Basic Guidelines for Authors
Ⅰ. Manuscript Preparation
Manuscripts should be prepared according to the guidance in this policy. This guidance is regularly updated in accordance with the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Every Research Article, Clinical Research, and Review Article should begin with title, authors, abstract, introduction, and end with conclusions, acknowledgements, author contributions, references, and figure and table legends. For further several sections of Research Article and Clinical Research, authors can choose appropriate headings for you from the following list. Any section should not contain numbered subheadings. Only unnumbered subheadings are available in Research Article and Clinical Research.
- Methods/Materials and Method/Patients and Methods
- Results/Clinical findings
- Discussion/Results and Discussion
The section headings can be more flexible in Review Article and Research Article of which the topic is about theory or modeling without any experiments, observation or questioner.
Line numbers should be inserted from the Abstract to the Acknowledgments. However do not apply it for the Reference list.
Authors may be helped by a reporting guidelines to describe the study enough to be understood. Authors are preferably asked to conform to the reporting standard that is accepted in their field. NLM’s Research Reporting Guidelines and Initiatives provides a list of the major biomedical research reporting guidelines. Those links will provide authors with some advice how to report research methods and findings.
For detailed instruction for preparing an article is shown below:
Titles should be clear, concise, and describe the content of your manuscript. Abbreviations that are very unique, technical, and only understood by a small number of experts should be avoided if possible. The total length of the title should not exceed 150 characters (including spaces). Also note that title should be written in sentence case (in sentence case, first letter of the first word and the first letter of any proper noun are capital letters).
Abstract should explicitly describe background, result, and the importance of the result’s influence. Appending citation is not required. It is recommended to complete it within 1,600 characters (including spaces) for Research Article and Clinical Research and 2,000 characters for Review Article. Accession numbers should be mentioned when materials or data is from a repository.
Keywords should identify the topic, academic subdiscipline, methodology and anything that describes the research.
Introduction should briefly describe the research’s background without subheadings. Citation should be conducted as appropriate when writing a review for your researching area.
5. Materials and Methods
In this section, information necessary to reproduce the experiment or survey conducted in the research should be organized and described. Provide the name of the manufacturer and model number of reagents and equipment if you use them. Methods such as protocols which have been well established should be quoted appropriately, and all modifications should be stated if altered.
Statistical method and software should be stated. Study designed to use animals and/or human subjects need to declare ethics statements.
6. Ethics Statements
In any research that include human participants, authors should state how they ensure the quality and integrity of your research; how they got informed consent; how they respect the confidentiality and anonymity regarding trial subject and how they will avoid harm to the subjects. Whether the subjects participated in the study voluntarily should be stated as well.
Authors that include animals should obtain appropriate approval from their Institutional review board, ethics committee, or equivalent committees, and should state it.
Science Postprint expects authors of human or animal researches to include Ethics statements in Materials and Methods.
Results should be described as accurate as possible. Figures and tables may be used. It should be divided into subsections with appropriate subheadings without any numbering. Experimental maneuver should be stated in “Materials and Methods” section, and duplication in “Results” should be avoided.
Make discussion to verify your hypothesis by indicating results and quoting related works. Discussion should explain the importance of the result and present future prospects. If you choose “Results and Discussion” for section title, result and speculation should be explicitly expressed.
Briefly state the work’s outcome, what the finding is and how important it should be in academic contexts. Authors should carefully avoid overstating.
10. Author Contributions
Please describe each author’s contribution in a list, bearing in mind the authorship policy (Editorial Policies—Ⅰ. 1. Author Status). In the submission form, the following five contribution will be asked for each authors. At least one contribution from each of 1) and 2) is required to be identified as an author.
- Conceived and designed the work
- Acquired the data
- Analyzed and/or interpreted the data
- Drafted the work
- Revised and approved the work
Express your gratitude toward all parties related to your research. However, acknowledgements to your funding organization should be included in “Funding” section. It is recommended to obtain approval from all organizations and individuals appearing in this section about mentioning.
Basically, only articles that have been published or works that have been accepted in named publications upon peer reviewing can be included in the reference list. Published conference abstracts or proceedings, identified patents, and preprints on recognized servers may also be included in reference lists, but texts and grant details should not. Citations in body text should be made by reference numbers in brackets (Vancouver system). Reference numbers should be assigned to each of the referred works consecutively in the order in which they are first mentioned in the text. Papers in preparation or under consideration should be mentioned only in the text with a list of authors.
Authors should be listed surname first, followed by given and middle name initials. If there are multiple authors, list names in the order as they appear in the final document and do not use “&” or “and.” When there are more than six authors, list the first six of them followed by et al. If editors or translators are given instead of authors, end the list of names with the specific role, editor or translator, abbreviated as “(ed./eds.)” or “(transl./transls.).” If no person or organization are identified as authors, editors, or translators, begin the reference with the publication year. Reference section should be described in a unified format.
Editorial Office may ask authors to submit direct URL link, DOI or if they are not available, scanned copy of the cited article to ensure accessibility of the references.
Note for EndNote users: The output style for SPP reference is available for download from the User’s page under the website of USACO Corporation Ltd., which is a sales representative of the software in Japan.
Detailed example are shown below.
For published papers, it is recommended to provide doi numbers. Journal titles should be given in italic and abbreviation using periods is recommended.
1. Boal KB, Schultz PL (2007) Storytelling, time, and evolution: The role of strategic leadership in complex adaptive systems. Leadership Quart. 18 (4): pp. 411–428. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.008.
If the article is accepted but under preparation for publication, use “Forthcoming” followed by expected publication year.
2. Awal MA, Ohta T (Forthcoming 2014) Energy, water, and carbon dioxide fluxes in broadleaved deciduous and evergreen mixed forests in temperate Japan. Science Postprint.
For non-English works or documents, translate the title into English and put “[article in (Language name)]” on the end of the title.
3. Béranger J, Mancini J, Dufour J-C, Le Coz P (2012) Implementation ethics of information systems in oncology: Measure of the degree of applicability of the means and disorder (entropy) [article in French]. IRBM 33 (5): pp. 308–315. doi:10.1016/j.irbm.2012.10.001.
Providing ISBN number will be welcomed. Book titles should be given in italic.
4. Besenhard JO (ed.) (1990) Handbook of Battery Materials. Germany: Wiley-VCH. ISBN: 35-27294694.
When citing book chapter, chapter title should be placed ahead of the book title, with the connecting phrase "In:."
5. Kramer HG (1981) The Selection of Starting Material for Neutron-Transmutation Doped Silicon. In: Guldberg J (ed.) Neutron-transmutation-doped silicon. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation. pp. 207–210. ISBN: 978-1461332633.
In case of conference proceedings, publication year, conference title (in italic), date, and place is required as well as the place of publication and the publisher.
6. Rammstedt B, Riemann R (eds.) (2002) 11th European Conference on Personality. Jul 21–27 2002, Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat Jena, Jena, Germany. Pabst Science Publishers, Germany: Lengerich. p. 259.
If there is a title of the book of proceeding (often the name of the specific conference), it should be right after the publication year.
7. Harnden P, Joffe JK, Jones WG (eds.) (2002) Germ cell tumours V. Proceedings of the 5th Germ Cell Tumour Conference. Sep 13–15 2001, Leeds, UK. New York: Springer. pp. 10–13.
In case of conference paper in a conference proceeding, article title and the authors precede.
8. Christensen S, Oppacher F (2002) An analysis of Koza's computational effort statistic for genetic programming. In: Foster JA, Lutton E, Miller J, Ryan C, Tettamanzi AG (eds.) Genetic programming. Proceedings of the 5th European Conference on Genetic Programming. Apr 3–5, 2002, Kinsdale, Ireland. Berlin: Springer. pp. 182–91.
For conference abstract, conference title should be right after “Abstract of.”
9. Chiarenza GA, De Marchi I, Colombo L, Olgiati P, Trevisan C, Casarotto S (2004) Neuropsychophysiological profile of children with developmental dyslexia. In: Beuzeron-Mangina JH, Fotiou F (eds.) The olympics of the brain. Abstracts of the 12th World Congress of Psychophysiology. Sep 18–23, 2004. Thessaloniki, Greece. Amsterdam: Elsevier. p. 16.
For website, title of the content, URL, and cited date is required. Provide the author or editor names, publication year, and publisher if they are available.
10. IUCN (2014) The IUCN red list of threatened species Version 2014.2. Available from: http://www.iucnredlist.org/. (cited on Sep 2, 2014).
11. Ethiopian Health and Nutrition Research Institute (EHNRI) (2011) Report on the 2009 round antenatal care sentinel HIV surveillance in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: Federal Ministry of Health. Available from: http://www.etharc.org/index.php/resources/download/finish/33/583. (cited on Aug 3, 2012).
For Patents, Inventor, title, patent ID with country code in ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, and date of issue are required. It is recommended to provide URL.
12. Prokhorov AM, inventor. Method of p-n junction formation in silicon. Patent RU 2331136 C2, Oct 8 2008. Available from: http://www.freepatent.ru/patents/2331136. (cited on Apr 14, 2014).
Doctor’s and master's theses:
Published doctoral dissertation or master’s thesis can be included. Repository name and the ID number is required.
13. Pecore JT (2004) Sounding the spirit of Cambodia: The living tradition of Khmer music and dance-drama in a Washington, DC community [doctoral dissertation]. Retrieved from Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (DRUM). UMI No. 3114720.
14. Melinda J (29 Jul 2014) Expo shows industrial-kitchen tech to fuel any foodie’s product lust. The Japan times. Available from: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2014/07/29/food/industrial-tech-fuel-foodies-product-lust/#.U9ngkGM8TYg . (cited on Jul 30, 2014) .
15. R Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing [software]. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, Available from: http://www.R-project.org/.
Start from government name, followed by name of government agency, year, title of document (subtitle and report No, if available), and publication site, publisher with ISBN number if available or in case of electronic document, available URL and cited date.
16. Australia. Commonwealth Department of Veterans' Affairs and Defence (2003) Australian Gulf Warveterans' health study 2003. Available from: http://www.dva.gov.
17. Great Britain. Department of Health (2009) NHS inpatient and outpatient waiting times. London: The Stationery Office.
Acts of parliament:
Start from government name, followed by name of the act of parliament, year, and publication site, publisher with ISBN number if available or in case of electronic document, available URL and cited date.
18. Great Britain. National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990: Elizabeth II. Chapter 19 (1990) London: The Stationery Office.
19. Great Britain. National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990: Elizabeth II. Chapter 19 (1990) Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/19/contents (cited on Dec 4, 2014).
Database and repository:
Database or repository like figshare and archive.com can be included.
20. Peng G, Privette JL (2014) Non-functional Requirements on Climate Data Records. figshare. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1149985. (cited on Aug 27, 2014) .
13. Figure/Table Titles and Legends
Please provide title and brief description or only title so that readers can comprehend the contents of the paper without perusing it. When some separate images are combined in one figure, put sub-titles beginning with “(a),” “(b),” and so on to each of them. Symbols and error bars must be defined in the legend. However, experimental maneuver should be stated in “Materials and Methods” section, and not be mentioned in legends.
Titles and Legends should be written in the “Figure/Table Legends” section in the end of the text.
When a figure or a table that has been published in another source is used, the reference to the original source is required. This reference should appear as the legend of the adopted figure. Inclusion to the references list is not required. Any image that is reproduced from another source needs to come with copyright permission. Some general formats are shown below. The italic parts are to be changed appropriately.
Figure from a book:
Figure X. Title and description. Reprinted from book title (page number), by author name, year, place of publication: Publisher. Copyright (year) by the name of copyright holder.
Figure from a journal article:
Figure X. Title and description. Reprinted from “title of the article,” by author name, year, journal title, volume(issue), page number. Copyright (year) by the name of copyright holder. Reprinted with permission.
Figure from a website:
Figure X. Title and description. Reprinted from title of the website, by author name, year, Retrieved from URL. Copyright (year) by the name of copyright holder. Reprinted with permission.
14. Conventions and Abbreviations
Limit the use of abbreviations except that they obviously improve readability or clarity. An abbreviation should be defined in its first appearance in the body text, using parentheses and do not state them as a list. However, commonly-used abbreviations (e.g. DNA, RNA) do not have to be defined.
Gene symbols and genotypes, scientific names should be given in italics. Proteins and phenotypes should not be italicized.
16. Units of Measurement
Measurements should be presented using the metric system in accordance with the International System of Units (SI). The writing of the unit symbols and names, and the expression of the values of quantities should comply with the SI Brochure from the International Bureau of Weights and Measures.
17. Multilevel List (Itemization)
If the authors hope to make a list or an itemization in multilevel, Science Postprint recommend authors to use figures and characters rather than bullet points. Science Postprint use figures 1., 2., 3., … for the first level, followed by a., b., c., … for the second level, and i., ii., iii., … for the third level.
18. New Species
New taxonomic names should be clearly stated. In the Results section, the Globally Unique Identifier (GUID), currently a Life Science Identifier (LSID) should be listed under the new species name.
When new zoological taxonomic name is included in the submitted manuscript, it should be in compliance with the prescripts of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), which requires deposition of papers that refer to new species and related information into the official ICZN registry, Zoobank.
ICZN now allows digitally published new zoological taxonomic name with amendment to the Code. Authors should contact Zoobank for LSIDs and provide us with it as soon as possible.
When new botanical taxonomic name is included in the submitted manuscript, it should be in compliance with the prescripts of International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN), which replaces the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) that is published by International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT).
Electronic materials published online in Portable Document Format (PDF) with an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) constitute effective publication since January 2012. We will contact The International Plant Names Index (IPNI) to obtain the LSIDs after official acceptance.
Digitally published new fungi, algae, and plants taxonomic name is permitted by the IAPT to be registered in the ICN as from Jan 2012. An additional requirement from IAPT to be recognized as an effective fungal naming publication was activated from 1 January 2013 as follows. Authors should make registration to a repository, and inform us with the LSIDs as soon as possible.
Authors of names of organisms treated as fungi are encouraged to deposit the required elements of information for any nomenclatural novelty in a recognized repository as soon as possible after a work is accepted for publication, so as to obtain accession identifiers. There are two recognized repositories so far, Index Fungorum and MycoBank.
Article files should be submitted via Science Postprint submission form. Before submission of the article, authors are required to format it in an appropriate type of file and format. In addition to the text and tables/figures, a cover letter, statements for funding and competing interests should be submitted.
1. Text and Cover Letter
Text file is recommended to be formatted in Word file. Please do not submit linked fields produced by EndNote or similar programs. We recommend authors to convert them to a plain text without file codes before submission. Please take notice that we do not receive hard copies of the manuscript. Article title page should be prepared with the information of the article title, names, affiliations and email address of every author, and name and street address of the corresponding author.
We also appreciate cover letter which includes ethical statements of competing interests, ethics, and dual publication.
2. Tables/ Figures
Files for figures and tables should be separated from the text file for submission. They should be formatted in jpg, png, gif, or outlined ai file. Legends should NOT be included in these files (should be included in a text file). It is recommended to provide figures with more than 2,480 pixels in width in order to ensure the readability, or dots might appear in the figures in PDF document. Editorial Office may ask for figures with higher resolution before publication.
Tables should be prepared in a uniform format. Please refer to the format seen in Table 1 in “Charges.” Editorial Office may ask authors to correct the format before publication.
Figures and tables which has been used in other journals or books basically cannot be reused. However, it is allowed to use when appropriate approval is obtained and properly stated. Please refer to “Manuscript Preparation —13. Figure/Table Titles and Legends.”
3. Mathematical Expressions
Mathematical expressions between words should be written in plain text characters. However, equations between lines which are accompanied by equation numbers can be inserted as images. Please notify Editorial Office in case the article included in-lined images.
All parties which have raised research funds should be disclosed. For each party, list name, grant number, and brief description of their role.
5. Competing Interests
All competing interests which included should be stated. It is not limited to financial, professional, or personal relationships with any other parties. For details, refer to the “Editorial and Publishing Policies—2. Competing Interests”. In case of no competing interests, authors should explicitly state that condition (e.g., No relevant competing interests were disclosed).
Submission of the Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form which is available from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) website is required for medical articles.
6. Re-use of Previous Publication
If some part of the results, data, or figures have already been published or under considerations in other journals, please let us know which part is taken from, and state why it doesn’t make dual publication.
7. English Language
Authors are responsible for the linguistic accuracy and readability. Using English editing service or receiving correction by English native before submission is recommended, to be completely understood by editors and peer reviewers. Providing a certificate of English proofreading is welcomed.
As one of the features of Science Postprint, we introduce a donation system that enables authors to receive research fund from citizens (refer to “Editorial Policies—15. Donation”). If authors want to put “donation” button to receive research fund through this system, make the checkbox “Yes” on the submission form. It is no charge to add this system.
9. Donation message
If an author wants to receive research fund from citizens, message might help. Authors are able to state how important their works are, and why they need research fund.
After getting official approval from peer reviewers and our editors, our editorial office will create a page on-line as soon as possible. Papers will be published on Wednesday (Japan standard time). Our editor will inform you the publication date after official acceptance.
Article processing charge is US$1,350 including tax (135,000JPY plus tax). The article processing charge is to be paid when the submitted manuscript is totally accepted by the editorial board and the editorial office. Editorial office will send a charge confirmation email to the corresponding author right after receiving a submission. Cancellation is acceptable during the phase of revision without any cancellation charge.
Charges for Minor Error Correction
Minor error includes spelling or formatting errors which do not affect the interpretation of the results or discussion of the article. Science Postprint corrects minor errors which were caused by Science Postprint during processing at no cost. Minor errors that had originated from authors and overlooked during the peer review process will be corrected without any charge if the correction request is within two weeks of publication. However, if the correction request is after two weeks of publication, it costs additional charge for each one error. Authors will not be charged in case Editorial Office makes correction at its own discretion.
For specific charge for minor error correction, please see Table 1. It also provides comparison between charges for Traditional Peer Review and Post Publication Peer Review.
3. Discount Campaign
There is no discount available at this moment.
Reprints in hard copies are available in the following charge (Table 3). It will vary depending on the number of copies. For details, feel free to contact us.
5. Author’s Rights and Permission
All authors will be asked to comply with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND 2.1 JP), upon submission of their articles. Authors retain copyright of their articles under the term of this license. It gives permission to any and all user to copy, distribute, display, and make derivative of the work for non-profit purpose, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. Authors are able to self-archive immediately after publication.
Science Postprint is granted a right to publish and distribute articles, and additional rights to enforce the right on behalf of the author against third parties. Science Postprint has the right to give permission to third parties to make commercial use of a work. When authors are going to use their own works for commercial purposes, they need to contact our editorial office.
Specific Guidelines for PPP Authors
1. Article Publication
Submitted article will quickly go through internal check by Science Postprint Editorial Office. The decision for publication will be based on the minimum standards for publication.
[Minimum standards for new publication]
☑ No apparent fraud (include examination using CrossCheck)
☑ Compliance to SPP Author Guidelines and policy
☑ Declarations about authorship and publication ethics from all of the co-authors (SPP editor will contact authors individually)
☑ Appropriate ethical disclosure with compliance to the Declaration of Helsinki or appropriate standards
☑ Readable English
Requests for correction or further information might be sent to the author by an email to ensure the standards. Editorial Office will process and publish the article after the standards above are met and required article information is provided. New publication will appear on the Post Publication Peer Review page on Science Postprint website. Article version and peer review status will be included in the Author and Article Information. Accepted date in Traditional Peer Review Publication will be changed to Approved date.
2. Selection for Peer Reviewers and Peer Review Reports
SPP Editorial Office invites possible appropriate peer reviewers for the peer review of published Original Ver.1. Editorial Office publishes the peer review reports at the end of the article webpage. Name of the peer reviewer, affiliation, competing interests, judgment, and the date are published with the report. Editorial Office will not edit peer review report except for typing or English writing error, or unless it has a clear intention of defamation.
Editorial Office immediately inform peer reviewers after the publication of revised article, and ask for re-review when further round of peer review is required. The re-review reports will be released in the similar procedure as the first peer review. Peer review reports of previous round continue to be accessible even after the release of second or further review reports.
Science Postprint usually asks two or three reviewers for the peer review of each article. In case that a peer reviewer became or seemed unable to complete the review due to exceptional circumstances, Editorial Office might invite new peer reviewer(s) depending on the context. The ordinary time frame for peer reviewing is 2 weeks for the Original Ver. 1, and 1 week for revised versions. The dates of the deadline for each reviewer will be informed to the authors after the peer review starts.
3. Revision and Response to Peer Review Reports
Editorial Office will inform authors when a peer review report is published. Authors are allowed to submit and publish revision right after any of the peer review reports is published. However, in case that there is an ongoing review or invitation for review for the previous version, the review will be continued for the previous version, and the results are effective even after the publication of the revision. That means if the questioned points in a review report for previous version are not answered in the published revision, further revision may be required to be “Approved.” Authors will be able to decide the schedule for revising, using the information of deadline for each reviewers, which will be provided by the Editorial Office to the authors.
When submitting revision, revised article in plain format, revised article in which the changed parts are highlighted, and a summary for the change within 700 characters are required. Editorial Office will publish submitted revised article with a label of “Revised Ver. 2/3…,” and an unique doi will be assigned. Summary of the revision and doi for the previous versions will also be included in the publication of the revision. All of the previous versions are kept accessible, but the most recent version will be displayed as a default. Science Postprint applies CrossMark for version control.
Authors are able to leave a short message as a comment to the reviewer under the peer review report on the article webpage. However, official re-review will be made for published revised article (not for a comment), and it is recommended to answer questions from reviewers by submitting revision. Editorial Office will not edit posted comments except for typing or English writing errors, or unless it has a clear intention of defamation.
Science Postprint believes that even “Not Approved” article should have a chance to be “Approved,” if the authors could make essential improvements for the results or discussion of the criticism. Therefore submitting revision for “Not Approved” article is allowed if the unapproved article is Original Ver. 1 (see Article Version and Peer Review Status). However the revision will be rejected before publication if Editorial Office found that the criticism is not fully answered. Submitting revision for unapproved Revised Ver. 2 or further is unacceptable. Unless the revision of once “Not Approved” article is judged to be “Approved,” it will be judged as “Not Approved,” and further revision will become unacceptable.
4. Article Version and Peer Review Status
Each article will be published with article version and peer review status. An article of initial submission will be “Original Ver. 1,” and revised article after peer review will be “Revised Ver. 2/Ver. 3… .” Peer review status is presented as “Awaiting peer review” for an article which the peer review is not yet started, or in check boxes for each peer reviewers, allowing recognizing each judgement at a glance for under peer review article. “Approved” or “Not Approved” will appear once the official judgement for the article becomes available based on the peer review reports.
5. Criteria for Official Judgment
Editorial Office judges the article to be “Approved,” when two reviewers “approve,” or one reviewer “approves” and other two “approve conditionally.” “Approved” article will be immediately labeled “Approved” and indexed in DOAJ, Ichushi-web, J-Global, and J-Dream3 in addition to Google scholar.
If unfortunately three peer reviewers do “not approve,” the article will be judged to be “Not approved” and moved to the “Not approved” shelf. “Not Approved” articles continue to be accessible with a label of “Not Approved,” and re-submission to another journal is prohibited. Indexing is limited to Google scholar for “Not Approved” articles.
Revision for “Not Approved” article is allowed in some cases (see Revision and Response to Peer Review Reports), however it will be judged to be “Not Approved” unless it is judged to be “Approved.”
6. Appeal Policy
Authors have a right to appeal against negative peer review report. Appeal should be limited to a discussion in a scientific way and an emotional objection or any defamation is not acceptable. Authors are recommended to contact Editorial Office when they hope re-examination of their article. Editorial Office deals with the appeal in a similar procedure in the Appeal Policy in Editorial Policies, except that all of the process is opened, and the criteria of official judgment follow the Criteria for Official Judgment in Post Publication Peer Review. The appeal and subsequent reviewer’s reply or re-examination report are published under the article of concern.
Editorial Office may decide for re-examination if the significance of the author’s argument is found to be valid at least in part, based on the discussion in the comments under the peer review report.
Regular charge for Post Publication Peer Review is US$1,350 including tax/135,000JPY plus tax for an article.
Science Postprint makes no-refund for articles that are unfortunately “Not Approved” or retracted. Retraction does not cause any additional fee.
Right column in Table 1 in "Charges—Basic Guidelines for Authors" shows charges related to Post Publication Peer Review.
8. Charges for Revised Manuscript
The publication charge for the Revised Ver. 2 is included in the initial cost, as long as the re-submission is within 3 months of the publication of all of the peer review reports. However, if the re-submission of the Revised Ver. 2 came later than the time limit, or if the authors hope to publish Revised Ver. 3 or further, the authors will be charged for additional cost (see Table 2 in "Charges—Basic Guidelines for Authors").
However, in case there is more than a month difference in the deadlines of the peer review reports for the Original Ver. 1, and the author submits two revisions due to the time-lag, the charge for each of the two revisions will be included in the initial charge. For example, authors may hope to publish Revised Ver. 2 for Original Ver. 1 based on the report form Reviewer A, which was published more than a month earlier to peer review reports from Reviewer B and C. In this case, the charge for Revised Ver. 3 based on reports from Reviewer B and C will be included in the initial cost.
9. Charges for Minor Error Correction
Minor error includes spelling or formatting errors which do not affect the interpretation of the results or discussion of the article. Science Postprint corrects minor errors which were caused by Science Postprint during processing at no cost. Correction for minor errors that originate from authors causes charge for the authors in the following cases.
In case of an article version which official judgement is not yet made or officially decided to be “Not Approved”, and the correction request from authors came later than one week of the publication.
In case of officially “Approved” version and the correction request from authors came later than two week of the publication.
For specific charge for minor error correction, please see Table 2 in "Charges—Basic Guidelines for Authors". It also provides comparison between charges for Traditional Peer Review and Post Publication Peer Review.
Help and Contact
Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact us. We will reply to you within three business days.
Changes in Guidelines
Authors should comply with the publication policy and the guidelines at the time of its submission even after amendment.
08/20/2015 Revised, Change in Charges
12/10/2015 Close of discounts