuscript.


General Responsibilities of Editors

Subject, or Associate, editors carry the main responsibility for the scientific quality of the papers. They take the final decision on a manuscript’s acceptance or rejection and their names are listed as Academic Editor in the header of each published article.

The editorial process is facilitated through an online editorial system and a set of email notifications. The online editorial system informs the Subject Editor about any change in the status of a manuscript from submission to publication.

The online editorial system is designed to save time and effort for Subject Editors in checking the status of the manuscripts. There is no need for editors to visit the journal’s website to keep track on the manuscript they are responsible for. The online system will inform the Subject Editor when an invited reviewer has accepted or declined to review. The email notifications contain stepwise instructions what action is needed at each stage, as well as a link to the respective manuscript (accessible by clicking on the link in the email notification or after login – see How to Access a Manuscript).

Subject Editors are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but rather focus on its scientific quality and overall style, which should correspond to good practices in clear and concise academic writing. It is the author’s responsibility to submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English. The Subject Editor should not hesitate to recommend either Reject, or Reject, but resubmission encouraged PRIOR to the peer-review process, in cases when a manuscript is scientifically poor and/or does not conform to journal’s style, and/or is written in poor English (see Note under point 1 below how to reject a manuscript prior to peer review). 

It often happens that even carefully written manuscripts may contain small errors in orthography or stylistics. We shall be thankful if editors spot such errors during the reading process and correct them.


Stepwise Description of the Editorial Process

  1. Once a manuscript is submitted, the Managing Editor (or the Editor-in-Chief) briefly checks the manuscript for any personal notes addressed to the E-i-C during the submission process, any explicitly indicated conflict of interest or request for additional services or discount and then the Editor can process it for review.
    Note: The workflow that the journal uses allows the Managing Editor (or the Editor-in-Chief) to perform a thorough initial check of the manuscript, during a previous stage called Technical evaluation, prior to its submission to the journal. During this stage, the Editor checks the manuscript for conformance with the journal's Focus, Scope, Policies and style requirements and decides whether it is potentially suitable for publication and can be processed for review. In case the submission does not comply with the journal's standards, it can be either 1) sent back to the authors for correction - this process can be iterated in as many rounds as needed - or 2) rejected in ARPHA, i.e. disabled for submission to the journal. Either way, the system requires that the Editorial office add a note explaining the reason for return or rejection.

  2. Once a manuscript has been approved during the Technical evaluation and then submitted to the journal, the Managing Editor (or the Editor-in-Chief) assigns it to the Subject Editor responsible for the respective topic (e.g., science branch or taxon). The Subject Editor receives a notification email on the assignment.  
    Note: The link to the respective manuscript is available in the review request email and all consequent reminder emails. The manuscript is accessible by clicking on the link in the email notifications, or via the user's dashboard after login. Please see How to Access a Manuscript above in case you have any difficulties.

  3. The Subject Editor has to read the manuscript and decide whether it is potentially suitable for publication and can be processed for review, or rejected immediately, or returned to the author for improvement and re-submission. Reasons for rejection can be a low scientific quality, non-conformance to the journal’s style/policies, and/or linguistically or grammatically poor English language.
    Note: There are two ways to reject a manuscript prior to review process:
    -  Through the buttons Reject or Reject, but re-submission encouraged in the Editorial tab. Please note, however, that the buttons will be made active only after a justification for the rejection is provided in the text field. 
    -  Through an email to the Editorial office explaining the reason for rejection. The manuscript will be then rejected/returned through the online editorial system and the respective notification email will be sent from the Editorial Office.

  4. In case the manuscript is acceptable for peer review, the Subject Editor has to invite reviewers by clicking on the Invite reviewers link. A list of reviewers will appear from which the editor can choose the appropriate ones or add new ones.
    Note: "Nominated" and "Panel" reviewers. The difference between "Nominated" and "Panel" reviewers is that "Nominated" reviewers are expected to provide a formal review by the deadline; "Panel" reviewers are invited but not required to evaluate the manuscript. Both "Nominated" and "Panel" reviewers can propose changes and corrections, and make comments in the manuscript online and submit a concise reviewer's form. 

  5. Once reviewers are chosen, the Subject Editor has to click the Invite reviewers green button at the end of the page which will generate email templates with review invitations. It is highly recommended that the Subject Editor adds some personal words above the standard email text review invitation.

  6. In case a reviewer is absent from our users' database, the editor can add his/her name and email through the Add new reviewer link, which will appear once the search field reveals no results. It is possible that the needed reviewer has already been registered in the User database either as customer or author/reviewer of another journal. If this is the case, then his/her name, affiliation and other metadata will automatically appear once the e-mail field is populated in the Create user online form.

  7. The Subject Editor receives a notification email if the reviewer has agreed to review a manuscript or declined to do that. The editor takes care to appoint additional reviewers in case some of the invited reviewers have declined.

  8. Once all reviewers submit their reviews, the Subject Editor receives an email notification, inviting him/her to consider reviewers' opinions, read through the manuscript and make a decision through the Proceed button. The Subject Editor is also notified in case none of the reviewers agreed to provide a formal review on the manuscript and he/she is prompted to consider inviting more reviewers.
    Note: Editorial comments should be added in the online editorial form; comments and corrections applied using the Track Changes feature and these will be consolidated in a single document along with all reviewers' comments and suggestions.

  9. At this stage, the editor should make a decision either to (1) accept the manuscript, or (2) reject it, or (3) initiate another review round. In case the manuscript is not rejected, but recommended for Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Acceptance, the author is expected to submit a revised version within a certain period of time and the Subject Editor will be notified by email about that.
    Note 1: Authors must submit revised versions using the Track Changes feature and resolve all Comments, replying to each Subject Editor and reviewer's query so that the Subject Editor can see their corrections/additions. Authors are expected to reply to the essential critiques and comments of reviewers separately through the online editorial system.
    Note 2: During the second, or next, review round, the Subject Editor may decide to ask reviewers to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript. He/she may also make a decision based on the author’s responses and the revised version of the manuscript without asking additional reviewers' support.

  10. After acceptance, the manuscript will go to layout and proofreading. The Subject Editor will be notified by email when the final proof is uploaded on the journal’s website. The Subject Editor is expected to look at the proofs and notify the Editorial Office through email in case the proofs need improvement.

  11. The Subject Editor may always access information on the manuscripts which have been edited by him/her through the menu My Tasks –> Subject Editor on the journal’s web page – In Review (no.), In Edit (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.). The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts that were assigned.


Editors’ and Reviewers’ Workload Stats

While selecting a Reviewer or a Subject Editor to assign to a manuscript, Editors can access the current and past workload for the person they are considering.

By clicking on the user’s name, an Editor sees how many editorial or review tasks the person is currently assigned with, as well as a record of the user’s previous performance across all ARPHA-hosted journals (i.e. number of accepted and declined editorial and review assignments, as well as the titles of the corresponding journals).

The feature is meant to facilitate and expedite the editorial process by discouraging assignment of tasks to overburdened or inactive users.

Find how to Manage Subject editor assignments and Invite Reviewers in the ARPHA Manual.


Guidelines for Reviewers


How to Access a Manuscript

Manuscripts can be accessed only after login:

  1. Login is possible after registration. Our Editorial Office will register and provide login details to all first-time editors and reviewers. Reviewers receive an email with their login details usually prior to the first invitation to review a paper.
  2. The login credentials consist of:
    a.  Username: <your email address>
    b.  Password: <text string>

  3. Login details will be provided in an email after the first registration. Thereafter, the user may at any time change the password and correct personal details using their own account menu (clicking on his/her name in the upper right corner of the screen).

  4. In case you have forgotten your password, please write to request it from biosystecol@oeaw.ac.at. Alternatively, you may use the function: 
    Forgot your password?.

There are two ways to access a manuscript:

  1. After login, please go to the journal’s web page and click on the button Your Tasks in the upper right corner of the screen. This way, you will be able to see all manuscripts you are responsible for as an author, reviewer, or editor.

    Note: The manuscripts are grouped in several categories, e.g., In Review (no.), In layout (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.) etc. The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts that were assigned to you.

  2. Click on the active manuscript link provided in the email notification you have received from the online editorial system. The link will lead you directly to the respective manuscript.


General Responsibilities of Reviewers

This journal uses a double-blind peer-review process. The reviewers must not disclose their identity. The peer review and editorial process is facilitated through an online editorial system and a set of email notifications. The online editorial system sends the Reviewer a review request, initiated by the Subject Editor or the Editorial Office. The online system will also inform about delays in the reviewing and will confirm a successful review submission. The email notifications contain stepwise instructions about the actions needed at each stage along with the link to the respective manuscript (accessible only after login – see section How to Access a Manuscript).

Reviewers are not expected to provide thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but rather focus on its scientific quality and overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. If Reviewers recognize that a manuscript requires linguistic edits, we shall be grateful for them to inform both the Author and the Subject Editor in the report. It is the Author’s responsibility to submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English.

It often happens that even carefully written manuscripts may contain small errors in orthography or stylistics. We shall be thankful if Reviewers spot such errors during the reading process and correct them.

The manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two or three experts with the aim of reaching a first decision as soon as possible. Reviewers must not sign their reports. However, they are asked to declare any conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are asked whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, how interesting it is and whether the quality of the writing is acceptable. Where possible, the final decision is made on the basis of the peer reviews. In cases of strong disagreement between the reports or between the authors and peer reviewers, the editor can assess these according to his/her expertise or seek advice from a member of the journal's Editorial Board.

The ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions lies with the respective Subject Editor and/or, in some journals, with the Editor-in-Chief. All appeals should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief, who may decide to seek advice from the Subject Editors or the Editorial Board.

Reviewers are also asked to indicate which articles they consider to be especially interesting or significant. These articles may be given greater prominence and greater external publicity, including press releases addressed to science journalists and mass media.

During a second review round, reviewers may be asked to evaluate the revised version against their recommendations submitted during the first review round.

Reviewers are kindly asked to be polite and constructive in their reports. Reports that may be insulting or uninformative will be rescinded.

Reviewers are asked to start their report with a very brief summary of the reviewed paper. This will help the editor and the authors see whether the reviewer correctly understood the paper or whether a report might be based on misunderstanding.

Furthermore, reviewers are also asked to comment on originality, structure and previous research:

Originality: Is the paper sufficiently novel and does it contribute to a better understanding of the topic under scrutiny? Is the work rather confirmatory and repetitive?

Structure: Is the introduction clear and concise? Does it place the work into the context that is necessary for a reader to comprehend aims, hypotheses tested, experimental design or methods? Are Material and Methods clearly described and sufficiently explained? Are reasons given when choosing one method over another one from a set of comparable methods? Are the results clearly, but concisely described? Do they relate to the topic outlined in the introduction? Do they follow a logical sequence? Does the discussion place the paper in scientific context and go a step beyond the current scientific knowledge on the basis of the results? Are competing hypotheses or theories reasonably related to each other and properly discussed? Do the conclusions seem reasonable?

Previous research: Is previous research adequately incorporated into the paper? Are references complete, necessary and accurate? Is there any sign that substantial parts of the paper are copies of other works?


Stepwise Description of the Peer Review Process

  1. This journal uses a double-blind peer-review process. Reviewers must NOT disclose their identities. 

  2. The Reviewer receives a review request generated by the Subject Editor or the Editorial Office and is expected to either agree to provide a review, or decline, through pressing the Will do or Unable (to do the review) link in the online editorial system. In case the Reviewer agrees to review the manuscript, he/she should submit the review within a certain time frame.
    Note: The link to the respective manuscript is available in the review request email and all consequent reminder emails. The manuscript is accessible by clicking on the link in the email notification, or after login. Please look at the section How to Access a Manuscript above in case you have any difficulties.

  3. The review should be submitted through the Proceed button. The review should consist of (1) a simple online questionnaire to be answered by ticking either YesNo, or N/A; and (2) comments addressed to both the Author and the Editor in the online form.
    Note: Reviewers can insert comments in the manuscript review version.

  4. The Reviewer must make sure he/she leaves no indications revealing his/her identity in the comments he/she leaves online.

  5. The review process is completed by selecting a recommendation from five options: (1) Reject; (2) Reject, but resubmission encouraged; (3) Major Revision; (4) Minor Revision; (5) Accept. The system will ask for one more confirmation of the selected recommendation before submission. The submitted review cannot be changed after submission.
    Note: Reasons for rejection can be a low scientific quality, non-conformance to the journal’s style/policies, and/or grammatically poor English language.

  6. Once a Reviewer submits a review of a manuscript, he/she receives an acknowledgement email from the journal.

  7. When all Reviewers have submitted their reviews, the Subject Editor makes a decision to either accept, reject or request further minor/major revision.

  8. After Subject Editor's decision, the manuscript is sent back to the author for comments and further revision. The author needs to submit a revised version in due time.

  9. Reviewers are notified via email when the revised version of a manuscript they have reviewed is submitted by the author. They receive a link to the revised version along with the editorial decision and all reviews of the manuscript. Reviewers are also provided with a feedback form should they have any comments on the revised version.

  10. When an article is published, all Reviewers who have provided a review for the respective manuscript receive an email acknowledgment. In the email, there is a link to view/download the published article.

  11. The Reviewer may always access information on the manuscripts that are being / have been reviewed by him/her through the menu My Tasks –> Reviewer on the journal’s web page – In Review (no.), In Edit (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.). The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts that have been assigned to you.


Science Communication

Our journal and the PR team at Pensoft invites authors to contribute to the communication and promotion of their published research, thereby increasing the visibility, outreach and impact of their work. 

Authors are welcome to notify us whenever their institution is working on a promotional campaign about their work published in our journal. We are always happy to reshare and/or repost (where appropriate). 

You can contact our PR team at dissemination@pensoft.net to discuss the communication and promotion of your research.


Tailored PR Campaign

(Paid service*)

We encourage authors, who feel that their work is of particular interest to the wider audience, to email us with a press release draft** (see template and guidelines), outlining the key findings from the study and their public impact. Then, the PR team will work with them to finalise the announcement that will be:

  • Issued on the global science news service Eurekalert!
  • Sent out to our media contacts from the world’s top-tier news outlets
  • Posted on ARPHA’s or Pensoft’s blog
  • Shared on social media via suitable ARPHA-managed accounts

Following the distribution of the press announcement, our team will be tracking the publicity across news media, blogs and social networks, in order to report back to the author(s), and reshare any prominent media content.

Request our Tailored PR campaign service by selecting it while completing your submission form and you will be contacted once your manuscript is accepted for publication. Alternatively, contact our PR team  (dissemination@pensoft.net), preferably upon the acceptance of your manuscript.

* The Tailored PR campaign is an extra service charged at EUR 150. However, we would consider discounts and even full waivers for studies of particular interest for the society.

** Please note that our PR team reserves the right to edit your press release at their discretion. No press announcements will be issued until we receive the author’s final approval to do so. The service is only available for studies published within the past 3 months.


Guest Blog Post

(Free service)

Authors are strongly encouraged to promote their work and its impact on society to the audience beyond their immediate public of fellow scientists by means of storytelling in plain language. Ideally, such guest blog posts will be:

  • Written from the author’s own point of view, using conversational tone;
  • Written in fluent English;
  • Presenting some curious background information, in order to place the discovery in context;
  • Including attractive non-copyright imagery.

Request our Guest blog post service by contacting the PR department (dissemination@pensoft.net), regardless of the status of your submission, as there are no time constraints for guest blog post publication. Particularly encouraged are follow-up contributions telling the story of, for example, a research paper that has led to an important policy to be set in place; or an article that has met remarkable attention or reactions in the public sphere.

Following the necessary final touches to the guest blog post by the PR team, the contribution will be:

  • Posted on ARPHA’s or Pensoft’s blog
  • Shared on social media via multiple and relevant ARPHA-managed accounts

Please note that the PR team reserves the right to refuse publication of a guest blog post on the occasion that it is provided in poor English, uses considerable amount of jargon or does not abide by basic ethical standards. Our PR team reserves the right to request changes to the text related to formatting or language. No blog posts will be issued until we receive the author’s final approval to do so.

Find past guest blog posts on Pensoft’s blog here


Video Podcasts

(Free service)

To efficiently increase the outreach of their research, authors are suggested to prepare a video contribution (i.e. elevator video pitch, video abstract or topical video), where they present their work to an audience beyond their immediate public of fellow scientists by means of visual storytelling.

To do so, they are expected to send us a short (up to 02’00’’) video clip, presenting their study in a nutshell, in order to spark the viewer’s further interest in their findings and work, as well as the research topic as a whole. Ideally, such contribution will be:

  • filmed in high quality, preferably with .mp4 file extension with the H.264 video codec;
  • directed from the author’s own point of view, using conversational tone and minimal jargon;
  • presented in fluent English or featuring English subtitles;
  • accompanied by a transcript in English;
  • accompanied by a short text introduction for the purposes of a blog post.

Request our Guest video contribution service by contacting the PR department (dissemination@pensoft.net), regardless of the status of your submission, since there are no time constraints for guest blog post publication.

Following the necessary final touches to the guest blog post, the contribution will be:

  • Shared on Pensoft’s YouTube channel;
  • Posted on ARPHA’s or Pensoft’s blog;
  • Shared on social media via multiple and relevant ARPHA-managed accounts. 

Please note that the PR team reserves the right to refuse distribution of a guest contribution on the occasion that it is provided in poor English, uses considerable amount of jargon or does not abide by basic ethical standards.


Policies

General Statement

The journal policies and guidelines are mandatory. Exceptions to elements of the policies may be granted in specific cases, but will require justification that will be made public together with the article.

License and Copyright Agreement

In submitting the manuscript to the journal, the authors certify that:

  • They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
  • The work described has not been formally published before (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, thesis, or overlay journal), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
  • They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere.
  • They agree to the following license and copyright agreement:

Copyright

Licensing for Data Publication

Pensoft’s  journals use a variety of waivers and licenses, that are specifically designed for and appropriate for the treatment of data:

Other data publishing licenses may be allowed as exceptions (subject to approval by the editor on a case-by-case basis) and should be justified with a written statement from the author, which will be published with the article.

Open Data and Software Publishing and Sharing

The journal strives to maximize the replicability of the research published in it. Authors are thus required to share all data, code or protocols underlying the research reported in their articles. Exceptions are permitted, but have to be justified in a written public statement accompanying the article.

Datasets and software should be deposited and permanently archived in appropriate, trusted, general, or domain-specific repositories (please consult http://service.re3data.org and/or software repositories such as GitHub, GitLab, Bioinformatics.org, or equivalent). The associated persistent identifiers (e.g. DOI, or others) of the dataset(s) must be included in the data or software resources section of the article. Reference(s) to datasets and software should also be included in the reference list of the article with DOIs (where available). Where no domain-specific data repository exists, authors should deposit their datasets in a general repository such as ZENODO,Dryad, Dataverse, or others.

Small data may also be published as data files or packages supplementary to a research article, however, the authors should prefer in all cases a deposition in data repositories.

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses present on the journal’s website will be used exclusively for the purposes of the journal.

Commenting Policies

All public comments follow the normal standards of professional discourse. All commenters are named, and their comments are associated to the journal profile. The journal does not allow anonymous or pseudonymous commenting or user profiles.

The journal does not tolerate language that is insulting, inflammatory, obscene or libelous. The journal reserves the right to remove all or parts of Comments to bring them in line with these policies. The journal is the final arbiter as to the suitability of any comments.

Gender Issues

We encourage the use of gender-neutral language, such as 'chairperson' instead of 'chairman' or 'chairwomen', as well as 'they' instead of 'she/he' and 'their' instead of  'him/her' (or consider restructuring the sentence).

Conflicts of Interest

The journal requires that all parties involved in a publication (i.e. the authors, reviewers and academic editors) should transparently declare any potential Conflicts of Interest (also known as Competing Interests). The disclosure of a Conflict of Interest does not necessarily mean that there is an issue to be addressed; it simply ensures that all parties are appropriately informed of any relevant considerations while they work on the submission.

Potential Conflicts of Interest should be declared even if the individual in question feels that these interests do not represent an actual conflict. Examples of Conflicts of Interest include, but are not limited to: possible financial benefits if the manuscript is published; patent activity on the results; consultancy activity around the results; personal material or financial gain (such as free travel, gifts, etc.) relating to the work, and so on.

While possible financial benefits should appear here, actual funding sources (institutional, corporate, grants, etc.) should be detailed in the funding disclosure statement.

Funding Disclosure

The journal requires that authors declare the funding which made their work possible, including funding programmes, projects, or calls for grant proposals (when applicable).

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

General

Manuscripts submitted to the journal must be original work and is not currently being considered for publication by another journal.

The publishing ethics and malpractice policies of the journal follow the relevant COPE guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines), and in case a malpractice is suspected, the journal Editors will act in accordance with them.

Submission, peer review and editorial process

The peer review and editorial processes are facilitated through an online editorial system and a set of email notifications. Pensoft journals’ websites display stepwise description of the editorial process and list all necessary instructions and links. These links are also included in the respective email notification.

General: Publication and authorship

  • All submitted papers are subject to a rigorous peer review process by at least two international reviewers who are experts in the scientific field of the particular paper. 

  • The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language. 

  • The journals allow a maximum of two rounds of review of a manuscript. The ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions lies with the respective Subject Editor and, in some cases, with the Editor-in-Chief. All appeals should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief, who may decide to seek advice among the Subject Editors and Reviewers.

  • The possible decisions include: (1) Accept, (2) Minor revisions, (2) Major revisions, (3) Reject, but re-submission encouraged and (5) Reject. 

  • If Authors are encouraged to revise and re-submit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. 

  • The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. 

  • No research can be included in more than one publication.

Responsibility of Authors 

  • Authors are required to agree that their paper will be published in open access under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) license.

  • Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work. 

  • Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere. 

  • Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 

  • Authors should submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English and formatted in accordance with the journal’s Author Guidelines.

  • Authors must participate in the peer review process. 

  • Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes. 

  • All Authors mentioned are expected to have significantly contributed to the research. 

  • Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest. 

  • Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript. 

  • Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.

  • Authors should acknowledge all significant funders of the research pertaining to their article and list all relevant competing interests.   

  • Other sources of support for publications should also be clearly identified in the manuscript, usually in an acknowledgement (e.g. funding for the article processing charge; language editing or editorial assistance).

  • The Corresponding author should provide the declaration of any conflicts of interest on behalf of all Authors. Conflicts of interest may be associated with employment, sources of funding, personal financial interests, membership of relevant organisations or others.

Responsibility of Reviewers

  • The manuscripts will be reviewed by two or three experts in order to reach first decision as soon as possible. Reviewers do not need to sign their reports but are welcome to do so. They are also asked to declare any conflicts of interests.

  • Reviewers are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to focus on its scientific quality, as well as for the overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. If Reviewers recognize that a manuscript requires linguistic edits, they should inform both Authors and Editor in the report.

  • Reviewers are asked to check whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, how interesting it is and whether the quality of the writing is acceptable.

  • In cases of strong disagreement between the reviews or between the Authors and Reviewers, the Editors can judge these according to their expertise or seek advice from a member of the journal's Editorial Board.

  • Reviewers are also asked to indicate which articles they consider to be especially interesting or significant. These articles may be given greater prominence and greater external publicity, including press releases addressed to science journalists and mass media.

  • During a second review round, the Reviewer may be asked by the Subject Editor to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript with regards to Reviewer’s recommendations submitted during the first review round.

  • Reviewers are asked to be polite and constructive in their reports. Reports that may be insulting or uninformative will be rescinded.

  • Reviewers are asked to start their report with a very brief summary of the reviewed paper. This will help the Editors and Authors see whether the reviewer correctly understood the paper or whether a report might be based on misunderstanding.

  • Further, Reviewers are asked to comment on originality, structure and previous research: (1) Is the paper sufficiently novel and does it contribute to a better understanding of the topic under scrutiny? Is the work rather confirmatory and repetitive? (2) Is the introduction clear and concise? Does it place the work into the context that is necessary for a reader to comprehend the aims, hypotheses tested, experimental design or methods? Are Material and Methods clearly described and sufficiently explained? Are reasons given when choosing one method over another one from a set of comparable methods? Are the results clearly but concisely described? Do they relate to the topic outlined in the introduction? Do they follow a logical sequence? Does the discussion place the paper in scientific context and go a step beyond the current scientific knowledge on the basis of the results? Are competing hypotheses or theories reasonably related to each other and properly discussed? Do conclusions seem reasonable?  Is previous research adequately incorporated into the paper? Are references complete, necessary and accurate? Is there any sign that substantial parts of the paper were copies of other works?

  • Reviewers should not review 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 keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 

  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. 

  • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

  • Reviewers should also call to the Editors’ attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Responsibility of Editors

  • Editors in Pensoft’s journals carry the main responsibility for the scientific quality of the published papers and base their decisions solely on the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.

  • The Subject Editor takes the final decision on a manuscript’s acceptance or rejection and his/her name is listed as "Academic Editor" in the header of each article.

  • The Subject Editors are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to focus on its scientific quality, as well as the overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. 

  • Editors are expected to spot small errors in orthography or stylistic during the editing process and correct them.

  • Editors should always consider the needs of the Authors and the Readers when attempting to improve the publication. 

  • Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record. 

  • Editors should preserve the anonymity of Reviewers, unless the later decide to disclose their identities. 

  • Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines. 

  • Editors should act if they suspect misconduct and make all reasonable attempts to obtain a resolution to the problem. 

  • Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.

  • Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between Authors, Reviewers and Board Members.

Misconduct

Research misconduct may include: (a) manipulating research materials, equipment or processes; (b) changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the article. A special case of misconduct is plagiarism, which is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. If misconduct is suspected, journal Editors will act in accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines: http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines

Responses to possible misconduct

All allegations of misconduct must be referred to the Editor-In-Chief. Upon the thorough examination, the Editor-In-Chief and deputy editors should conclude if the case concerns a possibility of misconduct. All allegations should be kept confidential and references to the matter in writing should be kept anonymous, whenever possible.

Should a comment on potential misconduct be submitted by the Reviewers or Editors, an explanation will be sought from the Authors. If it is satisfactory and the issue is the result of either a mistake or misunderstanding, the matter can be easily resolved. If not, the manuscript will be rejected or retracted and the Editors may impose a ban on that individual's publication in the journals for a certain period of time. In cases of published plagiarism or dual publication, an announcement will be made in both journals explaining the situation.

When allegations concern authors, the peer review and publication process for their submission will be halted until completion of the aforementioned process. The investigation will be carried out even if the authors withdraw the manuscript, and implementation of the responses below will be considered.

When allegations concern reviewers or editors, they will be replaced in the review process during the ongoing investigation of the matter. Editors or reviewers who are found to have engaged in scientific misconduct should be removed from further association with the journal, and this fact reported to their institution.

Appeals and Open Debate

We encourage academic debate and constructive criticism. Authors are always invited to respond to any editorial correspondence before publication. Authors are not allowed to neglect unfavorable comments about their work and choose not to respond to criticisms. 

No Reviewer’s comment or published correspondence may contain a personal attack on any of the Authors. Criticism of the work is encouraged. Editors should edit (or reject) personal or offensive statements. Authors should submit their appeal on editorial decisions to the Editorial Office, addressed to the Editor-in-Chief or to the Managing Editor. Authors are discouraged from directly contacting Editorial Board Members and Editors with appeals.

Editors will mediate all discussions between Authors and Reviewers during the peer review process prior to publication. If agreement cannot be reached, Editors may consider inviting additional reviewers if appropriate. 

The Editor-in-Chief will mediate all discussions between Authors and Subject Editors.

The journals encourage publication of open opinions, forum papers, corrigenda, critical comments on a published paper and Author’s response to criticism.

Retraction policies

Article retraction

According to the COPE Retraction Guidelines followed by this Journal, an article can be retracted because of the following reasons:

  • Unreliable findings based on clear evidence of a misconduct (e.g. fraudulent use of the data) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).
  • Redundant publication, e.g., findings that have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification.
  • Plagiarism or other kind of unethical research.

Retraction procedure

  • Retraction should happen after a careful consideration by the Journal editors of allegations coming from the editors, authors, or readers.
  • The HTML version of the retracted article is removed (except for the article metadata) and on its place a retraction note is issued.
  • The PDF of the retracted article is left on the website but clearly watermarked with the note "Retracted" on each page.
  • In some rare cases (e.g., for legal reasons or health risk) the retracted article can be replaced with a new corrected version containing apparent link to the retracted original version and a retraction note with a history of the document.

Expression of concern

In other cases, the Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern, if evidence is available for:

  • Inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.
  • Unreliable findings that are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case.
  • A belief that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive.
  • An investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.

Errata and Corrigenda

Pensoft journals largely follow the ICMJE guidelines for corrections and errata.

Errata

Admissible and insignificant errors in a published article that do not affect the article content or scientific integrity (e.g. typographic errors, broken links, wrong page numbers in the article headers etc.) can be corrected through publishing of an erratum. This happens through replacing the original PDF with the corrected one together with a correction notice on the Erratum Tab of the HTML version of the paper, detailing the errors and the changes implemented in the original PDF. The original PDF will be marked with a correction note and an indication to the corrected version of the erratum article. The original PDF will also be archived and made accessible via a link in the same Erratum Tab.

Authors are also encouraged to post comments and indicate typographical errors on their articles to the Comments tab of the HTML version of the article.

Corrigenda

Corrigenda should be published in cases when significant errors are discovered in a published article. Usually, such errors affect the scientific integrity of the paper and could vary in scale. Reasons for publishing corrigenda may include changes in authorship, unintentional mistakes in published research findings and protocols, errors in labelling of tables and figures or others. In taxonomic journals, corrigenda are often needed in cases where the errors affect nomenclatural acts. Corrigenda are published as a separate publication and bear their own DOI. Examples of published corrigenda are available here.

The decision for issuing errata or corrigenda is with the editors after discussion with the authors.


Web Services

These links are to be used by automated information aggregation services, to increase the impact of research published in BiosystEcol:

OAI-PMH - oai_dc: https://biosystecol.oeaw.ac.at/oai.php?verb=ListRecords&set=biosystecol&metadataPrefix=oai_dc

OAI-PMH - mods: https://biosystecol.oeaw.ac.at/oai.php?verb=ListRecords&set=biosystecol&metadataPrefix=mods

RSS for metadata: https://biosystecol.oeaw.ac.at/rss.php


Terms of Use

This document describes the Terms of Use of the services provided by the Biosystematics and Ecology journal, hereinafter referred to as "the Journal" or "this Journal". All Users agree to these Terms of Use when signing up to this Journal. Signed Journal Users will be hereinafter referred to as "User" or "Users".

The publication services to the Journal are provided by Pensoft Publishers Ltd., through its publishing platform ARPHA, hereinafter referred to as "the Provider".

The Provider reserves the right to update the Terms of Use occasionally. Users will be notified via posting on the site and/or by email. If using the services of the Journal after such notice, the User will be deemed to have accepted the proposed modifications. If the User disagrees with the modifications, he/she should stop using the Journal services. Users are advised to periodically check the Terms of Use for updates or revisions. Violation of any of the terms will result in the termination of the User's account. The Provider is not responsible for any content posted by the User in the Journal.

Account Terms

  1. For registration in this Journal or any of the services or tools hosted on it, Users must provide their full legal name, a valid email address, postal address, affiliation (if any),  and any other information requested.
  2. Accounts created via this journal automatically sign in the User to the ARPHA Platform.
  3. Users are responsible for maintaining the security of their account and password. The Journal cannot and will not be liable for any loss or damage from failure to comply with this security obligation.
  4. Users are solely responsible for the content posted via the Journal services (including, but not limited to data, text, files, information, usernames, images, graphics, photos, profiles, audio and video clips, sounds, applications, links and other content) and all activities that occur under their account.
  5. Users may not use the service for any illegal or unauthorised purpose. Users must not, in the use of the service, violate any laws within their jurisdiction (including but not limited to copyright or trademark laws).
  6. Users can change or pseudonomyse their personal data, or deactivate their accounts at any time through the functionality available in the User’s personal profile. Deactivation or pseudonomysation will not affect the appearance of personal data in association with an already published work of which the User is author, co-author, editor, or reviewer.
  7. Users can report to the Journal uses of their personal data, that they might consider not corresponding to the current Terms of Use.
  8. The User’s personal data is processed by the Journal on the legal basis corresponding to Article 6, paragraph 1, letters a, b, c and f. of the General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter referred to as GDPR) and will be used for the purpose of Journal’s services in accordance with the present Terms and Use, as well as in those cases expressly stated by the legislation.
  9. User’s consent to use the information the Journal has collected about the User corresponds to Article 6(1)(a) of the GDPR.
  10. The ‘legitimate interest’ of the Journal to engage with the User and enable him/her to participate in Journal’s activities and use Journal’s services correspond to Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR.

Services and Prices

The Provider reserves the right to modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the services provided by the Journal. Plans and prices are subject to change upon 30 days notice from the Provider. Such notice may be provided at any time by posting the changes to the relevant service website.

Ownership

The Authors retain full ownership to their content published in the Journal. We claim no intellectual property rights over the material provided by any User in this Journal. However, by setting pages to be viewed publicly (Open Access), the User agrees to allow others to view and download the relevant content. In addition, Open Access articles might be used by the Provider, or any other third party, for data mining purposes.

The Provider reserves the rights in its sole discretion to refuse or remove any content that is available via the Website.

Copyrighted Materials

Unless stated otherwise, the Journal website may contain some copyrighted material (for example, logos and other proprietary information, including, without limitation, text, software, photos, video, graphics, music and sound - "Copyrighted Material"). The User may not copy, modify, alter, publish, transmit, distribute, display, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works or, in any way, exploit any of the Copyrighted Material, in whole or in part, without written permission from the copyright owner. Users will be solely liable for any damage resulting from any infringement of copyrights, proprietary rights or any other harm resulting from such a submission.

Exceptions from this rule are e-chapters or e-articles published under Open Access (see below), which are normally published under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (CC-BY), or Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (CC-BY), or Creative Commons Public Domain license (CC0).

Open Access Materials

This Journal is a supporter of open science. Open access to content is clearly marked, with text and/or the open access logo, on all materials published under this model. Unless otherwise stated, open access content is published in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (CC-BY). This particular licence allows the copying, displaying and distribution of the content at no charge, provided that the author and source are credited.

Privacy Statement

  1. Users agree to submit their personal data to this Journal, hosted on the ARPHA Platform provided by Pensoft.
  2. The Journal collects personal information from Users (e.g., name, postal and email addresses, affiliation) only for the purpose of its services.
  3. All personal data will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of the website and will not be made available for any other purpose or to third parties.
  4. In the case of co-authorship of a work published through the Journal services, each of the co-authors states that they agree that their personal data be collected, stored and used by the Journal.
  5. In the case of co-authorship, each of the co-authors agrees that their personal data publicly available in the form of a co-authorship of a published work, can be distributed to external indexing services and aggregators for the purpose of the widest possible distribution of the work they co-author.
  6. When one of the co-authors is not registered in the Journal, it is presumed that the corresponding author who is registered has requested and obtained his/her consent that his/her personal data will be collected, stored and used by the Journal.
  7. The registered co-author undertakes to provide an e-mail address of the unregistered author, to whom the Journal will send a message in order to give the unregistered co-author’s explicit consent for the processing of his/her personal data by the Journal.
  8. The Journal is not responsible if the provided e-mail of the unregistered co-author is inaccurate or invalid. In such cases, it is assumed that the processing of the personal data of the unregistered co-author is done on a legal basis and with a given consent.
  9. The Journal undertakes to collect, store and use the provided personal data of third parties (including but not limited to unregistered co-authors) solely for the purposes of the website, as well as in those cases expressly stated by the legislation.
  10. Users can receive emails from Journal and its hosting platform ARPHA, provided by Pensoft, about activities they have given their consent for. Examples of such activities are:
    • Email notifications to authors, reviewers and editors who are engaged with authoring, reviewing or editing a manuscript submitted to the Journal.
    • Email alerts sent via email subscription service, which can happen only if the User has willingly subscribed for such a service. Unsubscription from the service can happen through a one-click link provided in each email alert notification.
    • Information emails on important changes in the system or in its Terms of Use which are sent via Mailchimp are provided with "Unsubscribe" function.
  11. Registered users can be invited to provide a peer review on manuscripts submitted to the Journal. In such cases, the users can decline the review invitation through a link available on the journal’s website.
  12. Each provided peer review can be registered with external services (such as Publons). The reviewer will be notified if such registration is going to occur and can decline the registration process.
  13. In case the Journal starts using personal data for purposes other than those specified in the Terms of Use, the Journal undertakes to immediately inform the person and request his/her consent.
  14. If the person does not give his/her consent to the processing of his or her personal data pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the Journal shall cease the processing of the personal data for the purposes for which there is no consent, unless there is another legal basis for the processing.
  15. Users can change/correct their personal data anytime via the functionality available in the User’s profile. Users can request the Journal to correct their personal data if the data is inaccurate or outdated and the Journal is obliged to correct the inaccurate or outdated personal data in a timely manner.
  16. Users may request the Journal to restrict the use of their personal data insofar as this limitation is not contrary to the law or the Terms of Use.
  17. Users may request their personal data to be deleted (the right to be forgotten) by the Journal, provided that the deletion does not conflict with the law or the Terms of Use.
  18. The User has the right to be informed:
    • whether his or her personal data have been processed;
    • for which purposes the Journal processes the personal data;
    • the ways in which his/her personal data are processed;
    • the types of personal data that Journal processes.
  19. The user undertakes not to interfere with and impede the Journal’s activities in the exercise of the provided rights.
  20. In case of non-fulfillment under the previous paragraph, the Journal reserves the right to delete the user's profile.

Disclaimer of Warranty and Limitation of Liability

Neither Pensoft and its affiliates nor any of their respective employees, agents, third party content providers or licensors warrant that the Journal service will be uninterrupted or error-free; nor do they give any warranty as to the results that may be obtained from use of the journal, or as to the accuracy or reliability of any information, service or merchandise provided through Journal.

Legal, medical, and health-related information located, identified or obtained through the use of the Service, is provided for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for qualified advice from a professional.

In no event will the Provider, or any person or entity involved in creating, producing or distributing Journal or the contents included therein, be liable in contract, in tort (including for its own negligence) or under any other legal theory (including strict liability) for any damages, including, but without limitation to, direct, indirect, incidental, special, punitive, consequential or similar damages, including, but without limitation to, lost profits or revenues, loss of use or similar economic loss, arising from the use of or inability to use the journal platform. The User hereby acknowledges that the provisions of this section will apply to all use of the content on Journal. Applicable law may not allow the limitation or exclusion of liability or incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to the User. In no event will Pensoft’s total liability to the User for all damages, losses or causes of action, whether in contract, tort (including own negligence) or under any other legal theory (including strict liability), exceed the amount paid by the User, if any, for accessing Journal.

Third Party Content

The Provider is solely a distributor (and not a publisher) of SOME of the content supplied by third parties and Users of the Journal. Any opinions, advice, statements, services, offers, or other information or content expressed or made available by third parties, including information providers and Users, are those of the respective author(s) or distributor(s) and not of the Provider.


Cookies Policy

Cookies

a) Session cookies

We use cookies on our website. Cookies are small text files or other storage technologies stored on your computer by your browser. These cookies process certain specific information about you, such as your browser, location data, or IP address.  

This processing makes our website more user-friendly, efficient, and secure, allowing us, for example, to allow the "Remember me" function.

The legal basis for such processing is Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. b) GDPR, insofar as these cookies are used to collect data to initiate or process contractual relationships.

If the processing does not serve to initiate or process a contract, our legitimate interest lies in improving the functionality of our website. The legal basis is then Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. f) GDPR.

When you close your browser, these session cookies are deleted.

b) Disabling cookies

You can refuse the use of cookies by changing the settings on your browser. Likewise, you can use the browser to delete cookies that have already been stored. However, the steps and measures required vary, depending on the browser you use. If you have any questions, please use the help function or consult the documentation for your browser or contact its maker for support. Browser settings cannot prevent so-called flash cookies from being set. Instead, you will need to change the setting of your Flash player. The steps and measures required for this also depend on the Flash player you are using. If you have any questions, please use the help function or consult the documentation for your Flash player or contact its maker for support.

If you prevent or restrict the installation of cookies, not all of the functions on our site may be fully usable.


Cookies Policy

Cookies

a) Session cookies

We use cookies on our website. Cookies are small text files or other storage technologies stored on your computer by your browser. These cookies process certain specific information about you, such as your browser, location data, or IP address.  

This processing makes our website more user-friendly, efficient, and secure, allowing us, for example, to allow the "Remember me" function.

The legal basis for such processing is Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. b) GDPR, insofar as these cookies are used to collect data to initiate or process contractual relationships.

If the processing does not serve to initiate or process a contract, our legitimate interest lies in improving the functionality of our website. The legal basis is then Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. f) GDPR.

When you close your browser, these session cookies are deleted.

b) Disabling cookies

You can refuse the use of cookies by changing the settings on your browser. Likewise, you can use the browser to delete cookies that have already been stored. However, the steps and measures required vary, depending on the browser you use. If you have any questions, please use the help function or consult the documentation for your browser or contact its maker for support. Browser settings cannot prevent so-called flash cookies from being set. Instead, you will need to change the setting of your Flash player. The steps and measures required for this also depend on the Flash player you are using. If you have any questions, please use the help function or consult the documentation for your Flash player or contact its maker for support.

If you prevent or restrict the installation of cookies, not all of the functions on our site may be fully usable.


This website uses cookies in order to improve your web experience. Read our Cookies Policy

OK