It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: authors, the editor-in-chief, members of the editorial board, peer reviewers and the publisher.
Full journal title: Res novae: revija za celovito znanost [original title in Slovene language] / Res novae: Journal for Integrated Science [translated title in English language]
ISSN: 2464-0344 (print); 2464-0352 (electronic)
Primary field: The journal is focused on interdisciplinary research, humanities (theology, philosophy, history) and social sciences (law, political science, economics). Emphasis is given on connection between personal and economic freedom with ethical social responsibility.
Publisher: The journal is published by the Catholic Institute, Faculty of Law and Business Studies (Krekov trg 1, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia).
Focus, scope and mission: Res novae is a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Catholic Institute, Faculty of Law and Business Studies. It is published twice a year in electronic and printed form. The journal has an interdisciplinary character: it covers a wide range of social sciences (law, political science, economics) and humanities (philosophy, history). The core of its content represents the connection between personal and economic freedom with ethical social responsibility. Articles for publication in Res novae can describe concepts, present theoretical findings, or are empirically-analytical. It is expected that authors demonstrate a high level of knowledge of the issues discussed, are scientifically accurate and methodologically clear. Articles must show a contribution to the development of the areas they cover. The purpose of Res novae is to promote an original scientific contribution to current issues in science and promote the use of different methodological approaches. Res novae does not favor any form of methodological approach, but rather encourages the use of interdisciplinary tools of scientific analysis and comparative analysis of established concepts with new ones that are still in the phase of verification.
Publication frequency: The journal is published twice a year (two separate issues).
Indexing / Abstracting [last update: December 10, 2020]: The journal is indexed in the renown international bibliographic database ERIH Plus (European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences). The journal is also indexed in dLib.si (Digital Library of Slovenia).
Section policies: The journal consists of regular papers and papers in occasional thematic sections. Papers are categorized as: original scientific article, review scientific article, short scientific article, case report. All articles published are indexed and peer-reviewed. The journal does normally not include book reviews, critiques or reports that are clearly distinguished from scientific papers.
Cost of publication: Publication (including peer-review process) has no cost to the authors.
Language: Articles may be submitted in Slovene or in English language. Title, abstract and keywords should be written in both languages. Manuscripts must be proofread to ensure its accuracy and language quality. Authors must be proficient in grammar, style and terminology of the language in which they submit their article.
Guidelines for authors: Detailed guidelines for authors are published on the special sub-section of the official webpage of Res novae. Manuscripts must be typewritten. An electronic copy of the article should accompany the final version.
Article length: The length of the original scientific articles is between 30 and 50 thousand characters (including spaces); the length of review scientific articles is between 20 and 40 thousand characters (including spaces); the length of short scientific articles and case reports is between 10 and 20 thousand characters (including spaces).
Article structure: Articles submitted for publication in Res novae must consist of the following elements:
- Full names of all authors of the article, names of their affiliated institutions and contacts of the corresponding author with a clear indication of the corresponding author. Corresponding author will be informed about the review process and will be responsible for the final arrangements after the paper is approved for publication.
- Title of the article in Slovene and in English which should be clear and brief.
- Abstract in Slovene and in English (max. 150 words) that briefly presents the fundamental aims and conclusions of the article.
- Keywords in Slovenian and in English (5 to 7) which should be listed under the abstract.
- Introductory chapter which defines the subject and presents a sufficient basis for the understanding of the research question of the article.
- Results of the research which should be made clear and understandable.
- Discussion, where authors place results of the article in the theoretical framework and highlight the key contribution to the existing theory or previous research.
- Conclusion, where authors briefly summarize their findings.
- Complete list of references that were used within the text of the article. This list should be placed at the end of the article as a separate section. References must be listed in alphabetical and chronological order.
Acknowledgements: Acknowledgements are possible for contributions that need acknowledging but do not justify authorship. Prior permission from the persons or institutions being acknowledged is required.
Explanatory footnotes: Explanatory footnotes should be used only when necessary. Arabic numerals should be used when numbering the footnotes. Explanatory footnotes should not be used for routine citations of references (see, Guidelines for authors).
Graphs and Tables: Graphs and tables must be titled individually. The title should be provided immediately below the graph or the table. Notes with brief explanation of the relevant content of the table or the graph should be provided in the same line with the title. For example: Table 1: Title. Description.
Proofs and final corrections: Proofs are sent to the corresponding author (first named author if no corresponding author and should be returned within 72 hours of receipt. Final corrections by the corresponding author should be restricted to typesetting errors. Any queries should be answered in full. Corresponding author is urged to check their proofs carefully before return.
Accountability: Authors are responsible for the articles they submit. They must assure the originality of their work and be aware of the consequences of misconduct. Authors are asked to follow the Guidelines published by the journal, therefore ensuring accuracy, completeness and clarity of their research, including technical editing. Submission of manuscripts implies that the manuscripts are in their final form.
Reporting and standards: Authors of case reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. The paper should contain enough detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review scientific articles should also be accurate and objective. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Works should be clearly identified as such.
Data access and retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with the paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and plagiarism: Authors ensure that the paper is entirely their original work. In as much as works and/or words of others have been used, this must be appropriately cited or quoted. Originality, creativity and a cross-disciplinary approach or perspectives are encouraged. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Authors should not submit for consideration a paper previously published in another journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In terms of content, publication of similar papers in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable under certain conditions on case-by-case basis. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication. It is the author’s responsibility to check for possible copyright conflict with the copyright holder.
Acknowledgment of sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of their work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
Authorship of the paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the paper. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper, that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Author self-archiving: The authors are permitted and encouraged to post published articles on their personal or institutional website, with a clear indication that the paper was published in this journal and with a link to the journal’s website.
Human or animal subjects: If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. Sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or hers own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper. Submission: The submission process is handled electronically. Manuscripts are to be submitted to the e-mail address of the editor-in-chief Simon Malmenvall (). Only full papers are reviewed; abstracts are not considered for review. Guidelines for authors are published on the official website of the journal. Copyright: Except when otherwise noted, articles in the journal are published under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0 International).
Duties of reviewers: Reviewers are provided guidance on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. Reviewers are obliged: to respect confidentiality of peer review and not to reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process; not to 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; only to agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess within a reasonable time-frame; to declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant conflict; not to allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religion, political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations; to be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments; to acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and to undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing, in a timely manner; to provide personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise when creating or updating journal accounts.
Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Res novae shares the view of many that scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively; personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers are encouraged to comment on the originality of submissions. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider 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.
Peer review organization: The process of peer review must satisfy principles of autonomy, and therefore follow lines of democratic and unprejudiced evaluation in order to be objective. In practical terms it is structured as follows: firstly, there is the editor-in-chief, with his specific competences and direct obligations; there then follows a list of editorial assistants (editorial staff), scholars of consolidated personal and scientific rigor, whose corresponding backgrounds, skills and experience must respond to the different scientific areas covered according to the journal’s interdisciplinary orientation; the editor-in-chief evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy or any other personal circumstances of the authors; the editor-in-chief’s decision may be constrained by such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism; the editor-in-chief provides guidance to authors that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting, including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists; the editor-in-chief has a system to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review; the editor-in-chief has a duty to act if he suspects misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to him; this duty extends to both published and unpublished papers; the editor-in-chief has a system for managing his own conflicts of interest as well as those of the all editorial staff and of the authors; the editor-in-chief has a process for handling submissions from the components of the all editorial staff to ensure unbiased review.
Evaluation of submitted papers: After a preliminary assessment, based on the established objectives of the journal, in the event of a positive evaluation, the editor-in-chief will send the paper to the journal editorial assistant responsible for the relevant field the paper covers. It is then sent to one or two reviewers belonging to the same field of competence for peer review. In the three days following receipt of the submitted paper, they will determine whether to accept the work or not. If the paper is accepted, over the next 20 days reviewer will proceed to make comments and suggestions, if necessary, to assist the author in correcting and improving the text. The author will subsequently revise the paper, which is then returned to the editorial assistant, who checks if requested suggestions have been considered. The editor-in-chief and editorial assistants guarantee that errors, inaccurate or misleading statements are corrected promptly and with due prominence. The editor-in-chief will publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed. The editor-in-chief will respond promptly to complaints and will ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. The editor-in-chief ensures that content is published on a timely basis, following the stated frequency. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions or rejection. Articles that are rejected include those that are outside the aims and scope of the journal and do not measure up to scientific standards, are poorly written or organized or written in poor language. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed. Articles may be rejected without review if the editor-in-chief considers the article obviously not suitable for publication.
Additional evaluation factors: Additional evaluation factors include relevance (Is this paper relevant for the topics of this journal?), soundness (Is this paper technically sound and complete?), significance (Is the paper interesting for other researchers?), originality (Are the results or ideas novel and previously unknown?), readability (Is the paper well-organized and easy to understand?), language (Is the paper written in correct language and style?). The main additional factors considered are significance and originality.
Publication decisions: The editor-in-chief of this journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor-in-chief takes all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material published in the journal. The editor-in-chief’s decision to accept or reject a paper for publication in the journal is based on subject relevance and originality and is guided by the review of suitably qualified reviewers. The editor-in-chief will ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions. The editor-in-chief may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. A description of the peer review process is published, and editorial assistants are ready to justify any important deviation from the described process.
Fair play: The editor-in-chief strives to ensure that peer review at the journal is fair, unbiased and timely. The editor-in-chief should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy or any other personal circumstances of the authors. Confidentiality: The editor-in-chief and other editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves from considering 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. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations: The editor-in-chief should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be investigated, even if it is discovered years after publication.
Publisher’s responsibilities: Catholic Institute, Faculty of Law and Business Studies as the publisher of Res novae encourages the editors to follow contemporary scientific editorial policies and publication ethics. Publisher defines the relationship between publisher, editor-in-chief, editorial board and other parties, protects intellectual property and copyright, and fosters editorial independence. Publisher works with journal editors to set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to: editorial independence; research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human research; authorship; transparency and integrity (conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting) standards; peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor (appeals and complaints). Publisher works with journal editors to: communicate journal policies (to authors, peer-reviewers, readers); review journal policies periodically; maintain the integrity of the academic record; assist the parties responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases.