Special Issues

Editorial Process

Submission

The author submits a manuscript and it receives a tracking number (Manuscript ID).

Assignment

An editor is assigned to the manuscript within two work days and a notice email will be sent to the authors via the system.

Plagiarism detection

Plagiarism is a serious issue in the world of academic publishing. Plagiarism is not only taking someone else’s work and using it as your own: there are different circumstances under which reproduced content can be considered “plagiarized”. We use a tool called iThenticate to scan every submission before peer review.

Initial manuscript evaluation

All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial team. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review.

Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will usually be informed within one weeks of receipt.

Peer review process

Peer review is an integral part of scientific publishing that confirms the validity of the science reported. Peer reviewers are experts who volunteer their time to help improve the journal manuscripts they review. Through the peer-review process, manuscripts should become:

More robust: Peer reviewers may point out gaps in your paper that require more explanation or additional experiments.

Easier to read: If parts of your paper are difficult to understand, reviewers can tell you so that you can fix them. After all, if an expert cannot understand what you have done, it is unlikely that a reader in a different field will understand.

More useful: Peer reviewers also consider the importance of your paper to others in your field and can make suggestions to improve or better highlight this to readers. Of course, in addition to offering authors advice, another important purpose of peer review is to make sure that the manuscripts published in the journal are of the correct quality for the journal’s aims.

Our reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the Signa Vitae and this journal uses double-blind peer review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. More about our editorial policies.

Editorial Decision and Revision

The editor assigns potential reviewers to the manuscript and the author is notified.

Reviewers agree to review the manuscript.

Reviewers submit their reports to the editor.

The editorial team discusses the reports and the editor makes the final decision. The decision will be one of the following:

Accept without Revisions: The paper is accepted to publish without revision.

Accept after Minor Revisions: The manuscript is in principle accepted to publish after a minor revision based on the reviewer’s recommendations, and the authors are given a particular period of time to revise their manuscript for final publishing.

Reconsider after Major Revisions: The author will be asked to provide additional experiments to support the conclusions according to reviewer’s comments, or a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments if these comments cannot be revised. Usually, only one round of major revision is allowed and the authors will be asked to submit the revised manuscript within a proper time schedule. The revised manuscript will be returned to the reviewer for further comments. The acceptance of the paper will depend on this round of assessment.

Reject: The article has serious flaws, and/or makes no original significant contribution. No offer of resubmission to the journal is provided.

All reviewer comments should be responded to in a point-by-point fashion. Where the authors disagree with a reviewer, they must provide a clear response. This process may involve further consultation with the reviewers and editor-mediated communications between the reviewers.

The editor contacts the author with the decision.

If the decision is negative the author is given the opportunity to transfer their manuscript to another journal. If the manuscript was peer reviewed the referee comments are also transferred.

Author Appeals

Authors may appeal a rejection by sending an e-mail to the Editorial Office of the journal. The appeal must provide a detailed justification, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers' and/or Editor's comments. The Managing Editor of the journal will forward the manuscript and related information (including the identities of the referees) to the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, or Editorial Board member. The academic Editor being consulted will be asked to give an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, further peer-review, or uphold the original rejection decision. A reject decision at this stage is final and cannot be reversed.

In the case of a special issue, the Managing Editor of the journal will forward the manuscript and related information (including the identities of the referees) to the Editor-in-Chief who will be asked to give an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, further peer-review, or uphold the original rejection decision. A reject decision at this stage will be final and cannot be reversed.

Editorial & Production

Once accepted, the manuscript will undergo professional Language Editing, Layout editing, Author Proofreading, and Format Conversion and publication on the Signa Vitae website.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) The Science Citation Index (SCI) is a citation index originally produced by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) and created by Eugene Garfield. It (Science Citation Index Expanded) covers more than 8,500 notable and significant journals, across 150 disciplines in science and technology, from 1900 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Chemical Abstracts Service Source Index The CAS Source Index (CASSI) Search Tool is an online resource that can quickly identify or confirm journal titles and abbreviations for publications indexed by CAS since 1907, including serial and non-serial scientific and technical publications.

IndexCopernicus The Index Copernicus International (ICI) Journals database’s is an international indexation database of scientific journals. It covered international scientific journals which divided into general information, contents of individual issues, detailed bibliography (references) sections for every publication, as well as full texts of publications in the form of attached files (optional). For now, there are more than 58,000 scientific journals registered at ICI.

Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research The Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research (GFMER) is a non-profit organization established in 2002 and it works in close collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). The overall objectives of the Foundation are to promote and develop health education and research programs.

Scopus Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Embase Embase (often styled EMBASE for Excerpta Medica dataBASE), produced by Elsevier, is a biomedical and pharmacological database of published literature designed to support information managers and pharmacovigilance in complying with the regulatory requirements of a licensed drug.

Submission Turnaround Time

Editorial review: 1 - 2 days

Peer review: 1 - 2 months

Ahead of Print: within 2 months after being accepted

Notes: Your information is kept confide-ntial throughout the review process.

Conferences