UCT Journals General Policies
The UCT Journals is publishing by Research Hub, which aims to publish scientific journals. It is supported by a wide spread committee members. Editors are appointed by the president of UCT Journals after consultation with the council of the nominated members. The associate editors and the editorial advisory board members are appointed by the editor. The editor and the associate editors meet to consider manuscript decisions. The policies and practices of the journals are established by the editor with the advice of the associate editors and the editorial advisory board.
Scope of publication
UCT Journals strives to publish original work of the highest quality that elucidates different fields of science. They are included in both in terdiciplinary and ultidisciplinary journals. Apart from general importance, scientific quality, and rigor, the major criteria for acceptance are: originality; definitive mechanistic information; and interest to a broad readership. Journals publish articles that strive to understand integrative function through innovative model simulations; conventional theoretical articles will be published only if they deal with subjects about which the journal often has published experimental studiesor if they are submitted as a companion to an experimental article that depends upon the theoretical article in some significant way. Methodological articles will be published only if they provide a significant advance in areas where the journals regularly publish experimental studies. Articles that are scientifically sound may be rejected because they are felt to lack novelty or breadth of appeal.
Types of articles
Apart from solicited Commentaries, Perspectives, Editorials, Brief Reviews, and Milestones in Physiology, the Journal publishes Regular Articles, Tutorial Research Articles, Communications, and Letters to the Editor. There are no upper or lower page limits for Regular Articles, but it is expected that they are written in a concise style to conserve space in the Journal. Tutorial Research Articles are regular articles that address problems about which the Journal often has published experimental studies, using methods that are likely to be new or unfamiliar to the Journals readers, and therefore are presented in a more pedagogical (lengthy) manner than usual. Communications are short articles, no longer than six printed pages. Discoveries that open up new areas of research, or provide unexpected insights into important problems, often can be reported succinctly. Communications should be organized and prepared like Regular Articles, except that they cannot include online supplemental material. Letters to the Editor are short communications, no more than two printed pages, that comment upon, criticize, or interpret findings published in the Journal. The acceptability of Tutorials, Communications, and Letters to the Editor are subject to the same reviewing and editorial procedures that apply to Regular articles, as described under Review Process and Editorial Decision Making.
Review process and editorial decision making
Solicited commentaries and editorials usually will be reviewed only by the editor and the associate editors; perspectives and brief reviews will also have one or more outside reviewers. All other manuscripts are subject to a uniform and rigorous review. After a manuscript is received, it is first evaluated by the editors. Manuscripts that are deemed to be inappropriate for the journal, and manuscripts of poor quality or with serious deficiencies, will be returned to the author(s) after this initial review by the editors. For manuscripts that pass this initial review, a list of possible expert reviewers is drawn up.
In the case of letters to the editor, the letter will be sent to the authors of the work that is commented upon, with a request that they provide a written response. The letter plus the response then will be subject to review usually by the reviewers of the original article(s). Based on this review, the journals may publish the letter to the editor with or without a response.
Editors, the associate editors, or editorial advisory board members may from time to time suggest to a scientist that he/she should submit a manuscript on a specific topic to the journals. Such suggestions do not imply that the manuscript will receive a favorable review.
Possible reviewers are generally contacted by email to ascertain their availability as reviewers of the manuscript. Two (sometimes three) expert reviewers are selected, and PDF copies of the manuscript are sent to them electronically. The reviewers may be requested to send the editors a preliminary evaluation of the manuscript’s importance and originality, of the quality of its presentation, and of the time required to review it. If both reviewers give a manuscript a low score, and the editors affirm that evaluation, the manuscript will not be reviewed further, but will be returned to the author(s) with an explanatory letter. Otherwise, the manuscript will be reviewed according to the standards of the journal. This procedure is intended to expedite decisions on manuscripts that are deemed unlikely to compete successfully for space in the journal, and to provide guidance to the authors of these manuscripts.
Manuscripts that receive a complete review are carefully evaluated by the editors at the editorial meetings. Decisions are made at the discretion of the editor and associate editors, who are guided not only by their own judgment of, and the reviewers’ advice on, the manuscript’s scientific merit, novelty, and mechanistic insights, but also by its appropriateness to the Journal and by the number of articles currently under consideration or in press. If reviewers disagree strongly about the scientific merit of a manuscript, the editors may request the advice of an additional reviewer or an advisory editor.
Except in special circumstances, manuscripts that fall within the following categories are unlikely to be accepted:
Purely methodological or theoretical developments (except as noted in Scope of Publication).
Descriptive reports, in which no specific hypothesis is tested.
Manuscripts that primarily confirm results already established for other species and, therefore, do not provide new, or definitive mechanistic insights.
Manuscripts which merely amplify a previous brief publication and contain no substantial new information.
Authors are informed of editorial decisions by email or paper tracking system. In the case of any problem, all correspondence should be addressed to the editor.
Reviewers’ comments are usually, but not always, sent to the author. Correspondence concerning a manuscript will be seen by persons other than the author, as a copy of each review usually is sent to the other reviewer or reviewers. A copy of the editors’ letter advising the author that an article has been accepted or declined, or that it may be resubmitted in revised form, is sent to each reviewer.
Acceptance, Revision, and Rejections
Review process may last between 3-8 weeks. Results include the reviewers comments, paper status and instructions of next steps.
A submitted manuscript might be accepted for publishing. In this case, author is required to prepare the final approved version of paper and upload it through paper tracking system. An acceptance letter will be send to author, too. Also, for an accepted paper, author is required to pay publishing fee. Payment details should be sent in final step of paper submission through paper tracking system.
The revised manuscript must be received in the editorial office within one month of the date of the decision letter. Revised manuscripts that are received at a later date will be treated as new submissions, unless the Editor has been notified in writing of the delay and agreed in writing to receive the revised manuscript at a later date.
In case a rejected manuscript is resubmitted without an explicit invitation to do so, the manuscript usually will be returned without further review.
In the case of letters to the editor, the publication of a letter does not commit the journal to publish a reply.
Communications between authors and the editorial office
Communication between author and editorial must be established through contact to editor system of publishing. No email will be replied out of system. Questions regarding the status of a manuscript will not be answered, too. Paper status can be tracked by paper tracking system of journals. Question about discounting the publishing fee will not be replied, too. In any other cases, the editorial office will provide information only to the designated corresponding author, and will not provide extensive details.
Time from Submission to Editorial Decision to Publication
The editorial strives to minimize the time from submission to the first decision. Currently, the median time from the date of submission to the date of the decision letter is about 3-8 weeks. The actual time varies widely from manuscript to manuscript. The editors note that the review process tends to take longer for large and complex manuscripts, or pairs of manuscripts, and for manuscripts that are poorly prepared (but potentially very interesting). Communications will not be subject to accelerated review; nevertheless, short manuscripts tend to be reviewed faster than longer manuscripts, and we expect that the median time from submission to decision will be less than for regular articles.