Submission Preparation ChecklistAs part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
- The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
- The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file format.
- Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
- The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
- The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.
As stated in the Uniform Requirements, each author must sign a statement attesting that he or she fulfills the authorship criteria of the Uniform Requirements. At least one person’s name must accompany a group name. As part of the submission process, authors must indicate whether any writing assistance other than copy editing was provided.
In appropriate places in the manuscript, please provide the following items:
• If applicable, a statement that the research protocol was approved by the relevant institutional review boards or ethics committees and that all human participants gave written informed consent
• The identity of those who analyzed the data.
• For clinical trials, the registration number and registry name (see N Engl J Med 2004;351:1250-1).
• For studies containing microarrays, the accession numbers and repository name.
Provide an abstract of not more than 300 words. It should consist of four paragraphs, labeled Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions. They should briefly describe, respectively, the problem being addressed in the study, how the study was performed, the salient results, and what the authors conclude from the results.
Double-space tables (including any footnotes) and provide a title for each. Extensive tables or supplementary material may be published on the Journal’s Web site only. For Original Articles, there is normally a limit of 5 figures and tables (total) per manuscript. Additional figures and tables may be considered as supplements for Web-only publication.
FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Medical and scientific illustrations will be created or redrawn in-house. If an outside illustrator has created a figure, theJournal reserves the right to modify or redraw it to meet our specifications for publication. The author must explicitly acquire all rights to the illustration from the artist in order for us to publish it.
Please describe and clearly indicate all modifications, selective digital adjustments, or electronic enhancements in all digital images. It is permissible to send low-resolution images for peer review, although we may ask for high-resolution files at a later stage.
References must be double-spaced and numbered consecutively as they are cited. References first cited in a table or figure legend should be numbered so that they will be in sequence with references cited in the text at the point where the table or figure is first mentioned. List all authors when there are six or fewer; when there are seven or more, list the first three, followed by “et al.” The following are sample references:
1. Nardi GM, Giraldi G, Lastella P, La Torre G, Saugo E, Ferri F, Pacifici L, Ottolenghi L, Guerra F, Polimeni A. Knowledge, attitudes and behavior of Italian mothers towards oral health: questionnaire validation and results of a pilot study. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2012 Apr;3(2):69-74.
2. La Torre G, Saulle R, Nicolotti N, de Waure C, Gualano MR, Boccia S. From Nicotine Dependence to Genetic Determinants of Smoking. In: La Torre G. Smoking Prevention and Cessation. 1st Ed. New York, USA: Springer, 2013: 1-29.
3. Kuczmarski RJ, Ogden CL, Grammer-Strawn LM, et al. CDC growth charts: United States. Advance data from vital and health statistics. No. 314. Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics, 2000. (DHHS publication no. (PHS) 2000-1250 0-0431.)
4. U.S. positions on selected issues at the third negotiating session of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Washington, D.C.: Committee on Government Reform, 2002. (Accessed March 4, 2002, at http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_tobacco/index_accord.htm.)
• The basis for these guidelines is described in Bailar JC III, Mosteller F. Guidelines for statistical reporting in articles for medical journals: amplifications and explanations. Ann Intern Med 1988;108:266-73.
• Except when one-sided tests are required by study design, such as in noninferiority trials, all reported P values should be two-sided. In general, P values larger than 0.01 should be reported to two decimal places, those between 0.01 and 0.001 to three decimal places; P values smaller than 0.001 should be reported as P<0.001. Notable exceptions to this policy include P values arising in the application of stopping rules to the analysis of clinical trials and genetic-screening studies.
• In manuscripts that report on randomized clinical trials, authors may provide a flow diagram in CONSORT format and all of the information required by the CONSORT checklist. When restrictions on length prevent the inclusion of some of this information in the manuscript, it may be provided in a separate document submitted with the manuscript. The CONSORT statement, checklist, and flow diagram are available on the CONSORT paper.
• Manuscripts that use observational design (cohort, case-control or cross-sectional studies) will follow the STROBEstatement.
• In reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis, the authors will be asked to use the PRISMA statement.
To view an example of layout you can consult this paper
COPYRIGHT AND PUBLICATION FEE
In submitting an article to Senses and Sciences I certify that:
1. I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2. I warrant, on behalf of myself and my co-authors, that:
• the article is original, has not been formally published in any other peer-reviewed journal, is not under consideration by any other journal and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights;
• I am/we are the sole author(s) of the article and have full authority to enter into this agreement and in granting rights to Senses and Sciences are not in breach of any other obligation.
• the article contains nothing that is unlawful, libellous, or which would, if published, constitute a breach of contract or of confidence or of commitment given to secrecy;
• I/we have taken due care to ensure the integrity of the article. To my/our - and currently accepted scientific -knowledge all statements contained in it purporting to be facts are true and any formula or instruction contained in the article will not, if followed accurately, cause any injury, illness or damage to the user.
3. I, and all authors, agree that the article, if editorially accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0. The author(s) retain all the proprietary rights, other than copyright, such as patent and trademark right to any process or procedure described in the article. The author(s) have the right to photocopy the article for their own personal use.
When a paper will be accepted for publication the authors are issued with an invoice for payment of a publication processing fee (250,00 €). Payment of this charge allows Senses and Sciences to recover its editorial and production costs and create a pool of funds that can be used to provide fee waivers for authors from lesser developed countries.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Authors of research articles should disclose at the time of submission any financial arrangement they may have with a company whose product is pertinent to the submitted manuscript or with a company making a competing product. Such information will be held in confidence while the paper is under review and will not influence the editorial decision, but if the article is accepted for publication, a disclosure statement will appear with the article. Because the essence of reviews and editorials is selection and interpretation of the literature, the Journal expects that authors of such articles will not have any significant financial interest in a company (or its competitor) that makes a product discussed in the article.
REVISION AND ACTION
Manuscripts are examined by members of the editorial board, and are sent to outside reviewers. Communications about manuscripts will be sent after the revision and editorial decision-making process is complete; for potentially acceptable manuscripts, the period between the receipt of all reviews and an editorial decision is usually longer. All authors will receive a copy of the acknowledgement e-mail and any notification of acceptance. Payment of this charge allows Senses and Sciences to recover its editorial and production costs and create a pool of funds that can be used to provide fee waivers for authors from lesser developed countries.
• All of a journal’s content is subjected to peer-review.
• Peer-review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers’ expert in the field.
• Judgments should be objective.
• Reviewers have no conflict of interest.
• Reviewers underline relevant published work which is not yet cited.
• Reviewed articles are treated confidentially.
Senses and Sciences is committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process. We follow closely the industry associations, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), that set standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements. Below is a summary of our key expectations of editors, peer-reviewers, and authors.
1. Ethical expectations
• To act in a balanced, objective and fair way while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
• To handle submissions for sponsored supplements or special issues in the same way as other submissions, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without commercial influence.
• To adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflict nature, in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Society where appropriate. To give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.
• To contribute to the decision-making process, and to assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the manuscript objectively, in a timely manner.
• To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author. To not retain or copy the manuscript.
• To alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
• To be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript.
• To maintain accurate records of data associated with their submitted manuscript, and to supply or provide access to these data, on reasonable request. Where appropriate and where allowed by employer, funding body and others who might have an interest, to deposit data in a suitable repository or storage location, for sharing and further use by others.
• To confirm/assert that the manuscript as submitted is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere. Where portions of the content overlap with published or submitted content, to acknowledge and cite those sources. Additionally, to provide the editor with a copy of any submitted manuscript that might contain overlapping or closely related content.
• To confirm that all the work in the submitted manuscript is original and to acknowledge and cite content reproduced from other sources. To obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources.
• Authors should ensure that any studies involving human or animal subjects conform to national, local and institutional laws and requirements (e.g. WMA Declaration of Helsinki, NIH Policy on Use of Laboratory Animals, EU Directive on Use of Animals) and confirm that approval has been sought and obtained where appropriate. Authors should obtain express permission from human subjects and respect their privacy.
• To declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g. where the author has a competing interest (real or apparent) that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on his or her duties at any stage during the publication process).
• To notify promptly the journal editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified. To cooperate with the editor and publisher to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary.
Publisher or Society responsibilities:
Senses and Sciences shall ensure that good practice is maintained to the standards outlined above.
2. Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour:
Identification of unethical behaviour
• Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.
• Misconduct and unethical behaviour may include, but need not be limited to, examples as outlined above.
• Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
• An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate.
• Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.
• Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
• Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.
Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction)
• Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
• A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behaviour.
• Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
• Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
• A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency.
• Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department,
• Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
• Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
• Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organisation or higher authority for further investigation and action