Author Guidelines

EDITORIAL SECTIONS

Sections of journal 1. Editorial The editorial is the opening article of the journal in which the editor or a very experienced author deals with a problem or a relevant fact. 2. Original Search The original research articles report primary and unpublished studies and should describe the aims and hypotheses, methods, results and interpretation
of the research. Original research articles may also include confirmation of studies, as well as confirmation of results that eliminate hypotheses,
reformulation and / or reporting on the non-reproducibility of previously published results. Articles should include the following sections: Introduction,
Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion. Original research articles are peer-reviewed, have a maximum word count of 12,000, and can comprise up to
15 digits / tables. Authors are required to pay a fee (type A article) to publish an original research article. 3. Brief research report Short research reports present original research which may include preliminary / negative results or report the non-reproducibility of previously published
results. They are intended to present a study comprehensively, but in less detail than the original research articles. In keeping with our ethics of
publishing all findings can be scientifically valid, these articles encourage the submission and publication of "negative" results.
The short research reports should describe the objectives, methods and results of the study and be structured in the usual format of the
original research articles (Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion). Brief Research Reports are peer reviewed, can contain a maximum of 2,000
words (excluding Abstracts and references), can include up to 2 Figures / Tables.

4. Systematic review Systematic review consists of a summary of previous research on a given topic that uses systematic and clearly defined methods to identify, classify,
analyze and report aggregate evidence on a specific topic. Included in this type of article are meta-synthesis, meta-analysis, systematic review,
and systematic review with a meta-analysis. Systematic review must address a substantial issue that is important in the field and must be based on a
solid empirical basis of studies that have been scientifically conducted. In addition, please clearly define the research demand in terms of population,
interventions, comparators, results and study projects. For design and reporting, follow the reporting guidelines in your field
(eg, PRISMA, Cochrane, Campbell) and indicate which reporting guidelines were used in the study. If applicable, include the PRISMA flowchart
as part of your presentation. Include financing information; if there is no specific funding to carry out the research, please indicate it.
Articles are peer-reviewed, have a maximum word count of 12,000 and can include up to 15 tables. Authors are required to pay a fee (Type A article)
to publish a systematic review article.

5. Review Review articles cover topics that have seen significant development or particular advancements in recent years in full depth, providing a balanced
perspective. Reviews should present a comprehensive overview of the state of the art (and should not simply summarize the literature), as well as
discuss the following points: different school of thought or controversy; fundamental concepts, problems and problems; current research gaps; potential
future developments in the field. Review articles must not include unpublished material (unpublished / original data, submitted manuscripts or personal
communications) and may be rejected for review or reclassified, with a significant delay, should they include such content.
Review articles are peer-reviewed, must have a maximum word count of 12,000, and can include up to 15 tables.
Authors are required to pay a fee (Type A article) to publish a review article.

6. Mini review Mini Review articles cover topics related to a particular current area of ​​investigation and its recent developments. They offer a succinct and clear
summary of the topic, allowing readers to catch up on new developments and / or emerging concepts, as well as to discuss the following aspects: different
school of thought or controversy; current research gaps; potential future developments in the field. Mini reviews must not include unpublished material
(unpublished / original data, submitted manuscripts or personal communications) and, should they include such content, they can be rejected or
reclassified, with a significant delay in publication times. Mini reviews are peer-reviewed, can contain a maximum of 3,000 words and cannot contain
more than 2 tables. Authors are required to pay a Type A fee for publication purposes. 7. Hypotheses and study methods The "hypotheses and study methodologies" articles present a new topic, a new interpretation or a new model intended to introduce a new hypothesis
or a new theory. This type of article should provide the following: a reinterpretation of recent data or results in a specific area of ​​investigation;
an accurate presentation of previously posed hypotheses or theories; the hypothesis presented should be verifiable in the context of current knowledge;
may include original data and personal opinions and opinions. Hypothesis articles and theory articles are peer reviewed, must contain a maximum number
of words equal to 12,000 and can include up to 15 tables. Authors are required to pay a fee (type A article) for publication.

8. Clinical study protocol Articles illustrating a clinical study protocol document the design of prospective clinical research. The clinical study protocol is intended to
facilitate the dissemination of ongoing studies and promote transparency. The manuscript should be structured as follows: Structured abstract
(include clinical trial registry number); Introduction (background information including previous literature, objectives and aims);
- Methods and analysis (design, selection / treatment of subjects, methods of intervention, data analysis);
- Discussion; - Ethics and disclosure. Registration in a public clinical registry is mandatory prior to submission of the manuscript and
authors are strongly encouraged to follow the SPIRIT guidelines and checklist. Clinical study protocols are not considered if other study-related
articles have already been published or undergo another review process. Clinical study protocol articles are peer reviewed, have a maximum word
count of 12,000, and can comprise up to 15.

9. Cynical study Clinical trial articles describe the results of interventional health-related studies. These studies include pilot studies, safety and efficacy studies,
surrogate end point studies and proof-of-concept studies. Articles should include the following sections: Structured abstract (including clinical trial
registry number); Introduction; Materials and methods (including the flow chart, where applicable, for example the CONSUMPTION FLOW CHART); Results;
Discussion. All clinical trials must be recorded in a public study registry to be considered for publication, and authors are strongly encouraged to adhere
to CONSORT reporting standards. Clinical trial articles are peer reviewed, can contain up to 12,000 words and can include up to 15 tables.
Authors are required to pay a publication fee (type A article). 10. Clinical case Case Report articles are a descriptive account of human or animal patients presenting with an unexpected / rare diagnosis / finding, or clinical course.
Only the Case Reports that represent a significant advance in the specific reference sector will be taken into consideration.
Case reports should include the following: background; case presentation: for human patients: patient's age, sex and occupation, presentation of symptoms,
patient medical history, and any family or social history relevant to clinical findings; for animal patients: age, sex and breed of the animal,
the presence of any problems, the history of the animal and all that is relevant to the clinical results; description of laboratory investigations
and diagnostic tests; discussion of the underlying pathophysiology and the novelty or significance of the case. Authors are required to obtain
written informed consent from patients (or their legal representatives) for publication. This type of manuscript can contain a maximum of 3,000 words,
with a maximum of 4 display elements (figures, tables or videos).

11. Report date The data reports present a description of the research datasets. The datasets must be deposited in a public repository prior to submission and made public
at the time of publication of the report. The data reports include: references or descriptions of the methods used to collect the data; information
on how readers can interpret the dataset; limited data analysis, to better explain their relevance and suggest future research avenues (optional).
Data reports should not include: findings or discussions; answers to specific research questions, which should instead be addressed in the original
research articles. Data reports are peer-reviewed, can contain a maximum of 3,000 words, and can include 2 tables 12. Policy Brief Policy briefs are short reports that provide a practical, evidence-based assessment of policy issues. This type of article also provides actionable policy
options and recommendations that allow you to use it as a decision-making tool. The manuscript should include the following: Abstract (up to 125 words in
bulleted list format). Introduction, Policy Options and Implications Sections, Applicable Recommendations, Conclusions. Policy Briefs are peer-reviewed,
have a maximum count of 3,000 words (including subtitles) and can include up to 5 tables / figures / boxes / sidebars.

13. Comment Comments are manuscripts that focus attention on a particular scientific paper or provide critical comments on a previous publication. They can contain
a maximum of 1,000 words, include only 1 figure / table and must bear the following title: "Comment: title of the original article". General comments
are peer reviewed and should be duly substantiated, typically with at least five references. They should not contain unpublished or original data.
Authors who comment on a Phenomena Journal article must submit their comment as a reflection on the Journal itself and the peculiarity of the original
article. 14. Opinion article Opinion articles allow authors to contribute by expressing their point of view on the interpretation of recent findings relating to any research area,
on the value of the methods used, on the weaknesses and strengths of any scientific hypothesis. They must have the following requirements: they must
not contain unpublished or original data, they must be supported by evidence, they must be fully referenced, they must encourage constructive discussion,
they must refrain from emotionally charged arguments. Opinion articles are peer reviewed and can contain a maximum number of words equal to 2,000 and cannot
contain more than 1 figure / table. Authors are required to pay a publication fee (type C article).

15. Book review Book reviews need to be concise and balanced, these are one-page literary critiques analyzing the content, style and merit of a recently published book.
A book review should summarize, but also evaluate and discuss the content of the book in light of the current needs of the community. This type of
manuscripts are peer-reviewed, can contain a maximum of 1,000 words and include 1 figure / table, however they must not contain unpublished or
original data. Any registered Phenomena Journal user can submit a review of the book. Submissions must be titled “Book Review: Title of book.”
Authors are not required to pay a publication fee.

Types of articles We offer a range of article types to optimally support our diverse scientific communities in publishing their research results. • Type A Articles: Original Research, Short Research Report, Systematic Review, Review, Mini Review, Hypothesis and Study Methods, Clinical Study Protocol,
Cynical Study, Clinical Case, Data Report, Policy Brief, Commentary, Opinion Article ; • Type B articles: Editorial, Book review.

Section code

First name

Abstract (maximum length)

Figures and / or tables

Manuscript (maximum length)

Send to indexing databases

Original research

Systematic review

Hypotheses and study methods

Clinical study protocol

Data report

Opinion article

Book review

Types of articles We offer a range of article types to optimally support our diverse scientific communities in publishing their research results.

Type A Articles: Original Research, Short Research Report, Systematic Review, Review, Mini Review, Hypothesis and Study Methods,
Clinical Study Protocol, Cynical Study, Clinical Case, Data Report, Policy Brief, Commentary, Opinion Article; Type B Articles: Editorial, Book Review.

Expenses for processing articles per magazine Please see the table below for information on Phenomena Journal APCs, which vary by article type.
For specific item type descriptions, please refer to the item type page,
a list of the different types is provided below the table.

APC Phenomena Journal

Items of type A: APC € 50.00 P.P.

Type A items: APC Members Phenomena Hub APS € 30.00 P.P.

Items of type B: FREE

There are no fees for submissions

PEER REVIEWING INSTRUCTIONS FOR PHENOMENA

Introduction

The primary aims of peer review are to decide whether or not an article should be published (based on quality and relevance to the journal), and to improve the article before publication. All submissions first go through an internal peer review process: an assigned editor makes an initial decision to accept or to reject the manuscript (e.g. topic is outside the scope of the Journal, important flaws in scientific validity, etc). If the editor believes the article may be of interest, it is sent out for external peer review. The reviewers are selected by area of expertise (reviewers who grant high quality reviews within the requested time are preferred). The editorial board is frequently consulted. Once reviews are obtained, the editor makes a judgment considering the critiques and recommendations from reviewers, and other factors such as relevance to the Journal’s aims and usefulness to clinicians or researchers.

Peer Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to their background and experience in some aspect of the subject. The most desirable reviewers identify the strengths and weaknesses of the submitted paper, and analyze it from different viewpoints. The peer reviewers are asked to read and analyze the assigned manuscript and provide a written opinion of its quality, novelty, relevance and suitability for publication in Phenomena. Peer reviewers also make suggestions to assist the authors in improving the article. Reviewers must not only analyze and comment on the paper, but also provide opinions about general concerns such as clarity and quality of the writing, validity Of scientific approach, and whether the article provides new information.

Ethical Guidelines for Journal Peer Reviewers

When a selected individual accepts a peer reviewing assignment, the reviewer implicitly agrees to the ethical standards that are commonly accepted in biomedical publishing. Ethical guidelines for reviewers, authors, and editors are reported by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in the ‘Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals’ available

Reviewers for Phenomena must agree to:

- Produce as careful and objective a review as possible

- Respect the editor’s deadline.

- Consider with an open mind innovations or approaches different from those of one’s own.

- Provide a balanced critique targeted not only to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the paper, but also to provide useful feedback to the authors to improve their manuscript,

without being overly critical of minor points.

- Avoid scientific misconduct such as the misappropriation of intellectual property. Each

manuscript should be treated as an extremely confidential document. The privacy of the

authors’ ideas must always be guaranteed.

- Direct comments about ethical concerns confidentially to the editors. Contacting an author

with questions about the manuscript is not allowed. All critiques, including the latter, must

be reported in the written critique.

- Declare any conflict of interest (real or perceived) identified to the editor before the end of review. Not every potential conflict necessitates a rejection. Reviewers are encouraged to discuss potential conflicts with the editors if they believe they can provide a fair review.

- Reject an assignment if the following conflicts are present: Financial interests (e.g. paid

consultancies, stock holdings), significant professional or personal relationships or rivalries, antipathy toward study question/approach, political or special interest affiliations (e.g. religious or deep convictions that conflict with the manuscript topic).

Reviewer Guidelines

Potential reviewers are contacted by E-mail, which contains the manuscript title, abstract, and assignment deadline. The selected reviewer accepts or declines the assignment within 7 days. Failure to reply within the prescribed time will be treated as an implicit rejection. It is acceptable to propose an extended deadline when the given deadline (usually 4 weeks from the task acceptance date) cannot be met. The selected reviewers usually have extensive experience as faculty members, researchers, and published authors. Sometimes reviewers from other specific areas are selected.

This selection is always well thought-out, and we encourage such potential reviewers to consider the assignment if they can make a contribution to some aspect of the work. The following points must be provided by the reviewers in the written response:

- General Overview

- Organized Critique

- Assessment of Strengths and Weaknesses: the following should be evaluated: Literature

review is up-to-date; Methods align with study purpose or research questions; Methods

described in sufficient and appropriate detail; Research design or study approach is

adequate; Approach to data analysis is appropriate; Thoughtful consideration given to the

study limitations; Manuscript provides new information that is likely to be of interest to our

readers.

-Possible improvements

-Commonly Overlooked Areas: Reviewers should carefully note: title, abstract, tables and

figures, references.

Editor’s Final Decision

After the peer review process has ended and an adequate number of reviews has been received, the assigned editor makes the final decision about the manuscript (accept, invite a revision, or reject) based on a consideration of all the reviewer comments, general critique, and other external factors (e.g. the article is consistent with the Journal purpose, similar articles recently published, number of accepted articles awaiting publication, potential impact of the article, etc.). Editors may consult with each other when making the decision. A decision summarizing the opinions of editors and reviewers will be sent to the corresponding author.

STATEMENT OF HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS

All papers submitted to our Journal should declare agreement with the following ‘statement of human and animal rights’. No paper lacking it will be considered for publication. Papers describing procedures involving humans or animals must include an explicit and easily identifiable statement pointing out that the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 and 2008. If any doubt exists as to whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must, in primis, explain the rationale for their approach, and then demonstrate that the institutional ethical committee explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors must indicate that the institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.