Acta Dermatovenerologica Alpina Pannonica et Adriatica (Acta Dermatovenerol APA) is an open access medical journal published quarterly by the Association of Slovenian Dermatovenerologists.
The journal aims to publish papers describing all aspects of research in dermatology and venereology. Acta Dermatovenerol APA invites submissions under a broad scope of topics relevant to clinical and experimental research and publishes original articles, reviews, case reports and letters to the editors.
All papers submitted to Acta Dermatovenerologica, Alpina, Pannonica et Adriatica (ADPA) are subject to rigorous peer review and editorial revision in order to ensure that the research published meets the quality and originality criteria. Only previously unpublished manuscripts are accepted.
Manuscripts describing clinical studies should be accompanied by the documented approval of the Ethical Committee of the institution concerned. Authors should preserve patients’ anonymity and obtain his/her informed consent, if publishing photos. In the case of children, the parents’ consent is needed. Any sponsorship or a business interest that might pose a conflict of interests should be stated.
Please be aware that all peer-review reports and related correspondence will be archived by the publisher, via the publishing platform. This documentation may be made available to a third party in the event of an audit.
Submission of an article for publication implies transfer of the copyright from the author to the journal upon acceptance. Accepted papers and accompanying material become the property of ADAPA and may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of the Editor-in-Chief.
We have a policy of zero tolerance for plagiarism. Before the beginning of the refereeing process, all submitted articles are initially screened by editors and automatically checked for plagiarism using plagiarism detection software. In case of plagiarism, article will be rejected without the possibility of revision or resubmission. At this stage manuscripts may be rejected directly (without external peer-review) by the editors if deemed to be beyond the scope of the journal, are scientifically or linguistically substandard or are considered to have too high similarity.
Following the successful evaluation at the screening stage, all manuscript types, including Original articles, Review articles, Short reports, Case reports and Letters to Editor (with the exception of correspondences) are then sent out for external review electronically through Manuscript Manager (link will be provided by the Editorial office). Each manuscript is sent to at least one independent reviewer. ADAPA employs a 'single blind' review process: authors are not told who reviewed their paper, whereas the authors are visible to reviewers.
Information for peer-reviewers
Peer reviewers are asked to give their opinion on a number of issues pertinent to the scientific and formal aspects of the paper, and to evaluate papers on grounds of originality, quality of empirical work and argument, quality of research methodology or/and argumentation and quality of written language. All relevant information will be forwarded to the author(s). The Editor(s) may return to reviewers for further information and may be asked to provide follow-up advice.
Peer reviewers will have the following possible options for each article:
• Accept manuscript: acceptance as is.
• Accept after minor revision: acceptance contingent upon minor revisions.
• Accept after major revision: the manuscript is in need of substantial revisions and another round of review.
• Reject manuscript: the manuscript does not meet the criteria for publication.
Peer reviewers are asked to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If, at any time during the review process, a peer reviewer anticipates a delay, they are asked to inform the Technical Editor as soon as possible so that the Technical Editor(s), in turn, can keep authors informed and find alternatives if necessary.
When asking for revisions, reviewers have two possible goals: to ask authors to tighten their arguments based on existing data or to identify areas where more data are needed. Even formal revision may be required if the language or style is substandard. To facilitate rapid publication, authors are given a maximum of 21 days for revision. After this period, revised manuscripts will be considered new submissions.
The final decision to accept or reject the paper and the recommendation to the author(s) rests with the Editor-in-Chief. The decision is based on the reviewers’ advice as provided in the peer reviewer report, weighing other factors as well. The Technical Editors are responsible for communicating decisions on submitted manuscripts to the corresponding author. Any complaints should be submitted to email@example.com.
Authors, editors, and reviewers are expected to be aware of, and should adhere to, best practice in publication ethics.
Authors are expected to be aware of, and comply with, best practice in publication ethics specifically but not limited to authorship, dual submission, plagiarism, manipulation of figures, competing interests and compliance with policies on research ethics. Reviewers and editors are required to treat manuscripts fairly and in confidence, and to declare any competing interests.
• Authorship of the paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Ghost or guest authorship must be avoided and transparency about the contributions of authors is encouraged.
• Originality and plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
• Data access and retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data.
• Multiple, redundant or duplicate publication: An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Acta APA does not view the following uses of a work as prior publication: publication in the form of an abstract; publication as an academic thesis; publication as an electronic preprint.
• Acknowledgement of sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others should be given.
• Disclosure and conflicts of interest: All submissions must include disclosure of all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest.
• Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
• Hazards and human or animal subjects: Statements of compliance are required if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, or if it involves the use of animal or human subjects.
• Use of patient images or case details: Studies on patients or volunteers require ethics committee approval and informed consent, which should be documented in the paper.
Any cases of suspected or alleged misconduct will be thoroughly investigated. We reserve the right to contact authors’ institutions, funders or regulatory bodies if needed. If we find conclusive evidence of misconduct (e.g. falsification/fabrication of data, duplicate publications, etc.) we will take steps to correct the scientific record, which may include issuing a correction or retraction.
If you have any concerns about potential misconduct, please email the journal (firstname.lastname@example.org) and address correspondence to the journal’s Editor-in-Chief.