Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Karst areas occupy 10-20 % of ice free land. Dissolution of rock by natural waters has given rise to specific landscape and underground.  Karst surface features and caves have attracted man's curiosity since the dawn of humanity and have been a focus to scientific studies since more than half of milenia.

Acta Carsologica publishes orginial research papers and reviews, letters, essays and reports covering topics related to specific of karst areas. These comprise, but are not limited to karst geology, hydrology and geomorphology, speleology, hydrogeology, biospeleology and history of karst science.

Acta Carsologica is puiblished by the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts and Karst Research Institute of the  Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts (ZRC SAZU, Založba ZRC).

 

Section Policies

Original papers

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Letters

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Interview

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Reports & Book Reviews

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Comments

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

In Memoriam

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Editorial

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review papers

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Erratum

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

World Karst Science Review

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Special Issue 60th anniversary

A collection of invited review articles dedicated to the 60th anniversary of Acta Carsologica.

Editors
  • Nataša Ravbar
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

UNESCO IGCP 598

This is section reserved for papers submitted for the issue dedicated to UNESCO IGCP 598 program.

Editors
  • Martin Knez
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Symposium on ice caves IWIC

Editors
  • Andrej Mihevc
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

All submissions are subjected to peer-review by two independend reviewers.

Each submitted manuscript is evaluated on the following basis:

  • the originality of its contribution to the field;
  • the soundness of its theory and methodology given the topic;
  • the coherence of the analysis;
  • the ability to communicate to readers (grammar and style),

Authors are wellcome to suggest two to three possible reviewers which is a help, but not an obligation to the editor.

If the  reports of reviewers differ substantionally , a third reviewer may be invited. The reviewers are asked to comnplete the reviews within four weeks time.  Reviews are in principle single blind, however reviewer can decide to show his/her identity.

 

Publication Frequency

The journals is published in three issues per year.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to the full-text of articles at no cost on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. There is no Article Processing Fee charged to authors.

Digital copies of the journal are stored by the repository of ZRC SAZU and the digital department of Slovenian national library NUK, dLib.

 

Editorial Board

Franci Gabrovšek, Karst Research Institute ZRC SAZU, Slovenia, Editor-In-Chief
Andrej Kranjc, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Slovenia, Co-Editor
Nataša Ravbar, Karst Research Institute ZRC SAZU, Slovenia, Co-Editor
Pavel Bosák, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Franco Cucchi, University of Trieste, Italy
Jože Čar, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Matija Gogala, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Slovenia
Petra Gostinčar, Karst Research Institute ZRC SAZU, Slovenia
Jean Nicod, Emeritus Professor, Geographical Institute, Aix en Provence, France
Mario Pleničar, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Slovenia
Metka Petrič,  Karst Research Institute ZRC SAZU, Slovenia
Simona Prevorčnik , University of Ljubljana, Slovenia 
Trevor R. Shaw, Karst Research Institute ZRC SAZU, Slovenia
Tadej Slabe, Karst Research Institute ZRC SAZU, Slovenia
Stanka Šebela,  Karst Research Institute ZRC SAZU, Slovenia
Nadja Zupan Hajna, Karst Research Institute ZRC SAZU, Slovenia 

 

 

Advisory Board

Ahmad Afrasibian, Philippe Audra, Ilona Bárány – Kevei, Arrigo A. Cigna, David Drew, Wolfgang Dreybrodt,Derek Ford, Paolo Forti, Helen Goldie, Laszlo Kiraly, Alexander Klimchouk, Stein-Erik Lauritzen, Bogdan Onac,Armstrong Osborne, Arthur Palmer, Ugo Sauro, Boris Sket, Kazuko Urushibara-Yoshino.

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal Acta Carsologica is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. It is therefore necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the editor (and the editorial board), the peer reviewer and the publisher.

Journal is issued by Karst Research Institute and published by Založba ZRC. Both ZRC SAZU units take their duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Založba ZRC and the editorial board of the journal will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and on other existing policies. The statement was developed between 2004-2008 and it was replaced by the so-called Core Practices in 2017. We regularly monitor the updates.

 

Duties of authors

Reporting standards: authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention: authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data at least 10 years after publication.

Originality and plagiarism: the authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: an author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation as the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Acknowledgement of sources: proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the paper: authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have  participated  in   certain  substantive  aspects  of  the  research  project,  they  should   be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and human subjects: if the work involves the use of human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights  of human subject must always be observed.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: all authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

Fundamental errors in published works: when an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

 

Duties of the editor and editorial board

Publication decisions: the ZRC SAZU editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may consult with editorial board or reviewers in making this decision or may use various plagiarism checking programs.

Fair play: the editor evaluates manuscripts solely for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, and ideological or political orientation of the authors.

Confidentiality: the editor and any editorial staff do not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers and others, involved in journal publishing process.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript are not used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask another member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Complaints and appeals: an editorship should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical or other complaints appeals have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in  conjunction  with  the publisher and the issuer within 30 days. Such  measures  will  generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institution and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it discovered years after publication.

 

Duties of reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions: peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness: any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality: any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity: reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of sources: reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited  by  the  authors.  Any  statement  that  an  observation,  derivation,  or  argument  had  been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask another member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.