期刊名称：MYCOKEYS
 期刊简介(About the journal)
投稿须知(Instructions to Authors)
编辑部信息(Editorial Board)
About the journal
MycoKeys is a peer-reviewed, open-access, online and print, rapidly produced journal launched to support free exchange of ideas and information in systematics and biology of fungi (including lichens).
All papers published in MycoKeys can be freely copied, downloaded, printed and distributed at no charge for the reader. Authors are thus encouraged to post the pdf files of published papers on their homepages or elsewhere to expedite distribution. There are no restrictions nor charge for color.
ISSN 1314-4049 (online) | ISSN 1314-4057 (print)
Printed copies of MycoKeys are deposited in the libraries of The Field Museum Chicago, Natural History Museum London and Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
Download MycoKeys Press Release, Leaflet, and Poster.
Indexed and abstracted by Thomson Reuters Science Citation Index Expanded, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, Current Contents®/Agriculture, Biology, and Environmental Sciences, Biological Abstracts and BIOSIS Previews.
The journal is also indexed by Scopus, Google Scholar, CAB Abstracts, Vifabio, BHL Citebank.
Archived in CLOCKSS.
Focus and Scope
MycoKeys is a peer-reviewed, open-access, online and print, rapidly published and disseminated journal launched to accelerate research and free information exchange in taxonomy, phylogeny, biogeography, evolution and ecology of fungi (including lichens).
MycoKeys aims to apply the latest trends and methodologies in publishing and preservation of digital materials to meet the highest possible standards of the cybertaxonomy era.
MycoKeys will publish papers on the monophyletic kingdom Fungi containing taxonomic or ecological data on any taxon of any geological age from any part of the world with no limit to manuscript size.
MycoKeys will consider for publishing works on the following topics:
- descriptions of new taxa, if they are accompanied with proper diagnoses and/or keys to distinguish them from close relatives or similar taxa, and if DNA sequence data are deposited in Genbank prior to publication (few possible exceptions from this rule are listed inthe section Taxonomic Treatments). All new taxa need to be registered at Mycobank and the registration numbers indicated in the manuscript. New taxa should ideally be described in connection with a phylogenetic analysis or evidence that the barcode gene (ITS) is unique for the new taxon. More details are given in the secition Taxonomic Treatments.
- taxonomic revisions of extant (or 'recent') and fossil fungal groups
- checklists and catalogues
- phylogenetic and evolutionary analyses, if alignments are deposited in TreeBase (with accession number listed in the text).
- papers in descriptive and/or historical biogeography
- methodology papers, including description of new software, if released a open source license and released as supplementary material to the article.
- data mining and literature surveys
- monographs, conspecti, atlases
- primer notes
- "Points of View" commentaries
- collections of papers, Festschrift volumes, conference proceedings
- data papers (datesets published as supplementary files and through the GBIF or Barcode of Life infrastructures
Extensive overviews on a taxon in a country or larger region are welcome. Short mycological contributions may be considered if they are based on significant or unexpected discoveries. Regular contributions may eventually be published in special issues devoted to a region/country.
ISBN numbers will be assigned to large monographic papers (i.e., major revisions of taxa), monographs, collections of papers, Festschrift volumes, atlases, checklists, conspecti.
The journal is published in both, online and printed version. Since January 2012, each article is published online individually as soon as approved by the editors and bears its own publication date. The paper version is printed out once a whole issue is completed. This change in the publication model is following the amendments in the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants accepted at the International congress of botany, Melbourne, July 2011.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Instructions to Authors
Main Text
Title: The title should be in a sentence case (only scientific, geographic or person names should be with a first capital letter, i.e. Elater ferrugineus L., Germany, etc.), and should include an accurate, clear and concise description of the reported work, avoiding abbreviations. The higher taxa within the title should be separated with commas and not with a semicolon, e.g.: (Asterales, Asteraceae).
Authors and Affiliations: Provide the complete names of all authors, and their addresses for correspondence, including e.g., institutional affiliation (e.g. university, institute), location (street, boulevard), city, state/province (if applicable), and country. One of the authors should be designated as the corresponding author. It is the corresponding author's responsibility to ensure that the author list, and the individual contributions to the study are accurate and complete. If the article has been submitted on behalf of a consortium, all consortium members and their affiliations should be listed after the Acknowledgements section.
Abstract and Keywords: Please have your abstract and keywords ready for input into the submission module.
Body Text: Manuscripts must be submitted in English. Authors should confirm the English language quality of their texts or alternatively request thorough linguistic editing prior to peer-review at a price. Manuscripts written in poor English are a subject of rejection prior to peer-review. Use either British/Commonwealth or American English provided that the language is consistent within the paper. Each text must be written with precision, clarity, and economy, whenever appropriate in active voice and first person. Avoid the use of parenthetical comments and italics or bold for emphasis. This journal discourages the use of quotation marks except for direct quotations, words defined by the author, and words used in unusual contexts. Short quotations should be embedded in the text and enclosed in double quotation marks ('). Long quotations should be on a separate line, italicized, but without quotation marks. Single quotation marks are to be used only for a quotation that occurs within another quotation.
Spacing, Fonts, and Page Numbering: Single-space all material (text, quotations, figure legends, tables, references, etc.). Separate paragraphs with a blank line. Use a 12-point font (preferably Times New Roman or Arial).
Capitals: First capital letters should be used only in the beginning of a sentence, in proper names and in headings and subheadings, as well as to indicate tables, graphs and figure/s within the text. Software programmes should be written with capital letters (e.g., ANOVA, MANOVA, PAUP).
Italicization/Underlining: Scientific names of species and genera, long direct quotations and symbols for variables and constants (except for Greek letters), such as p, F, U, T, N, r, but not for SD (standard deviation), SE (standard error), DF (degrees of freedom) and NS (non significant) should be italicized. These symbols in illustrations and equations should be in italics to match the text. Italics should not be used for emphasis, and not in abbreviations such as e.g., i.e., et al., etc., cf. Underlining of any text is not acceptable.
Abbreviations: Abbreviations should be followed by ‘.' (full stop or period; for instance: i.e., e.g., cf., etc.). Note that you shouldn't add a full stop at the end of abbreviated words if the last letter of the abbreviation is the same as the last letter of the full word. For example, you should abbreviate "Eds", "Dr", "Mr" without full stop at the end. All measures, for instance mm, cm, m, s, L, should be written without full stop.
On the use of dashes: (1) Hyphens are used to link words such as personal names, some prefixes and compound adjectives (the last of which vary depending on the style manual in use) (2) En-dash or en-rule (the length of an 'n') is used to link spans. In the context of our journal en-dash should be used to link numerals, sizes, dates and page numbers (e.g., 1977–1981; figs 5–7; pp. 237–258); geographic or name associations (Murray–Darling River; a Federal–State agreement); and character states combinations such as long–pubescent or red–purple. (3) Em-dash or em-rule (the length of an 'm') should be used rarely, only for introducing a subordinate clause in the text that is often used much as we use parentheses. In contrast to parentheses an em-dash can be used alone. En-dashes and em-dashes should not be spaced.
Footnotes: Avoid footnotes in the body text of the manuscript. It is always possible to incorporate the footnote into the main text by rewording the sentences, which greatly facilitates reading. Additionally, footnotes are not always handled well by the journal software, and their usage may cause a failure of submission. Footnotes are acceptable only below tables; instead of numbers, please use (in order): †, ‡, §, |, ¶, #, ††, ‡‡, §§, ||, ¶¶, ##.
Geographical coordinates: It is strongly recommended to list geographical coordinates as taken from GPS or online gazetteer, or georeferencer (
Definition: The locality consists of a point represented by coordinate information in the form of latitude and longitude. Information may be in the form of
- Degrees, Minutes and Seconds (DMS),
- Degrees and Decimal Minutes (DDM), or
- Decimal Degrees (DD).
Records should also contain a hemisphere (E or W and N or S) or, with Decimal Degrees, minus (–) signs to indicate western and/or southern hemispheres.
Examples:
- Example 1: 36° 31' 21" N; 114° 09' 50" W (DMS)
- Example 2: 36° 31.46’N; 114° 09.84’W (DDM)
- Example 3: 36.5243° S; 114.1641° W (DD)
- Example 4: −36.5243; −114.1641 (DD using minus signs to indicate southern and western hemispheres)
Note on accuracy: Because GPS units are very commonly used today to record latitude/longitude, many authors simply give the GPS readings for their localities. However, these readings are much too accurate. For example, a GPS unit might give the latitude in decimal seconds as 28°16'55.87"N. Since one second of latitude is about 30 m on the ground, the second figure after the decimal in 55.87 represents 30 cm, yet a typical handheld GPS unit is only accurate at best to a few metres. We therefore recommend two ways to report GPS-based locations. If you give the GPS reading without rounding off, make sure you include an uncertainty figure as a context for the over-accurate GPS reading. We recommend the Darwin Core definition of uncertainty ( http://rs.tdwg.org/dwc/terms/index.htm#coordinateUncertaintyInMeters):"The horizontal distance (in meters) from the given decimalLatitude and decimalLongitude describing the smallest circle containing the whole of the Location." If you only give the GPS reading, please round it off to an implied precision appropriate to the error in the measurement, or to the extent of the area sampled. We suggest rounding off - to the nearest second in degree-minute-second format (28°16'56"N), which implies roughly ± 25-30 m at middle latitudes - to four decimal places in decimal degree format (28.2822°N), which implies roughly ± 10-15 m at middle latitudes - to two decimal places in decimal minute format (28°16.93'N), which implies roughly 15-20 m at middle latitudes
Altitude: Many GPS users simply record the elevation given by their GPS unit. However, GPS elevation is NOT the same as elevation above sea level. GPS units record the elevation above a mathematical model of the earth's surface. The difference between this elevation and elevation above sea level can be tens of metres. In any case, the accuracy of a GPS elevation is often the same as the usual accuracy in horizontal position, so a GPS elevation such as '753 m' is much too accurate and should be rounded off to 'ca 750 m'.
We strongly recommend the use of Example 2 (the DDM format). The other three are also possible but will be recalculated to DDM during the process of online mapping from the HTML version of the paper.
The only restriction on format is in creating a KML (Keyhole Markup Language) file. KML latitudes and longitudes must be in the DD format shown above in Example 4.
Please also consider submitting a table of localities with your manuscript, either as a spreadsheet or in CSV text format. By doing so you will make your specimen localities much more easily available for use in biodiversity databases and geospatial investigations. The geospatial table will be put online as supplementary material for your paper. A minimum table will have three fields: species (or subspecies) name, latitude and longitude. A full table will have the same data for each specimen lot as appears in the text of your paper. Please check latitude/longitude carefully for each entry.
Units: Use the International System of Units (SI) for measurements. ConsultStandard Practice for Use of the International System of Units (ASTM Standard E−380−93) for guidance on unit conversions, style, and usage.
Statistics: Use leading zeroes with all numbers, including probability values (e.g., P < 0.001). For every significant F−statistic reported, provide two df values (numerator and denominator). Whenever possible, indicate the year and version of the statistical software used.
Web (HTML) links: Authors are encouraged to include links to other Internet resources in their article. This is especially encouraged in the reference section. When inserting a reference to a web-page, please include the http:// portion of the web address.
Supplementary files: Larger datasets can be uploaded separately as Supplementary Files. Tabular data provided as supplementary files can be uploaded as an Excel spreadsheet (.xls), as an OpenOffice spreadsheets (.ods) or comma separated values file (.csv). As with all uploaded files, please use the standard file extensions.
Headings and subheadings: Main headings: The body text should be subdivided into different sections with appropriate headings. Where possible, the following standard headings should be used: Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, Acknowledgements, References. These headings need to be in bold font on a separate line and start with a first capital letter. Please do not number headings or subheadings.
- Introduction − The motivation or purpose of your research should appear in the Introduction, where you state the questions you sought to answer, and then provide some of the historical basis for those questions.
- Methods − Provide sufficient information to allow someone to repeat your work. A clear description of your experimental design, sampling procedures, and statistical procedures is especially important in papers describing field studies, simulations, or experiments. If you list a product (e.g., animal food, analytical device), supply the name and location of the manufacturer. Give the model number for equipment used. Supply complete citations, including author (or editor), title, year, publisher, and version number, for computer software mentioned in your article.
- Results − Results should be stated concisely and without interpretation.
- Discussion − Focus on the rigorously supported aspects of your study. Carefully differentiate the results of your study from data obtained from other sources. Interpret your results, relate them to the results of previous research, and discuss the implications of your results or interpretations. Point out results that do not support speculations or the findings of previous research, or that are counter-intuitive. You may choose to include a Speculation subsection in which you pursue new ideas suggested by your research, compare and contrast your research with findings from other systems or other disciplines, pose new questions that are suggested by the results of your study, and suggest ways of answering these new questions.
- Conclusion −This should state clearly the main conclusions of the research and give a clear explanation of their importance and relevance. Summary illustrations may be included.
- References − The list of References should be included after the final section of the main article body. A blank line should be inserted between single-spaced entries in the list. Authors are requested to include links to online sources of articles, whenever possible!
Where possible, the standard headings should be used in the order given above. Additional headings and modifications are permissible.
Subordinate headings: Subordinate headings (e.g. Field study and Simulation model or Counts, Measurements and Molecular analysis), should be left-justified, italicized, and in a regular sentence case. All subordinate headings should be on a separate line.
English Language Editing
This journal has well-defined policies for English language editing. Involving mandatory outsourced language editing services would considerably increase the price of the Article Processing Charges, which would become an additional obstacle for persons and institutions to publish in the journal. Therefore we rely both on the conscience of our authors to provide stylistically written texts and our editors and reviewers to filter out badly written manuscripts.
Manuscripts must be submitted in English. Authors should confirm the English language quality of their texts or alternatively request thorough linguistic editing prior to peer-review at a price. Manuscripts written in poor English are a subject of rejection prior to peer-review. Authors have to confirm by checking a tick box in the submission process that they have followed the above requirement:
[ ] I confirm that the use of English language in this manuscript is proficient. I am aware that manuscripts in poor English will be rejected prior to peer-review.
The submission process includes an option to request a professional linguistic and copy editing at a price of EUR 10 per 1800 characters:
[ ] I would like to request thorough linguistic editing prior to peer review at a price. I agree to cover the costs even if my manuscript is not accepted for publication.
Citations and References
Citations within the text: Before submitting the manuscript, please check each citation in the text against the References and vice-versa to ensure that they match exactly. Citations in the text should be formatted as follows: Smith (1990) or (Smith 1990), Smith et al. (1998) or (Smith et al. 1998) and (Smith et al. 1998, 2000, Brock and Gunderson 2001, Felt 2006).
References: It is important to format the references properly, because all references will be linked electronically as completely as possible to the papers cited. It is highly desirable to add a DOI (digital object identifier) number for either the full-text or title and abstract of the article as an addition to traditional volume (issue) and page numbers. If a DOI is lacking, it is recommended to add a link to any online source of an article. Please use the following style for the reference list (or download the MycoKeys EndNote style): here
Published Papers:
Smith AR, Pryer KM, Schuettpelz E, Korall P, Schneider H, Wolf PG (2006) A classification for extant ferns. Taxon 55(3): 705−731.
Accepted Papers:
Same as above, but 'in press' appears instead the year in parentheses.
Knapp S (in press) New species of Passiflora (Passifloraceae) from Amazonian Ecuador. Novon.
Electronic Journal Articles:
Agosti D, Egloff W (2009) Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2: 53. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-2-53
Paper within conference proceedings:
Kress WJ, Specht CD (2005) Between Cancer and Capricorn: phylogeny, evolution, and ecology of the tropical Zingiberales. In: Friis I, Balslev H, (Eds) Proceedings of a symposium on plant diversity and complexity patterns – local, regional and global dimensions. Biologiske Skrifter, The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen, 459-478.
Book chapters:
Mayr E (2000) The biological species concept. In: Wheeler QD, Meier R (Eds) Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: A Debate. Columbia University Press, New York, 17−29.
Books:
Heywood VH, Brummitt RK, Culham A, Seberg O (2007) Flowering Plant Families of the World. Kew Publishing, 1−424.
PhD thesis:
Stahlberg D (2007) Systematics, phylogeography and polyploid evolution in theDactylorhiza maculata complex (Orchidaceae). PhD Thesis, Lund University, Sweden.
Link/URL:
BBC News: Plants 'can recognise themselves'. http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8076000/8076875.stm
All journal titles should be spelled out completely and should not be italicized.
Provide the publisher's name and location when you cite symposia or conference proceedings; distinguish between the conference date and the publication date if both are given. Do not list abstracts or unpublished material in the References. They should be quoted in the text as personal observations, personal communications, or unpublished data, specifying the exact source, with date if possible. When possible, include URLs for articles available online through library subscription or individual journal subscription, or through large international archives, indexes and aggregators, e.g., PubMedCentral, Scopus, CAB Abstracts, etc. URLs for pdf articles that are posted on personal websites only should be avoided.
Authors are encouraged to cite in the References list the publications of the original descriptions of the taxa treated in their manuscript.
Illustrations, Figures and Tables
Figures and illustrations are accepted in the following image file formats:
- EPS (preferred format for diagrams)
- TIFF (at least 300dpi resolution, with LZW compression)
- PNG (preferred format for photos or images)
- JPEG (preferred format for photos or images)
- GIF
- BMP
Should you have any problems in providing the figures in one of the above formats, or in reducing the file below 20 MB, please contact the Editorial Office at mycokeys@pensoft.net
Figure legends: All figures should be referenced consecutively in the manuscript; legends should be listed consecutively immediately after the References. For each figure, the following information should be provided: Figure number (in sequence, using Arabic numerals − i.e. Figure 1, 2, 3 etc.); short title of figure (maximum 15 words); detailed legend, up to 300 words.
Please note that it is the responsibility of the author(s) to obtain permission from the copyright holder to reproduce figures or tables that have previously been published elsewhere.
On the use of Google Maps
Please do NOT use maps produced by Google Earth and Google Maps in your publications, as these are subject of copyright! Here is an excerpt from Google Maps/Earth Additional Terms of Service:
Restrictions on Use. Unless you have received prior written authorization from Google (or, as applicable, from the provider of particular Content), you must not: (a) copy, translate, modify, or make derivative works of the Content or any part thereof; (b) redistribute, sublicense, rent, publish, sell, assign, lease, market, transfer, or otherwise make the Products or Content available to third parties; (c) reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise attempt to extract the source code of the Service or any part thereof, unless this is expressly permitted or required by applicable law; (d) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but not limited to numerical latitude or longitude coordinates, imagery, and visible map data; (e) delete, obscure, or in any manner alter any warning or link that appears in the Products or the Content; or (f) use the Service or Content with any products, systems, or applications for or in connection with (i) real time navigation or route guidance, including but not limited to turn-by-turn route guidance that is synchronized to the position of a user's sensor-enabled device; or (ii) any systems or functions for automatic or autonomous control of vehicle behavior; (g) use the Products to create a database of places or other local listings information.
Tables: Each table should be numbered in sequence using Arabic numerals (i.e. Table 1, 2, 3 etc.). Tables should also have a title that summarizes the whole table, maximum 15 words. Detailed legends may then follow, but should be concise.
Small tables can be embedded within the text, in portrait format (note that tables on a landscape page must be reformatted onto a portrait page or submitted as additional files). These will be typeset and displayed in the final published form of the article. Such tables should be formatted using the 'Table object' in a word processing program to ensure that columns of data are kept aligned when the file is sent electronically for review. Do not use tabs to format tables or separate text. All columns and rows should be visible, please make sure that borders of each cell display as black lines. Colour and shading should not be used; neither should commas be used to indicate decimal values. Please use a full stop to denote decimal values (i.e., 0.007 cm, 0.7 mm).
Larger datasets can be uploaded separately as Supplementary Files. Tabular data provided as supplementary files can be uploaded as an Excel spreadsheet (.xls), as an OpenOffice spreadsheets (.ods) or comma separated values file (.csv). As with all uploaded files, please use the standard file extensions.
Supplementary Files
Online publishing allows an author to provide data sets, tables, video files, or other information as supplementary information, greatly increasing the impact of the submission. Uploading of such files is possible in Step 4 of the submission process.
The maximum file size for each Supplementary File is 20 MB.
The Supplementary Files will not be displayed in the printed version of the article, but will exist as linkable supplementary downloadable files in the online version.
While submitting a supplementary file the following information should be completed:
- File format (including name and a URL of an appropriate viewer if format is unusual)
- Title of data
- Description of data
All supplementary files should be referenced explicitly by file name within the body of the article, e.g. 'See supplementary file 1: Movie 1" for the original data used to perform this analysis.
Ideally, the supplementary files should not be platform-specific, and should be viewable using free or widely available tools. Suitable file formats are:
For supplementary documentation:
For animations:
For movies:
- MOV (QuickTime)
- MPG (MPEG)
For datasets:
- XLS (Excel spreadsheet)
- CSV (Comma separated values)
- ODS (OpenOffice spreadsheets)
As for images, file names should be given in the standard file extensions. This is especially important for Macintosh users, since the Mac OS does not enforce the use of standard file extensions. Please also make sure that each additional file is a single table, figure or movie (please do not upload linked worksheets or PDF files larger than one sheet).
Taxonomic Treatments
MycoKeys will publish papers that strictly adhere the rules of the last edition of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. To assure this, authors are advised to follow the recommendations below.
Arranging sections within species treatments (sections in square brackets are requsted for new descriptions only!):
Name
Latin, or English diagnosis (the latter allowed for manuscripts published after 1 Jan 2012)
Type
Description
Distribution
Ecology (including phenology)
[Etymology]
Conservation status (optional, but very desirable)
Specimens examined
Discussion (optional, but very desirable)
Descriptions of new taxa (species and below) must include the following:
1) a short Latin diagnosis (for manuscripts published before December 31, 2011) followed by a full description in English, 2) an illustration (line drawing or photograph) clearly showing the diagnostic characters, 3) DNA sequence data (at least the ITS barcode region) for the new taxon unless strong justification is provided (e.g. fossil taxa, unamplifiable DNA, not enough material for DNA extraction, etc.), 4) a comparison of the new taxon with related taxa, a diagnostic key to identification of species-group members, or at least to the closest relatives is highly desirable and may be requested by the editors, and 5) a discussion of the distinctive morphological characteristics, ecology, geography, and/or reproductive biology.
New combinations take the form: New combination (Basionym author(s)) Author(s). Basionym: citation. Other earlier combinations based on the same basionym. Type of the basionym:
Witheringia berteroana J.Rémy, in Gay, Fl. Chil. 5: 65. 1849, as "berterianum", Solanumberteroanum(J. Rémy) Phil., Anales Univ. Chile 91: 8. 1896. SolanumtaguaKuntze, Revis. Gen. Pl. 3(2): 226. 1898. Type: Chile. Tagua-Tagua,C.G.L. Bertero s.n. (lectotype: P! [P00324728], designated by Knapp 1989: 74).
Lectotype designations are included together with an indication of where they were designated, the year, page and the author (see above). This reference should be listed in the References. If the author of the paper submitted is making the lectotypification, the phrase "designated here" is used (in compliance with the ICBN).
Designations of nomenclatural novelties (e.g., sp. nov., comb. nov., etc.) should be in bold and explicitly mentioned in the abstract and with the name when it occurs in the text.
Use Authors of Plant Names (Brummitt and Powell 1992, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) for authors of botanical names. Authors should be given the first time a name is mentioned, or alternately in a table where all relevant names are listed (e.g., table of voucher specimens).
The author abbreviations have no spaces between the initials and the last name, according to the IPNI standards we follow here, e.g., it is W.J.Kress, not W. J. Kress, or W.J. Kress; S.Knapp not S. Knapp.
References cited only as part of nomenclatural matter and not elsewhere are not included in literature cited; use TL-2 for abbreviations.
When citing specimens are cited, use the following formats:
TYPE: COLOMBIA. Chocó: Municipio Tadó, 10 km de la carretera Tadó-Pereira, 40 m alt., 6 Feb 1989, W.J.Kress & B.E.Echeverry 89-2589 (holotype: US!; isotype: COL!).
Specimens Examined. Panama. Veraguas: Santa Fé, Pacific slope, 1300-1350 m, 5 Jul 1975, T.B.Croat 49061 (A, GH, MO). Bocas del Toro: Oleoducto road to Chiriquí Grande, 1500 m, 2 Aug 1974, B.Hammel 13712 (MO, SEL).
Names of collectors should not be italicized, due to technical reasons connected to the automated markup process.
If the paper presents original data, associated herbarium vouchers are cited. [Vouchers for seed and/or other collections should be included where pertinent. Dependent on the paper, reference to the original wild source may be required.] Vouchers are also cited from common names and uses taken from specimen labels.
Herbarium vouchers state the collector and number, herbarium in which the voucher is located, and a clear annotation that the material represents the voucher for the study in question.
Nucleic acid or protein sequences corresponding to equal or greater than 50 nucleotides are entered into an appropriate data bank, e.g., GenBank/EMBL. The accession numbers are provided before publication. Long sequences (exceeding two pages) will not be routinely published in text form, however they could be published as supplementary file.
A list of exsiccatae with collectors in alphabetical order (as traditional in botanical monographs) can be provided as a Supplementary File, but full specimen citations or references to databases where these records can be openly accessed are encouraged to facilitate upload to GBIF and other on-line systems.
Use of Public Resource Databases
Inclusion of the hyperlinked accession numbers relevant to the manuscript is mandatory. These can be obtained from any of the three nucleotide databases in the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration: GenBank, Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ) or the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA).
It is also highly recommended all appropriate datasets, images, and information to be deposited in public resources. Please provide the relevant accession numbers (and version numbers, if appropriate). Examples of such data repositories and short descriptions of their policies is given in our Data Publishing Policies and Guidelines.
Providing accession numbers to data records stored in global data aggregators allows us to link your article to established databases, thus integrating it with a broader collection of scientific information. Please hyperlink all accession numbers through the text or list their web addresses directly after the References in the manuscript.
Submission Procedure
Already have a Username/Password for MycoKeys?
Go to Login If you have registered yourself for www.pensoft.net before, you need only to enter your profile after login and check the MycoKeys box on the journal registration page)
Registration and login are required to submit items online and to check the status of current submissions.
Submission of manuscripts to this journal is possible only through the online submission module. We kindly request authors to consult the Focus and Scope section prior to submission. In order to submit a manuscript to MycoKeys, authors are required to register with the journal and/or to login. Once logged in, you will find the online submission system either by clicking the "Submit a manuscript" button on the right-hand bar, or under ' USER HOME' -> ' MycoKeys - Author' -> ' Submit a New Manuscript'.
The manuscript submission process is separated into the following steps:
-
Step 1: Specifying the manuscript type and completing the submission checklist
-
Step 2: Specifying the author(s) names, contact information, title, abstract, keywords, and other metadata
-
Step 3: Uploading the submission file (see below for details on how to prepare it)
-
Step 4: Uploading additional and supplementary files (see below for details) and associated metadata
-
Step 5: Final verification of the submitted files and confirmation
Organizing Your Submission
Before starting your submission please make sure that your manuscript is formatted in accordance to the Author Guidelines.Please note that the maximum file size that may be uploaded through our online submission system is 20 MB.
Manuscripts submitted to this journal must be divided into separate files (not larger than 20 MB each) to allow their processing by our software. Before attempting an online submission, please consider preparing the following file types:
1. Submission file
Review version of the manuscript in PDF format, with all figures embedded, total file size not larger than 20 MB
2. Additional files
Original text file and high-resolution figures must be submitted during the same submission process as additional files (Step 4) in one of the accepted file formats (see below). These may be compressed in order to reduce bandwidth during upload:
- Text of the manuscript (DOC, DOCX, RTF, OpenDocument Format, ODF) with tables embedded in the text)
- Figures (each figure as an individual file in one of the following image file formats: EPS, TIFF, JPEG, PNG, GIF, BMP, not larger than 20 MB each
- Equations (each equation as an individual file in one of the above mentioned image file formats)
3. Supplementary files (appendices)
Large datasets or multimedia files, usually published as appendices in conventional print journals, should be uploaded as supplementary files, completed with associated metadata on the online submission form. Supplementary files should have their own legends and will be referenced as appendices under separate DOI numbers.
Most file formats are accepted. Text-only appendices must be in DOC, DOCX, RTF, or ODF formats.
Should you have any technical problems in submitting a manuscript to PhytoKeys, please contact the MycoKeys Editorial Office at mycokeys@pensoft.netWe encourage authors to send an enquiry to the respective Subject Editor prior to submitting a manuscript. The purpose of the presubmission enquiry is to solicit rapid initial feedback on the suitability of the manuscript for publication in MycoKeys. Presubmission enquiries may be sent also to the Editorial Office at mycokeys@pensoft.net
Guidelines for Reviewers
Pensoft journals support the open science approach in the peer-review and publication process. We encourage our reviewers to open their identity to the authors and consider supporting the peer-review oaths, which tend to be short declarations that reviewers make at the start of their written comments, typically dictating the terms by which they will conduct their reviews (see Aleksic et al. 2015, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.5686.2 for more details):
Principles of the open peer-review oath
- Principle 1: I will sign my name to my review
- Principle 2: I will review with integrity
- Principle 3: I will treat the review as a discourse with you; in particular, I will provide constructive criticism
- Principle 4: I will be an ambassador for the practice of open science
HOW TO ACCESS A MANUSCRIPT
Manuscripts can be accessed only after login:
- Login is possible after registration. Our Editorial Office will register and provide login details to all first-time editors and reviewers. Reviewers receive an email with their login details usually prior to the first invitation to review a paper.
Note: Authors should register themselves at the journal’s website to be able to submit a manuscript to a particular journal. During the registration process authors can also indicate their wish to become reviewers. Authors can use their registration details to login in all three (Book, E-Book and the respective Journal) platforms of www.pensoft.net.
-
The login credentials consist of:
a. Username:
b. Password:
Note: Please remember that you may have registered with two or more different email addresses, that is why you may have more than one valid account at www.pensoft.net. We advise using only one email address, hence one password associated to it, for all yours operations at www.pensoft.net
-
Login details will be provided in an email after the first registration. Thereafter, the user may at any time change the password and correct personal details using the "My Profile" menu.
-
We advise to keep your login active through ticking the "Remember my password" checkbox during logging in.
-
In case you have forgotten your password, please write to request it from journals@pensoft.net. Alternatively, you may use the function:
"Forgot your password? Please send me a new one by email".
This is available in the Register/Login menu top right to obtain a new password. After requesting a new password, a message of the following kind will be sent to your email:
Hello ,
You received this message, because you wanted to change your forgotten password.
Please click on the following link to change your forgotten password: http://www.pensoft.net/fgu.php?fg=wSYAXV2mTqWCnvp
This link will be valid for 2 hours only since 2011-08-25 17:12:47
Your Verification ID: wSYAXV2mTqWCnvp
After clicking on the link, a form will appear on your screen where you have to enter the same email to which you have requested the new password and also the new password.
There are two ways to access a manuscript:
-
After login (or in case your login is kept active through the "Remember my password" function), please go to the respective journal’s web page and click on the red-coloured Your Tasks link in the upper horizontal menu bar. In this way you will be able to see all manuscripts you are responsible for as author or reviewer or editor.
Note: The manuscripts are grouped in several categories, e.g., In Review (no.), In Edit (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.). The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts that were assigned to you.
-
After login (or in case your login is kept active through the "Remember my password" function), click on the active manuscript link provided in the email notification you have received from the online editorial system. The link will lead you direct to the respective manuscript.
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS
The peer-review and editorial process is facilitated through the online editorial system and a set of email notifications. The online editorial system sends the Reviewer a review request, initiated by the Subject Editor or the Editorial Office. The online system will inform you also on delays in reviewing and will confirm a successful review submission. The email notifications contain the stepwise instructions as to what action is needed at each stage, as well as the link to the respective manuscript (accessible only after login – see section How to access a manuscript).
The reviewers are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to focus on its scientific quality, as well as for the overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. If Reviewers recognize that a manuscript requires linguistic edits, please inform both author and editor about this in the report. It is the author’s responsibility to submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English.
It often happens that even carefully written manuscripts may contain small errors in orthography or stylistics. We shall be thankful if Reviewers spot such errors during the reading process and correct them.
The manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two or three experts with the aim of reaching a first decision as soon as possible. Reviewers do not need to sign their reports but are welcome to do so. They are also asked to declare any conflicts of interests.
Reviewers are asked whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, how interesting it is and whether the quality of the writing is acceptable. Where possible, the final decision is made on the basis of the peer reviews. In cases of strong disagreement between the reports or between the authors and peer reviewers, the editor can judge these according to his/her expertise or seek advice from a member of the journal's Editorial Board.
The journal allows a maximum of two rounds of revisions of a manuscript. The ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions lies with the respective Subject Editor and in some cases with the Editor-in-Chief. All appeals should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief, who may decide to seek advice among the Subject Editors.
Reviewers are also asked to indicate which articles they consider to be especially interesting or significant. These articles may be given greater prominence and greater external publicity, including press releases addressed to science journalists and mass media.
During a second review round, the Reviewer may be asked by the Subject Editor to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript with regards to Reviewer’s recommendations submitted during the first review round.
Reviewers are kindly asked to be polite and constructive in their reports. Reports that may be insulting or uninformative will be rescinded.
The reviewers are asked to start their report with a very brief summary of the reviewed paper. This will help the editor and authors see whether the reviewer correctly understood the paper or whether a report might be based on a misunderstanding.
Further, the Reviewers are asked to comment on originality, structure and previous research:
Originality: Is the paper sufficiently novel and contributes to a better understanding of the topic under scrutiny, or is the work rather confirmatory and repetitive.
Structure: Is the introduction clear and concise? Does it place the work into the context that is necessary for a reader to comprehend aims, hypotheses tested, experimental design or methods? Are Material and Methods clearly described and sufficiently explained? Are reasons given when choosing one method over another one from a set of comparable methods? Are the results clearly but concisely described? Do they relate to the topic outlined in the introduction? Do they follow a logical sequence? Does the discussion place the paper in scientific context and go a step beyond the current scientific knowledge on the basis of the results? Are competing hypotheses or theories reasonably related to each other and properly discussed? Do conclusions seem reasonable?
Previous research: Is previous research adequately incorporated into the paper? Are references complete, necessary and accurate? Is there any sign that substantial parts of the paper were copies of other works?
STEPWISE DESCRIPTION OF THE PEER-REVIEW PROCESS
-
The Reviewer receives a review request generated by the Subject Editor or the Editorial Office and is expected to either agree to provide a review or decline, through pressing the Will do the review or Unable to do the review link in the online editorial system. In case the Reviewer agrees to review the manuscript, he/she should submit the review within a certain period, which may vary in the different Pensoft journals.
Note: The link to the respective manuscript is available in the review request email and all consequent reminder emails. The manuscript is accessible after login. Please look at the section How to access a manuscript above in case you meet any difficulties.
-
The review should be submitted through the "Proceed" button in the Editorial Decision menu. The review may consists of (1) a simple online questionnaire to be answered by clicking on either "Yes", "No", or "N/A" options, (2) comments addressed to the Author and the Editor, (3) comments addressed to the Editor only, and (3) associated files (corrected/commented manuscript file, review submitted in a separate text file, etc.)
Note1: The Reviewer can insert corrections and comments in the manuscript review version (PDF) and/or in the manuscript text file (usually Microsoft WORD, rarely Open Office file). When working in the PDF, please use either the Text Edits or Sticky Notes tools, available through the menu Tools -> Comments & Markup of the Acrobat Reader. When editing in Microsoft WORD please use the Track Changes tool
Note2: Associated files should be submitted at the end of the review process by clicking on the "Browse" button, then selecting the respective file on your computer, and then by pressing the "Upload" button. A reviewer may upload as many files to support his/her review as needed.
-
The Reviewer may decide to stay anonymous or to open his/her identity through clicking on "Disclose my name to author(s)" box at the bottom of the reviewer’s form. Please be aware that your identity might be revealed in the comments or in Track Changes corrections of the Microsoft WORD or PDF you correct. Therefore please make sure that you delete your name and initials in the options section of your word processor or PDF writer if you want to remain anonymous.
-
The review process is completed by selecting a recommendation from the set of 5 options (Reject, Reject & Resubmission Encouraged, Major Revision, Minor Revision, Accept) and then pressing the "Finish" button. The Online System will ask the Reviewer for one more confirmation of the selected recommendation before submission. The submitted review cannot be changed after submission.
Note1: Reasons for rejection can be a low scientific quality, non-conformance to the journal’s style/policies, and/or grammatically poor English language.
Note2: It is also possible for review and associated files (e.g., a corrected manuscript file) to be sent as attached files to the email of the Editorial Office (see comments on privacy above).
-
The Reviewer will be informed about a publication of the manuscript he/she has reviewed through an automated email acknowledgement sent by the journal on the day of publication of the article. The email contains the link for download of the published paper.
-
The Reviewer may always access information on the manuscripts that are or have been reviewed by him/her through the menu "Your Tasks – Reviewer" on the journal’s web page – In Review (no.), In Edit (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.). The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts that were assigned.
Guidelines for Editors
HOW TO ACCESS A MANUSCRIPT
Manuscripts can be accessed only after login:
-
Login is possible after registration. Our Editorial Office will register and provide login details to all first-time editors and reviewers. Reviewers receive an email with their login details usually prior to the first invitation to review a paper.
Note: Authors should register themselves at the journal’s website to be able to submit a manuscript to a particular journal. During the registration process authors can also indicate their wish to become reviewers. Authors can use their registration details to login in all three (Book, E-Book and the respective Journal) platforms of www.pensoft.net.
-
The login credentials consist of:
Username:
Password:
Note: Please remember that you may have registered with two or more different email addresses, that is why you may have more than one valid account at www.pensoft.net. We advise using only one email address, hence one password associated to it, for all yours operations at www.pensoft.net
-
Login details will be provided in an email after the first registration. Thereafter, the user may at any time change the password and correct personal details using the "My Profile" menu.
-
We advise to keep your login active through ticking the "Remember my password" checkbox during logging in.
-
In case you have forgotten your password, please write to request it from journals@pensoft.net. Alternatively, you may use the function:
"Forgot your password? Please send me a new one by email".
This is available in the Register/Login menu top right to obtain a new password. After requesting a new password, a message of the following kind will be sent to your email:
Hello ,
You received this message, because you wanted to change your forgotten password.
Please click on the following link to change your forgotten password: http://www.pensoft.net/fgu.php?fg=wSYAXV2mTqWCnvp
This link will be valid for 2 hours only since 2011-08-25 17:12:47
Your Verification ID: wSYAXV2mTqWCnvp
After clicking on the link, a form will appear on your screen where you have to enter the same email to which you have requested the new password and also the new password.
There are two ways to access a manuscript:
-
After login (or in case your login is kept active through the "Remember my password" function), please go to the respective journal’s web page and click on the red-coloured Your Tasks link in the upper horizontal menu bar. In this way you will be able to see all manuscripts you are responsible for as author or reviewer or editor.
Note: The manuscripts are grouped in several categories, e.g., In Review (no.), In Edit (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.). The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts that were assigned to you.
-
After login (or in case your login is kept active through the "Remember my password" function), click on the active manuscript link provided in the email notification you have received from the online editorial system. The link will lead you direct to the respective manuscript.
GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS
The Subject, or Associate, Editors in Pensoft’s journals carry the main responsibility for the scientific quality of the published papers. They take the final decision on a manuscript’s acceptance or rejection and their names are listed as "Academic Editors" in the header of each article.
The editorial process is facilitated through an online editorial system and a set of email notifications. The online editorial system informs the Subject Editor about any change in the status of a manuscript and associated peer review and editorial process, from submission to publication.
The online editorial system is constructed in a way to save time for Subject Editors to check the status of manuscripts. There is no need for editors to visit the journal’s website to keep track on the manuscript they are responsible for. The online system will inform the Subject Editor if a requested reviewer has accepted to do a review or has declined. The email notifications contain stepwise instructions what action is needed at each stage, as well as a link to the respective manuscript (accessible only after login – see How to access a manuscript section).
The Subject Editors are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to focus on its scientific quality, as well as for the overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. It is the author’s responsibility to submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English. The Subject Editor should not hesitate to recommend either "Reject", or "Reject, Resubmission Encouraged" PRIOR to review process, in cases when a manuscript is scientifically poor, and/or does not conform to journal’s style, or is written in poor English (see Note under point 1 below how to reject a manuscript prior to review).
It often happens that even carefully written manuscripts may contain small errors in orthography or stylistics. We shall be thankful if editors spot such errors during the reading process and correct them.
STEPWISE DESCRIPTION OF THE EDITORIAL PROCESS
-
Once a manuscript is submitted, the Editor-in-Chief or the Managing Editor assigns it to the Subject Editor responsible for the respective topic (e.g., science branch or taxon). The Subject Editor receives a notification email on the assignment.
Note: The link to the respective manuscript is available in the review request email and all consequent reminder emails. The manuscript is accessible after login. Please see the section How to access a manuscriptabove in case you meet any difficulties.
-
Subject Editor has to read the manuscript and decide if it is potentially suitable for publication (i.e., seems to be potentially interesting and novel and does not contain obvious flaws) and should be forwarded for review or rejected immediately. Reasons for rejection can be a low scientific quality, non-conformance to the journal’s style/policies, and/or linguistically or grammatically poor English language.
Note: There are two ways to reject a manuscript prior to review process:
· Through an email to the Editorial office explaining the reason for rejection. The manuscript will be then rejected through the online editorial system and the respective notification email will be sent from the Editorial Office.
· Through the button "Proceed" in the menu Editorial Decision. Please note, however, that the button will be made active only after the manuscript passes at least one review. Formally, to satisfy this condition and to provide prior-to-peer-review rejection, the Subject Editor can assign him- or herself as a reviewer, and then "submit" a formal review. After submitting the formal review, the Subject Editor could complete the editorial decision through the "Proceed" button.
Note: After clicking on the "Reject" or "Reject, resubmission encouraged" in the Editorial Decision menu, an email template will appear and the Subject Editor could add some personal words to explain the reasons for rejection and eventually recommend improvements for a resubmission.
-
In case the manuscript is acceptable for peer-review, the subject editor assigns several reviewers by clicking on the "Select reviewer" link in the Peer Review menu, available after clicking on a manuscript’s link. A list of reviewers will appear and various search functions for this list are available. The Subject Editor assigns the appropriate reviewer by clicking the "Assign" link available right of the reviewer’s name.
Note1: After clicking on the "Assign" link, an email template of a review request will appear on screen. It ishighly recommended that the Subject Editor adds some personal words above the standard email text to invite the potential referee to review the manuscript.
Note2: In case a potential reviewer is absent from our list, the editor can add his/her name and email through the "Create reviewer" link, available top left above the reviewer’s list. It is possible that the needed reviewer has already been registered in the Pensoft database either as customer or author/reviewer of another journal. If this is the case, then his/her name, affiliation and other metadata will automatically appear once the e-mail field is filled in by the Subject Editor.
-
Subject Editor receives a notification email if the reviewer has agreed to review a manuscript or declined to do that. The editor should take care to appoint additional reviewers in case some of the assigned reviewers have declined.
-
Once all reviewers submit their reviews, the Subject Editor receives an email notification, inviting him/her to consider reviewer’s opinions, read through the manuscript and take a decision through the "Proceed" button in the Editorial Decision menu.
Note: Editorial comments can be added in the online editorial form; comments and corrections are expected to be added also in the manuscript file (either on the PDF version or in the text file), that should be uploaded during finalization of the editorial decision process. It is expected that all comments added will be polite and constructive.
-
At this stage the editor should take a decision either to (1) accept the manuscript, or (2) reject it, or (3) open a second and final review round. In case the manuscript is not rejected but recommended for Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Acceptance, the author is expected to submit a revised version within a certain period of time and the Subject Editor will be notified on that.
Note1: Authors submit revised versions in a text file using the Track Changes tool so that the Subject Editor can see their corrections/additions. Authors are expected to reply to the essential critiques and comments of reviewers and editor through the online editorial system.
Note2: During the second review round, the Subject Editor may decide to ask the previous or additional reviewers to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript. He/she may also make a decision based on the author’s responses and the revised version of the manuscript without asking reviewers for a report.
-
After acceptance, the manuscript goes to layout and proofreading. The Subject Editor will be notified by email when the final proof is uploaded on the journal’s website. The Subject Editor is expected to look at the proofs and notify the Editorial Office through email in case the proofs need improvement.
-
The Subject Editor may always access information on the manuscripts that are or have been edited by him/her through the menu "Your Tasks – Subject Editor" on the journal’s web pgfe – In Review (no.), In Edit (no.), Published (no.), and Archived (no.). The number in brackets after each category shows the number of manuscripts that were assigned.
Writing a Press Release
Press releases and news announcements
Pensoft's journals put special efforts into the disseminaion of published information to a wide range of readers, including news aggregators, blogs, social networks and the mass media. Press releases can have a major effect on increasing the popularity of research findings and are of benefit to all involved parties: the authors, their institutions, funding agencies, publishers and society in general.
Thanks to a well-established dissemination network, Pensoft press releases have provided the basis for articles in National Geographic, Nature, New York Times, International Herald Tribune, many leading science news websites, national newspapers, science blogs etc.
Please note that Pensoft's press releases are targeted towards a wider, non-specialist audience. Therefore, should you decide to prepare a news item, it must be written in a popular science language; it should be free of unintelligible terms and, if at all possible, latin names and phrases; it should contain some interesting or important facts and information, attractive for the non-specialist public. Please note that while all news items are posted on our website, those that could be of interest to the mass media are also submitted to EurekAlert.org, where they enjoy a very wide dissemination.
You are thus invited to prepare a short press release on your accepted paper (or have it prepared by your PR office), and send it to our press officer: Iliyana Kuzmova, at pressoffice@pensoft.net for editorial review. English is the default language for the press releases. If you wish to submit an additional version in another language, please let us know beforehand.
We are strongly convinced that your research deserves to become widely known to the world, starting right on the day of its publication!
Data Publishing
For more information, you may look at our detailed Data Publishing Policies and Guidelines for Biodiversity Data and at the concept paper of Chavan and Penev (2011).
A substantial feature of the semantic Web is open data publishing, where not only analysed results, but original datasets can be published as citeable items so that the data authors may receive academic dredit for their efforts. Pensoft supports various methods for data publication, such as downloadable data packages supplementary to a research article, or hosted in and linked to data repositories. There are several incentives for authors and instutions to publish data:
- Data produced and collected using public funds can be published, cited, used and re-used, either as separate datasets or collated with other data;
- Data can be indexed and made discoverable, browsable and searchable through biodiversity infrastructures (e.g., the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), Dryad and others):
- Data can be integrated with other datasets across space to bring recognition and new opportunities for collaboration to the data authors;
- Collection managers can trace usage and citations of digitized data from their collections;
- By publishing data, authors and institutions are credited for their work to create and maintain data through registering of priority and authorship through indexing, discovery and citation;
- Datasets, metadata and respective data papers are inter-linked to expedite and mutually extend the dissemination, to the benefit of the authors and society at large.
The core of the data publishing project of Pensoft is the concept of "Data Paper" developed in a cooperation with the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). Data Papers are peer-reviewed scholarly publications that describe the published datasets and provide an opportunity to data authors to receive the academic credit for their efforts. Currently, Pensoft offers the opportunity to publish Data Papers describing occurrence data and checklists, Barcode-of-Life genome data and biodiversity-related software tools, such as interactive keys and others.
Pensoft reached an agreement for cooperation in data hosting and developing of data publishing workflows with the GBIF, the Dryad Data Repository and the Consortium for Barcode of Life.
Download Data paper poster
Examples of data papers
ZooKeys:
Antarctic, Sub-Antarctic and cold temperate echinoid database
A dataset from bottom trawl survey around Taiwan
Project Description: DNA Barcodes of Bird Species in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, USA
Literature based species occurrence data of birds of northeast India
MOSCHweb — a matrix-based interactive key to the genera of the Palaearctic Tachinidae (Insecta, Diptera)
Amundsen Sea Mollusca from the BIOPEARL II expedition
Iberian Odonata distribution: data of the BOS Arthropod Collection (University of Oviedo, Spain)
FORMIDABEL: The Belgian Ants Database
Circumpolar dataset of sequenced specimens of Promachocrinus kerguelensis (Echinodermata, Crinoidea)
PhytoKeys:
Florabank1: a grid-based database on vascular plant distribution in the northern part of Belgium (Flanders and the Brussels Capital region)
Database of Vascular Plants of Canada (VASCAN): a community contributed taxonomic checklist of all vascular plants of Canada, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Greenland
Herbarium of Vascular Plants Collection of the University of Extremadura (Spain)
Nature Conservation:
Antarctic macrobenthic communities: A compilation of circumpolar information
Press releases on data papers
New incentive for biodiversity data publishing
Data publishing policies and guidelines for biodiversity data by Pensoft
First database-derived 'data paper' published in journal
A new type of data papers designed to publish online interactive keys
Data paper describes Antarctic biodiversity data gathered by 90 expeditions since 1956
Unique information on Belgian ants compiled and published through FORMIDABEL data paper
Database simplifies finding Canadian plant names and distribution
A synthesis of the 36451 specimens from the UNEX Herbarium in a new data paper
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
General
The publishing ethics and malpractice policies of Pensoft follow the relevant COPE guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines) and in case a malpractice is suspected, journal Editors will act in accordance with them.
Open access
Pensoft journals adheres strictly to gold open access to accelerate the barrier-free dissemination of scientific knowledge. All published articles are made freely available to read, download, and distribute, immediately upon publication, given that the original source and authors are cited (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC-BY).
For more details on Pensoft’s open access and copyright policy see the Copyright Information page.
Privacy statement
The names and email addresses present on journals’ websites will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of the journals and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.
Open data publishing and sharing
Pensoft encourages open data publication and sharing, in accordance with Panton’s Principles and Pensoft’s Data Publishing Policies and Guidelines for Biodiversity Data.
Data can be published in various ways, such as data files or packages supplementary to a research article, or hosted in and linked to data repositories.
Datasets should be deposited in an appropriate, trusted repository and the associated identifier (URL or DOI) of the dataset(s) must be included in the data resources section of the article. Reference(s) to datasets should also be included in the reference list of the article with DOIs (where available). Where no discipline-specific data repository exists authors should deposit their datasets in a general repository such as Dryad or Pangaea.
In Pensoft’s journals, open access to data is not compulsory, however highly recommended and encouraged. Open data publication is mandatory in the Biodiversity Data Journal, where authors must make available all research materials or data, associated with a manuscript upon its submission.
Submission, peer-review and editorial process
The peer-review and editorial process is facilitated through an online editorial system and a set of email notifications. Pensoft journals’ websites display stepwise description of the editorial process and list all necessary instructions and links. The later are also included in the respective email notification.
General: Publication and authorship
- All submitted papers are subject to rigorous peer-review process by at least two international Reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
- The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
- The journals allow a maximum of two rounds of review of a manuscript. The ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions lies with the respective Subject Editor and in some cases with the Editor-in-Chief. All appeals should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief, who may decide to seek advice among the Subject Editors and Reviewers.
- The possible decisions include: (1) Accept, (2) Minor revisions, (2) Major revisions, (3) Reject, but re-submission encouraged, (5) Reject.
- If Authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
- The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
- No research can be included in more than one publication.
Responsibility of Authors
- Authors are required to agree that their paper will be published in open access under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 (CC-BY) license.
- Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
- Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
- Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
- Authors should submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English and formatted in accordance with journal’s Author Guidelines.
- Authors must participate in the peer review process.
- Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
- All Authors mentioned are expected to have significantly contributed to the research.
- Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
- Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
- Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
- Authors should acknowledge all significant funders of the research pertaining to their article and list all relevant competing interests.
- Other sources of support for publications should also be clearly identified in the manuscript, usually in an acknowledgement (e.g., funding of article processing charge for an open access article, or writing, language editing or editorial assistance).
- The corresponding Author should provide the declaration of any conflicts of interest on behalf of all the Authors. Conflicts of interest may be associated with employment, sources of funding, personal financial interests, and membership of relevant organisations, or others.
Responsibility of Reviewers
- The manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two or three experts with the aim of reaching a first decision as soon as possible. Reviewers do not need to sign their reports but are welcome to do so. They are also asked to declare any conflicts of interests.
- The Reviewers are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to focus on its scientific quality, as well as for the overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. If Reviewers recognize that a manuscript requires linguistic edits, they should inform both Authors and Editor in the report.
- Reviewers are asked to check whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, how interesting it is and whether the quality of the writing is acceptable.
- In cases of strong disagreement between the reviews or between the Authors and Reviewers, the Editors can judge these according to his/her expertise or seek advice from a member of the journal's Editorial Board.
- Reviewers are also asked to indicate which articles they consider to be especially interesting or significant. These articles may be given greater prominence and greater external publicity, including press releases addressed to science journalists and mass media.
- During a second review round, the Reviewer may be asked by the Subject Editor to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript with regards to Reviewer’s recommendations submitted during the first review round.
- Reviewers are asked to be polite and constructive in their reports. Reports that may be insulting or uninformative will be rescinded.
- The Reviewers are asked to start their report with a very brief summary of the reviewed paper. This will help the Editors and Authors see whether the reviewer correctly understood the paper or whether a report might be based on a misunderstanding.
- Further, the Reviewers are asked to comment on originality, structure and previous research:
- Is the paper sufficiently novel and contributes to a better understanding of the topic under scrutiny, or is the work rather confirmatory and repetitive?
- Is the introduction clear and concise? Does it place the work into the context that is necessary for a reader to comprehend aims, hypotheses tested, experimental design or methods? Are Material and Methods clearly described and sufficiently explained? Are reasons given when choosing one method over another one from a set of comparable methods? Are the results clearly but concisely described? Do they relate to the topic outlined in the introduction? Do they follow a logical sequence? Does the discussion place the paper in scientific context and go a step beyond the current scientific knowledge on the basis of the results? Are competing hypotheses or theories reasonably related to each other and properly discussed? Do conclusions seem reasonable?
Previous research: Is previous research adequately incorporated into the paper? Are references complete, necessary and accurate? Is there any sign that substantial parts of the paper were copies of other works?
- Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
- Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
- Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
- Reviewers should also call to the Editors’ attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Responsibility of Editors
- The Editors in Pensoft’s journals carry the main responsibility for the scientific quality of the published papers and base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
- Subject Editor takes the final decision on a manuscript’s acceptance or rejection and his/her name is listed as "Academic Editor" in the header of each article.
- The Subject Editors are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to focus on its scientific quality, as well as for the overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing.
- Editors are expected to spot small errors in orthography or stylistic during the editing process and correct them.
- Editors should always consider the needs of the Authors and the Readers when attempting to improve the publication.
- Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
- Editors should preserve the anonymity of Reviewers, unless the later decide to disclose their identities.
- Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
- Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
- Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
- Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between Authors, Reviewers and Board Members.
Misconduct
Research misconduct may include: (a) manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, (b) changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the article.
A special case of misconduct is the plagiarism, which is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
If misconduct is suspected, journal Editors will act in accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines:http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines
Should a comment on potential misconduct be submitted by the Reviewers or Editors, an explanation will be sought from the Authors. If this is satisfactory and a mistake or misunderstanding has taken place, the matter can be resolved. If not, the manuscript will be rejected and the the Editors will impose a ban on that individual's publication in the journals for a period of three years.
In cases of published plagiarism or dual publication, an announcement will be made in both journals explaining the situation.
Appeals and open debate
We encourage academic debate and constructive criticism. Authors are always invited to respond to any editorial correspondence before publication. Authors do not have a right to neglect unfavorable comments about their work and to choose not to respond to criticisms.
No Reviewer’s comment or published correspondence may contain a personal attack on any of the Authors. Criticism of the work is encouraged and Editors should edit (or reject) personal or offensive statements.
The Author should submit their appeal on editorial decisions to the Editorial Office, addressed to the Editor-in-Chief or to the Managing Editor. Authors are discouraged from directly contacting Editorial Board Members and Editors with appeals.
Editors will mediate all discussions between Authors and Reviewers during the peer-review process, that is prior to publication. If agreement cannot be reached, Editors may consider inviting additional reviewers, if appropriate.
Editor-in-Chief will mediate all discussions between Authors and a Subject Editor.
The journals encourage publication of open opinions, forum papers, corrigenda, critical comments on a published paper and Author’s response to criticism.
Section Policies
Book Review
Published on agreement
Catalogue
Peer-reviewed and indexed; large-scale catalogues will be treated as monographs and will bear both ISBN and ISSN numbers
Checklist
Peer-reviewed and indexed; large-scale checklists will be treated as monographs and will bear both ISBN and ISSN numbers
Commentary
Peer-reviewed and indexed
Corrigenda
Published upon editorial decision
Data Paper
Peer-reviewed and indexed
Editorial
Published on agreement
Forum Paper
Published upon editorial decision; indexed
Letter to the Editor
Published upon editorial decision
Monograph
Peer-reviewed and indexed in both journal and book registers; bears ISSN and ISBN numbers
Research Article
Peer-reviewed and indexed
Review Article
Peer-reviewed and indexed
Short Communication
Peer-reviewed and indexed
Editorial Board
Editorial Board
Lyubomir Penev
Founder
Pensoft Publishers & Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Sofia, Bulgaria
penev@pensoft.net
Pavel Stoev
Editorial Director
National Museum of Natural History and Pensoft Publishers
Sofia, Bulgaria
projects@pensoft.net
Subject Editors
Paul Cannon
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Kew, Richmond, United Kingdom
p.cannon@kew.org
Subjects: Taxonomy
Arthur de Cock
JCNS-KNAW Fungal Biodiversity Centre
Utrecht, Netherlands
a.decock@cbs.knaw.nl
Subjects: Nomenclature
Cvetomir Denchev
Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Sofia, Bulgaria
cmdenchev@yahoo.co.uk
Taxa: Basidiomycota
Pradeep Divakar
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Madrid, Spain
pdivakar@farm.ucm.es
Taxa: Ascomycote-containing lichens
Kentaro Hosaka
National Museum of Nature and Science
Tsukuba, Japan
hosakak@gmail.com
Taxa: Basidiomycota
Paul Kirk
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
London, United Kingdom
p.kirk@kew.org
Subjects: Nomenclature
Ekaphan Kraichak
Kasetsart University
Bangkok, Thailand
ekraichak@gmail.com
Subjects: Conservation Biology
Andrew Miller
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Champaign, United States of America
amiller@inhs.uiuc.edu
Taxa: Ascomycota
Maria Neves
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
Florianopolis, Brazil
maliceneves@gmail.com
Taxa: Basidiomycota
Maarja Öpik
University of Tartu
Tartu, Estonia
maarja.opik@ut.ee
Taxa: Glomeromycota
Subjects: Taxonomy; Molecular systematics
Claudia Perini
Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali G. Sarfatti
Siena, Italy
claudia.perini@unisi.it
Subjects: Evolutionary Ecology; Conservation Biology
Imke Schmitt
Goethe Universität Frankfurt and Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre BiK-F
Frankfurt am Main, Germany
imke.schmitt@senckenberg.de
Subjects: Climate change
Conrad L. Schoch
NIH/NLM/NCBI
Bethesda, United States of America
schoch2@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Subjects: Population Genetics; Phylogeny
|
刊名字顺( Alphabetical List of Journals):
返回页首 