Editorial Principles

The Purpose and Value of Reviews

 Scoop Nova is a non-profit publishing organisation devoted to synthesising and integrating information for the advancement of science and the benefit of society.

Our articles capture a current understanding of a topic, including what is well supported and what is controversial; place the work in historical context; highlight the major questions that remain unanswered and the likely course of research in the coming years; and outline the practical applications and societal significance of the research.

Readers of Scoop Nova articles include researchers who want to stay current in their field and incorporate this information into their activities; researchers who want an introduction to new fields to develop an interface between different areas of research; students at all levels who want to gain a thorough understanding of a topic; and business people. 

Journalists, policymakers, practitioners, patients and patient advocates, and others who want to stay up to date on research advances

“An authoritative review must simultaneously give an entry point into a certain topic’s core literature, synthesise current knowledge in that field, and interpret that information carefully.” As information in a specific subject expands, a new review must frequently mention and build upon previous studies.” T. Schultz, 2011. Preface, Annu. Rev. Entomol. 56.

“We believe there is a need for brief and accurate entrance points to anthropological studies, especially in this age of information explosion.” The succinct version. The tour is academically led. But we’re looking for more than “simply a review.” We would be negligent if the Editorial Committee did not also invite writers to describe their vision for the future of research and scholarship on each topic. What are the potential growth areas that they envision in the future? What are the potential research areas for the future? Where, after all, are the remaining flaws, gaps, and unknowns? In an ideal world, the evaluations published in the pages of the ARA will therefore take a topic and digest its history while also helping to define its future.

Our biggest disappointments—and most frequent rejections—come from chapters that are either entire recapitulation or entirely personal supposition. We need a deft combination of both, the vitality of the hybrid” (Durham WH. 1999. Preface. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 28)

Editorial Committee Structure and Responsibilities

Editorial Committees comprised of acknowledged professionals in the appropriate subject oversee Scoop Nova publications. Each Committee consists of an Editor or Co-Editor, one to three Associate Editors, five or six permanent Members, and occasional Guest Members. Except for the Guest Members, all appointments are for five years and are authorised by the Scoop Nova Board of Directors. The Editors Invite Guest Members to participate for one year.

The Editorial Committees seek highly competent authors to submit reviews on important themes and evaluate submitted publications for correctness, rigour, and balance. Potential authors are chosen based on their intellectual repute, academic achievements, and publishing histories. A Member of the Editorial Committee is occasionally nominated by another Committee Member to write an invited review. These ideas are debated and assessed with the same rigour and care as all other commissioned recommended reviews, and they are subjected to the same review procedure after article submission. Scoop Nova supports a multinational and varied community of scholars in carrying out its goal, and the makeup of its Committees and writers should represent this global community.

Given their effect on individual submissions and the general direction of their respective journals, Editorial Committees must behave with the utmost integrity, both individually and collectively.

Transparency and Disclosure

Each Committee Member and Reviewer must state any considerations that might be seen as possible sources of bias. Leadership positions or board memberships in organisations, membership in related advocacy organisations, paid consultancies, patents pending or held, significant financial holdings in related corporations or partnerships, and recent honoraria, current grants and/or research contracts (private sources, government-sponsored consortia/networks) are examples of these. During talks about prospective themes and authors, as well as when manuscript reviews are assigned, Committee Members volunteer any potential source of bias (e.g., relationships with potential authors that are not “arm’s length” or financial interests in the review topic) en passant. Such disclosures are open to additional debate and are especially crucial for works that address significant, unresolved scholarly topics.

Process of Editorial Review

Each paper is examined by one or more members of the Editorial Committee, as well as an extra expert Reviewer if further expert input is requested. Reviewers might choose to expose their names to writers or stay anonymous. Because the evaluations are solicited, the author’s name is not disguised from the reviewers. The Reviewer’s approval is required before a paper may be published (whether an Editorial Committee Member, Guest Member, or external Reviewer).

Editors, Editorial Committee Members, and Scoop Nova staff keep submitted writings and all correspondence with writers private. Communication with the journal must likewise be treated as confidential by authors and reviewers.

For each paper published in a Scoop Nova publication, reviewers are encouraged to examine the following: 

  •       Whether the article will be useful to a large number of people. The objective is for all papers to be valuable to specialists, other scholars, instructors, and students. If change is required, reviewers are urged to give specific ideas for how the article might achieve this objective.
  •       Whether or if the citations are comprehensive and indicative of the published original material.
  •       Whether the abstract accurately summarise the whole article and is informative.
  •       How well-organized and easy-to-read the article is.
  •       The effectiveness of the drawings and tables.
  •       Reviewers decide to: 
  •       Accept the article and publish with minor to moderate adjustments; 
  •       Request major revisions followed by another review; or 
  •       Reject the article; Reviewers might advise the author on whether or not to resubmit.


If an external Reviewer is contacted, or if an article is suggested for rejection, the Editor(s) make the final decision on publishing. If an article is rejected, the Editor(s) informs the author of the reasons for rejection and suggests whether a major modification and resubmission is acceptable.

Making Corrections to the Record

If a mistake is detected in a published Scoop Nova piece, the author is asked to rectify or retract the material as soon as possible. In situations when the author contests the critique, members of the Editorial Committee gather and analyse evidence before deciding on further steps.

Misconduct Allegations

Allegations of research or publishing misconduct are investigated fairly, expeditiously, and thoroughly by qualified people, including members of the Editorial Committee and the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editor-in-Chief of Scoop Nova. Complaints about Scoop Nova employees are investigated by the company’s Human Resources department.

Authorship \Scoop Experienced researchers are encouraged to submit Nova papers. The Invited Author may coauthor the review with a colleague or colleagues, but the invitation is not transferable; the Invited Author must be the sole author. All people who meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (2017, p. 2) four requirements should be identified as co-authors:

  •       significant contributions to the work’s conception or design; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and 
  •       drafting the work or critically revising it for important intellectual content; and 
  •       final approval of the version to be published; and 
  •       agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Others who engaged in substantive areas of the review but did not satisfy all of the requirements should be thanked in an Acknowledgements section. The Invited Author is responsible for ensuring that everyone mentioned in the Acknowledgments has agreed to the acknowledgement, that everyone who meets the authorship criteria is listed as an author on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.

Competing Interests Disclosure

Authors must state any conflicts of interest that may impact or be affected by the review at the time of article submission. These include relationships, financing, or financial holdings that might be perceived as influencing the review’s objectivity.

Employment, professional affiliations, paid consultancies, participation in relevant advocacy organisations, board memberships, money, support, and/or grants obtained within the last three years, major financial holdings, or patents are examples of such elements. A possible bias does not imply that the work provided has been compromised, nor does it exclude writers from being published; nonetheless, such conflicts must be disclosed to readers. An erratum will be released if a conflict of interest is detected after publication.

Plagiarism Avoidance

Each review must be a one-of-a-kind piece of writing. A review is primarily reliant on the ideas, observations, and reports of others. As a result, authors must take caution when attributing and quoting other works.

This caution also applies to the utilisation of the author’s earlier work. Scoop Nova detects plagiarism with iThenticate.

Scoop Nova authors are encouraged to follow the standards below to avoid unintended copyright infringements, the impression of plagiarism, or accidental bias in constructing bibliographies.

Credit Assignment

Authors are responsible for explicitly identifying the source of ideas, text, photos, and so on; seeking permission to reproduce material, including extensive quotes, where appropriate; and adhering to copyright rules.

Confidentiality and Consent

Scoop Nova supports the ICMJE standards for reporting research and other information published in medical journals, including human and animal research reporting and review. Authors who submit information or clinical images that may allow readers to identify the patient must provide proof that they have the authorization to use or reproduce the content.

This involves proper authorization from the original work’s author and publisher, as well as a written and signed agreement to publish from each patient. Whether utilising original information or replicating content from a primary source, authors must take all reasonable measures to maintain patient identity.

Literature References

Authors should be fair, but selective, in their reference choices. Bibliographic information (such as dates and page numbers) must be correct. Only papers of actual importance should be included: citations of minor value should be avoided, and writers should avoid mentioning publications from predatory or bogus journals. Retracted articles should never be included in the bibliography; instead, the retraction notice should be acknowledged wherever retractions are addressed. If an erratum, correction, or editorial statement of concern for a reference has been published, it must be mentioned in the bibliography.

Standards and Image Integrity

The Scoop Nova Author Graphics Guide discusses digital ways for making and delivering figures. Figures should be drawings or images that illustrate significant points in the text or cost-effectively offer essential facts. Annual Reviews employs a staff of Illustration Editors who collaborate with authors to improve figures. Before publishing, modified figures are given to authors for approval.

Before submitting their work, authors must get permission to reuse and change figures. They should immediately approach the publishers of the original publication for permission to reproduce figures, and only include figures for which such permission has been received. After the figure caption, credit the source of the content. The copyright holder has the option of specifying the exact language to be used. Scoop Nova assists with the payment of expenses involved with gaining authorization.

Scoop Nova follows the Journal of Cell Biology’s guidelines for approved image alteration (Rossner & Yamada 2004, p. 12):

It is not permitted to improve, conceal, relocate, delete, or insert any specific feature inside a picture. The arrangement of the figure (e.g., utilising dividing lines) and the wording of the figure legend must make obvious the grouping of photos from various regions of the same gel, or distinct gels, fields, or exposures. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or colour balance are permissible if applied to the entire image and do not obscure or delete any information included in the original. Nonlinear modifications (for example, gamma alterations) must be indicated in the figure legend.

Making Corrections to the Record

When an author discovers a serious error or inaccuracy in his or her published work, it is the author’s responsibility to contact the Editor and Associate Editor-in-Chief as soon as possible and to work with them to amend or withdraw the article. If a third party reports that a published work includes a serious error, the author must rectify or remove the document, or give evidence of the article’s validity.

Copyright Under US copyright law, Scoop Nova must secure an express transfer of those rights required for the orderly publishing of its journals in print and online from each author. As a result, we need each author to sign a declaration granting Annual Reviews complete and exclusive rights to their piece, including any tables and images.

If any of the co-authors are US federal workers, British Commonwealth employees, or require a different copyright arrangement due to their connection or financing, please contact your Production Editor for further instructions.

To discover more about Subscribe to Open, Scoop Nova’s new road to open access, and the consequences for copyright, visit their website.