Editorial Policies

  1. All articles are freely available and immediately accessible online upon publication.
  2. Articles are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution(CC BY-NC) license.
  3. Evotec follows the double blind peer-review procedure for submissions of all manuscripts to its journals.
  4. All submitted articles are subjected to an extensive peer review in consultation with members of the journal’s Editorial Board and independent external referees. All manuscripts are assessed rapidly.
  5. All efforts are made to expedite the peer review process leading timely publication.
  6. Authors have the flexibility to publish a wide range of articles in a Evotec journal e.g. short communications, full-length research and review articles, and case studies.
  7. Plagiarism Prevention: Evotec uses the authentic software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts.
  8. Evotec offers affordable article processing fees, ranking amongst the lowest as compared to those of other OPEN access journal publishers. An article-processing fee payable by the author/ author’s institution applies for every accepted article, to cover the costs incurred by OPEN access publication. 

Information for Authors/Reviewers

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

Manuscripts submitted for publication in Evotec journals are subjected to double blind peer-review. Double blind reviewing conceals the identity of the reviewers from the authors and vice versa.

Manuscript Evaluation

Evaluation of manuscripts is carried out by the journal Editors and the invited external peer reviewers according to the following procedures.

EDITORIAL PROCESS

The editorial process and peer-review workflow for each journal are taken care of by a team of Senior Editors and Editorial Advisory Board Members (EABMs) who have expertise in their specific fields. The services of Senior Editors and Editorial Advisory Board Members are sought through invitations to organize and conduct the peer-review of a submitted manuscript keeping the scope of the manuscript and the expertise of Editors in view. Manuscripts are forwarded for evaluation to Editors and EABMs as well as external reviewers to check if the research work presented in the manuscript (a) falls within the scope of the journal and (b) meets the editorial criteria of Evotec in terms of originality and quality. Editors/EABMs may recommend the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript by conducting the peer-review themselves; based on their own knowledge and experience, or they may take assistance and advice from other experts in the field.

After review of the manuscript by at least two independent experts, in addition to the views of the Editor, the decision is relayed to the authors, which may be categorized as:

  • Accept without changes
  • Revisions Required
  • Reject

SELECTION OF REVIEWERS

The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and Senior Editors of a journal have the right to select reviewers for a particular manuscript considering the knowledge and experience of the reviewers.

Before sending the manuscripts to a reviewer, Evotec seeks consent from potential reviewers about their availability and willingness for review. The correspondence between the editorial office of the journal and reviewers is kept confidential.

Review Timeframe

IMPORTANT POINTS TO CONSIDER

Peer reviewers should:

  • only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
  • respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
  • not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
  • declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments
  • acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
  • provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
  • recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct
  • Check that manuscript written comprehensively enough to be understandable? If not, how could it be improved?
  • Have the authors addressed the previous findings fairly?
  • Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology to reproduce the experiments?

PROMPT REVIEW

The reviewers should respond, agreeing or declining to review, within 7 days. If you agree to review, we ask that you submit your report as soon as possible within 15 days. If you are unable to accept an invitation to review a manuscript then we welcome recommendations for alternative experts.