Peer review

All article proposals will be peer-reviewed as follows:

1.- After receiving a full submission package from the author, the Editorial Board will check that this work meets the journal’s format and thematic requirements, after which a confirmation will be extended to the author. He or she will be informed about the time of evaluation. In order to be eligible for peer-reviewing, the submission package must include all mandatory elements and documents.

2.- The Managing Editor shall deliver a blind copy of the article proposal to two peer-reviewers, one of them external to the journal’s Board of Referees, who will also be provided with the journal’s evaluation form and evaluation criteria. Reviewers are expected to send in their reports within 2 months. In the event of significant discrepancies, the Managing Editor, or a third professional reviewer selected by the Managing Editor, might determine a positive or a negative resolution. In those cases, an additional month might apply.

3.- Within the time appointed, each reviewer will facilitate their evaluation to the Managing Editor.

4.- Reviewers may reject the assessment of an article alleging ethical or moral considerations or expressing a specific interest that might motivate a biased evaluation. In that case, they shall notify the editor their reasoned allegations.

5.- According to the journal’s peer-reviewing criteria, the evaluation result may be:

a. Rejection: The proposal does not meet the quality criteria and is therefore rejected for publication.

b. Acceptance: The proposal meets the quality criteria and is therefore accepted for publication.

c. Conditioned acceptance: The proposal generally meets the journal’s quality requirements but further corrections and/or modifications are required before it is finally accepted for publication.

6.- The acceptance of an article will always be provisional until the editorial process is finished. The Managing Editor of the journal can modify the resolution at any stage of the editorial process, provided that a reasoned allegation is presented.

7.- After notification of the resolution to the author (with two detailed reports) and the peer-reviewers, and in case of appeal, they shall have a period of ten working days to present their written allegations to the managing editor of the journal. Similarly, and in case of receiving recommendations for the publication of their proposal, authors must submit appropriate amendments to the Managing Editor within ten working days.

8.- Accepted manuscripts for publication will be automatically destroyed at the end of the editorial process. By contrast, rejected manuscripts will be conveniently stored for a year.

9.- By no means will the editorial process exceed four months (from the moment a manuscript is received until it is evaluated by peer-reviewers).

10.- Oceánide’s external reviewers are annually selected attending to criteria such as internationalisation and professional affiliation, as well as their area of expertise.

Editorial Screening Form DOC

Editorial Screening Form PDF

Peer-reviewing Form DOC

Peer-reviewing Form PDF

Breach of confidence (editors, reviewers and authors)

For breach of confidence, in the absence of an express contractual agreement as to which law applies, the general rule would be that the country where the obligation of confidence was breached would be the country in which to sue. However, under Rome II agreement, which applies to EU member states, from January 2009 the applicable law would be the country where the damage occurred.

Ethical Obligations


A. Ethical Obligations of Editors of Scientific Journals

1. An editor should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s). An editor may, however, take into account relationships of a manuscript immediately under consideration to others previously or concurrently offered by the same author(s).

2. An editor should consider manuscripts submitted for publication with all reasonable speed.

3. The sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests with the editor. Responsible and prudent exercise of this duty normally requires that the editor seek advice from reviewers, chosen for their expertise and good judgment, as to the quality and reliability of manuscripts submitted for publication.  However, manuscripts may be rejected without external review if considered by the editors to be inappropriate for the journal. Such rejections may be based on the failure of the manuscript to fit the scope of the journal, to be of current or sufficiently broad interest, to provide adequate depth of content, to be written in acceptable English, or other reasons.

4. The editor and members of the editor’s staff should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought. (However, an editor who solicits, or otherwise arranges beforehand, the submission of manuscripts may need to disclose to a prospective author the fact that a relevant manuscript by another author has been received or is in preparation.) After a decision has been made about a manuscript, the editor and members of the editor’s staff may disclose or publish manuscript titles and authors’ names of papers that have been accepted for publication, but no more than that unless the author’s permission has been obtained. If a decision has been made to reject a manuscript for ethical violations, the editor and members of the editor’s staff may disclose the manuscript title and authors’ names to other editors.

5. An editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors.

6. Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by an editor and submitted to the editor’s journal should be delegated to some other qualified person, such as another editor of that journal or a member of its Editorial Advisory Board. Editorial consideration of the manuscript in any way or form by the author-editor would constitute a conflict of interest, and is therefore improper.

7. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor’s own research except with the consent of the author. However, if such information indicates that some of the editor’s own research is unlikely to be profitable, the editor could ethically discontinue the work. When a manuscript is so closely related to the current or past research of an editor as to create a conflict of interest, the editor should arrange for some other qualified person to take editorial responsibility for that manuscript. In some cases, it may be appropriate to tell an author about the editor’s research and plans in that area.

8. If an editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a report  published in an editor’s journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate  report pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it.

9. An author may request that the editor not use certain reviewers in consideration of a manuscript.  However, the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers, if the editor feels their opinions are important in the fair consideration of a manuscript.

B. Ethical Obligations of Authors

Authors are expected to adhere to the following ethical guidelines; infractions may result in the application of sanctions by the editor(s), including but not limited to the suspension or revocation of publishing privileges.

1. An author’s central obligation is to present an accurate and complete account of the research performed, absolutely avoiding deception, including the data collected or used, as well as an objective discussion of the significance of the research. Data are defined as information collected or used in generating research conclusions. The research report and the data collected should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information to permit a trained professional to reproduce the experimental observations.

2. An author should recognize that journal space is a precious resource created at considerable cost. An author therefore has an obligation to use it wisely and economically.

3. Authors are encouraged to submit their data to a public database, where available.

4. An author should cite those publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work and that will guide the reader quickly to the earlier work that is essential for understanding the present investigation. An author is obligated to perform a literature search to find, and then cite, the original publications that describe closely related work. For critical materials used in the work, proper citation to sources should also be made when these were supplied by a non-author.

5. In submitting a manuscript for publication, an author should inform the editor of related manuscripts that the author has under editorial consideration or in press. Copies of those manuscripts should be supplied to the editor, and the relationships of such manuscripts to the one submitted should be indicated.

6. It is improper for an author to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal of primary publication, unless it is a resubmission of a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication. It is generally permissible to submit a manuscript for a full paper expanding on a previously published brief preliminary account (a “communication” or “letter”) of the same work.  However, at the time of submission, the editor should be made aware of the earlier communication, and the preliminary communication should be cited in the manuscript.

7. An author should identify the source of all information quoted or offered, except that which is common knowledge. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author’s work without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the information originated.

8. The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Authors should appropriately recognize the contributions of technical staff and data professionals. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgments” section. The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate.

9. Conflicts of interest and sources of funding of the research reported must be clearly stated at the time of manuscript submission and will be included in the published article.

10. Plagiarism is not acceptable. Authors  should not engage in plagiarism – verbatim or near-verbatim copying, or very close paraphrasing, of text or results from another’s work. Authors should not engage in self-plagiarism (also known as duplicate publication) – unacceptably close replication of the author’s own previously published text or results without acknowledgement of the source. It is unacceptable for an author to include significant verbatim or near-verbatim portions of his/her own work, or to depict his/her previously published results or methodology as new, without acknowledging the source.

11. Images, sound files and video files should be free from misleading manipulation. When images are included in an account of research performed or in the data collection as part of the research, an accurate description of how the images were generated and produced should be provided. 

C. Ethical Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts

1. Inasmuch as the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, and therefore in the operation of the scientific method, every scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

2. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor.

3. A reviewer (or referee) of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the complete manuscript and the Supporting Information, including the experimental and theoretical data, the interpretations and exposition, with due regard to the maintenance of high scientific and literary standards. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.

4. A reviewer should be sensitive to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.

5. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.

6. A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.

7. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Unsupported assertions by reviewers (or by authors in rebuttal) are of little value and should be avoided.

8. A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists, bearing in mind that complaint that the reviewer’s own research was insufficiently cited may seem self-serving. A reviewer should call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper and any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.

9. A reviewer should act promptly, submitting a report in a timely manner. Should a reviewer receive a manuscript at a time when circumstances preclude prompt attention to it, the un-reviewed manuscript should be returned immediately to the editor. Alternatively, the reviewer might notify the editor of probable delays and propose a revised review date.

10. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained.

11. The review of a submitted manuscript may sometimes justify criticism, even severe criticism, from a reviewer. However, in no case is personal criticism of the author considered to be appropriate.

Plagiarism: Action(s) in case of proven misconduct

– Editor and all involved reviewers are notified at the same time.

– A letter is sent to all other authors involved in which they are informed about the perpetrated act and possibly asked for advice.

– A copy of this letter is also sent to the head of the respective institute/university.

– The corresponding author is banned in participating in any of the journal’s publications for an initial period of 5 years.

– Retraction of the article (recommended as most severe, irreversible repercussion). The article will be fully retracted online. The initial PDF document will be replaced by a retraction note.

Duplicate publication: Action(s) in case of proven misconduct

– Editor and all involved reviewers are notified at the same time.

– A letter is sent to all other authors involved in which they are informed about the perpetrated act and possibly asked for advice.

– A copy of this letter is also sent to the head of the respective institute/university.

– The corresponding author is banned in participating in any of the journal’s publications for an initial period of 5 years.

– Retraction of the article (recommended as most severe, irreversible repercussion). The article will be fully retracted online. The initial PDF document will be replaced by a retraction note.

Adapted from and COPE.