Editorial & Publishing Policy

Authorship and Attribution ~ Peer Review ~ Appeals and Complaints ~ Ethics and Malpractice ~ Competing Interests ~ Corrections and Retractions ~ Additional Information

 


Authorship and Attribution

Membrana and its editors are committed to upholding the standards of academic integrity. These include proper crediting of academic labor, funding and conflicting interests.

The published work should adequately reflect the contribution of the authors. The list of authors should include (only) those authors who have significantly contributed to the manuscript (through the design of the study, data collection, and processing, interpretation, and reporting of results). Likewise, the order in which the authors are listed should reflect their contribution to the research process. While Membrana cannot arbitrate in authorship disputes, the journal can decide not to publish the manuscript, edit/withdraw the already published article in case of an authorship dispute, or refer the matter to the author’s home institution(s).

All authors and (co)authors should correctly list their affiliations. In case the author(s) have changed their institutional affiliation, the institution credited should be the institution at which the author(s) have conducted the research.

All submissions to Membrana must be made by the author or one of the co-authors. Membrana will not review submissions made by third parties.

 


Peer Review

All articles are peer-reviewed. Membrana uses single-blind peer review process for all submitted manuscripts.

Each submitted manuscript is initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or the Guest Editor (in the case of special issues) regarding the formal requirements (formatting, structure, style), the interest, the importance of the topic, scientific methodology, clarity of language, and relevance to readers. If the submitted manuscript meets the journal criteria it is forwarded for review.

All articles are peer-reviewed by two experts – researchers or academics working in the areas that fall within the journal's aim and scope. Membrana has a policy of not assigning reviewers suggested by the authors, reviewers affiliated with the same institution as any one of the co-authors, and reviewers affiliated with the funding agency of any one of the co-authors. The entire peer-review process is confidential and involves only the parties involved, and no information or data is shared outside the system.

The peer-review process is handled through the online review system, where each article is assigned an editor, a section editor (from the editorial board of Membrana) or a guest editor to conduct the peer-review process and two external peer reviewers. The review consists of a main written assessment of a minimum of 400 words, the reviewer’s suggestions of rejection or acceptance (the revision required), and conditionally additional comments in the submitted manuscript text file. The reviewers have four weeks to complete the peer review with additional comments to the editors.

The entire peer review process with all associated documents is archived in the online system – all steps and communication are documented and can be traced. The archive is not shared with third parties – the journal manager, the editor, and the section editors have access to it. 

Reviewers must declare competing interests before submitting their review. In such cases, the manuscript will be forwarded to a new reviewer for evaluation. If the evaluations of the two reviewers differ significantly, the manuscript will be forwarded to a third reviewer.

The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript is the responsibility of the editor-in-chief and is based on the recommendations of the reviewers and their comments (both to the authors and to the editors), as well as on the recommendations of the section and/or guest editors. Membrana editors (editor-in-chief, section editors, and guest editors) follow the COPE Guidelines for Editors.

If you are reviewing a manuscript for Membrana, click here to log in.

 


Appeals and Complaints

Appeals and complaints about the peer review process and the editor's decision are welcomed but must be substantiated with new information and data and clearly argumentative. Three member team from the ranks of the Membrana's editorial board will be appointed to handle the appeal and complaint process which will be done in confidence – including only the parties directly involved. If the author(s) wish to appeal and/or complain about the process or decision outside of the peer review system (if it is perceived to be of such nature), the publisher's management team should be contacted (for example suspicion of competing interest on part of the author(s), reviewer(s), editor(s), journal or the publisher). The same applies in a case of suspicion of a breach of ethics and/or suspicion of misconduct on the part of the editors or review team. Membrana follows the COPE Code of Conduct

 


Ethics and Malpractice

Membrana and its editors seek to protect the integrity of scientific research and the reputation of the journal against malpractice and breaches of academic integrity.

Membrana endorses definitions of research integrity and malpractice as adopted by the ALLEA European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ALLEA code), which defines three major categories of research misconduct: fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism (see section 3 of the ALLEA Code (pdf)). Membrana further adopts ALLEA’s definition of unacceptable practices (as outlined in section 3 of the ALLEA code). It also counts as a form of academic malpractice the use of excessive self-citation and citation manipulation (citations within prearranged groups of authors). Membrana’s understanding of citation manipulation relies on COPE discussion document

All authors must commit to respecting the guidelines and recommendations of the ALLEA code both in the stage of conducting research and in the stage of dissemination of findings. The published research must fully comply with the standards of research ethics set by ethical committees of their home institutions. If these lack clear definitions and procedures or are not yet developed, the authors should comply with the requirements of the internationally accepted codes such as ALLEA and COPE.

Membrana and its editors take violations of research integrity very seriously. The journal will do whatever possible within its organizational capacity, and human and financial resources to protect academic and research integrity.

When informed about potential breaches of academic integrity, Membrana will form a three-member team from the ranks of its editorial board members to investigate the claims. The editor(s) will act on the ground of the team’s recommendations. The whole investigation will be done in confidence – including only the parties directly involved. The actions can include, but are not limited to: publishing corrections, retracting the article, notifying the relevant bodies of author’s institution and/or learned societies, or legal action.

 


Competing Interests

In order to protect the scientific integrity of the publication, Membrana Institute requires the author(s), reviewer(s), editor(s), journal, or publisher to disclose competing interests or conflicts of interest. Competing interests are financial and non-financial interests that directly undermine, or could be perceived to undermine, the objectivity, integrity, and value of a publication by potentially influencing the authors' judgment and actions regarding the objective presentation, analysis, and interpretation of data. The same principle applies to peer reviews and editorial decisions. Non-financial competing interests can take various forms, including personal or professional relationships with organizations and individuals. We encourage authors and reviewers to declare any unpaid roles or relationships that may have an influence on the publication process.

Competing interests or potential conflicts of interest should be declared in the editor's notes at the time of submission and in the appropriate section at the time of review. If necessary, the author(s), reviewer(s), and editor(s) will be asked to submit and provide an additional written and signed disclosure of competing or conflicting interests.

Examples of competing financial interests include: Research support (e.g., salaries, equipment, supplies, and other expenses), employment (present or anticipated ), or financial benefits (stock or shares) of companies or organizations that stand to gain or lose financially from the publication. All authors are required to disclose research funds and grants and, if applicable, to describe the role of the funder in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the article; and/or in the decision to submit the article for publication.

Examples of nonfinancial competing interests for authors include being a member of the editorial board of the journal Membrana (or having been a member of the editorial board within the past 5 years) or current or past (within the past 5 years) membership on a committee of an organization that could benefit from publication of the paper.

Examples of non-financial competing interests for editors and reviewers include: Working for the same institution or organization as the author(s) of the manuscript, academic collaboration with the author(s) of the manuscript, co-authoring with the author(s) of the manuscript, personal relationships with an author(s) that might undermine or appear to undermine the objective evaluation of the manuscript. All the above refers to the period of the last 5 years

If editors are made aware of undeclared competing interests, they may choose to reject a manuscript immediately, regardless of the stage of review. If Membrana learns of an undisclosed competing interest after publication, it will take action in accordance with the policies of COPE.

 


Corrections and Retractions

Articles will be retracted or corrected only if requested by the author(s), if required by the results of an institutional investigation (by a three-person editorial team), or if third parties assert legitimate legal claims against the publisher, copyright holder, or author(s).

The article will be retracted if the reasons for retraction are so serious that the entire study or large portions of it are not suitable for inclusion in the scientific literature and corrections would not correct the problems and/or if the author's actions are judged by the publisher's investigative team to be such a serious breach of academic integrity even though corrections would be feasible.  

For each retracted article, the reason for the retraction and the author of the retraction will be clearly stated in the retraction notice. The retraction notice will be linked to the retracted article and the article will be clearly marked as retracted (including the PDF file) and remain accessible on the website.

The content of a retracted article will be removed if legal restrictions have been placed on the publisher, copyright holder(s), or author(s), such as if the article is clearly defamatory or infringes on the rights of others, or if the article is the subject of a court order. In such cases, the bibliographic information about the article will be kept on the website, along with information about the circumstances that led to the removal of the content.

Articles may be corrected or retracted for a variety of reasons, including: honest mistakes reported by authors, research misconduct (falsification or fabrication of data), duplicate or overlapping publication, fraudulent use of data, overt plagiarism, and unethical research.

 


Additional Information

About the Journal
Copyright Information
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Guidelines for Authors
Publisher's Website