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 file is in .odt, .doc, .docx, or .rtf file format.
- The text is formatted and edited according to the VWI-Style-Sheet (UK version).
- Where available, URLs for the references have been provided, if possible also DOI.
- 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).
We take our responsibility to process your personal data in a fair and transparent way seriously. We collect and manage user data according to the following policy.
S:I.M.O.N. follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.
Why we collect your data
Registering and creating an account allows you to log in, manage your profile, and participate as an author, as a reviewer or as an editor. When registering an account, we ask you to log in and provide your name, email address, profession and – if given – academic affiliation.
As an author: The personal data submitted will be used in the review process – which is a single-blind one – and will eventually become a part of the published article in order to attribute your work and the provenance of it correctly.
As a reviewer: After an invitation by the editors and your registration, your data will be used as a contact address during the review process solely by the editors. Your data is not shared publicly and is only accessible to the editors and system administrators of S: I.M.O.N. The data will only be used in connection with this journal.
Why we store your data
Published personal data that accompanies an article forms part of the official published record in order to document the provenance of the work, and to attribute the work correctly.
What to do if you want to get a copy of your data, or want your data to be removed
As an author: You are able to view, change and remove your data associated with your profile. Should you choose to delete your account completely, please contact us at email@example.com. To conform to publication ethics and best practice any personal data that is published alongside an article cannot be removed.
As a reviewer: If you would no longer like to be registered as a reviewer you can edit your profile. This will remove you from the reviewer database. Any existing reviews you may have carried out will remain though.
Peer Review Policy
Peer review helps validate research, establish a method by which it can be evaluated, and increase networking possibilities within research communities. Despite criticism, we regard peer review still the only widely accepted method for research validation. The Peer Reviewing Process of S:I.M.O.N. follows the Best Practice Guidelines recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
S:I.M.O.N. applies a single-blind review system, which means that the reviewer’s identity remains concealed to the author throughout the review process. Reviewers are invited by the editors upon suggestions made by the Board of Editors of the Academic Advisory Board or own one’s discussed and finalised in an editorial meeting. If invited please consider
- whether the article actually matches your area of expertise
- if there is a potential conflict of interest – and
- if you can meet the given deadline.
Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors or institutions connected to the papers.
Respond to the invitation as soon as you can – and if you decline, please provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.
Once you have accepted, please regard the documents as confidential, do not share information about the review with anyone.
Your review will help the editors decide whether or not to publish the article. The editors confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision final.
First read the article thoroughly, consider it from your own perspective. Then mark any comments, changes, suggestions with “track changes” in Word in the text itself. These remarks should be courteous, not contain any personal or offensive remarks. Finally, please fill in the downloadable form thus giving an overall opinion and general observations of the contribution.
If you wish, you can also summarise the article in a short paragraph, give a main evaluation of it, whether it is in any way novel, innovative or interesting, what approach, method or source is new.
If you suspect plagiarism or other ethical concerns, contact the editor, providing details.
For further guidance on writing a review, read the Reviewer Information Pack of Elsevier which contains helpful assistance.