- Manuscript must be submitted by e-mail at address: firstname.lastname@example.org, which gives all additional information.
- All Authors must sign and send the “Declaration of transfer of copyrights and no conflict of interests” and indicate the source of payment, before the article can be published.
- Sending, signed by the Authors, the above mentioned “Declaration” results in the inability to add, delete, or rearrange of the Author’s names in the manuscript transferred to the review.
- Submission of the paper implies that it has not been published previously, that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and that if accepted it will not be published elsewhere in the same form without the written permission of the Editor.
- Authors are responsible for obtaining from the copyright holder permission to reproduce any figures for which copyright exists.
- All papers will be independently refereed. Proofs will be sent to the corresponding Author. Correction should be restricted to type settings errors only. Not sending the revised article within one month of receipt of the text is considered to be granted by the Author’s permission for the release of the work in the form sent for correction and charge the publication costs.
- The final version of work will be sent by e-mail to the corresponding Author and should be returned within 7 days of receipt.
- The journal “Science Nature Technologies” pursues a policy of preventing cases of dishonesty in science: “ghostwriting” (non-disclosure of the significant contribution of the Author in the publication or the failure to mention his role in contained acknowledgments), and “guest authorship” (authorship/co-author of the publication, when the participation of the Author is negligible or in general did not take place).
The journal does not have article submission charges. Author's institution is requested to pay a page charge of 400 PLN +VAT(492 PLN - 120 €) per accepted article.
The manuscript should be arranged according to the following pattern:
- Names of authors (with first names spelled out, middle names as initial, and last name CAPITALIZED).
- Affiliations of all authors (department, university, country).
- Funding Source Declaration (funding or research grants and their source received in the course of study).
- Title in English (please use capital letters only when needed).
- Structured summary in English. The summary should be divided into small chapters:
- Background (Why the study was initiated? Why this type of study is needed? and What is the aim of the present paper?)
- Material and methods
- Results (principal)
- Conclusions (with a closing remarks – What is the importance of the present findings? and What directions it sets for future research?). Please note that the Conclusion is not a summary of the results, but a more general statement. While writing the summary please keep in mind that it may be also reprinted separately by abstracting/indexing journals or databases. In research notes or review articles a short conventional abstract should be written instead of a structured summary.
- Up to 8 key words in English.
- title, structured summary, keywords in Polish (Polish speaking authors only).
- Main text should contains: Introduction, Material and methods, Results, Discussion, tables, and figures. Figure captions (including full legend describing the figure and explaining all the symbols used) must be pasted below respective figures (do not repeat them). An excess of headings and subheadings should be avoided. Only generic and specific names should be set in italics. Any issue not covered by the present instruction should be resolved based on the APA system and The scientific style and format. The CBE manual for authors, editors, and publishers [1994, Cambridge Univ. Press].
DOI number (digital object identifier) for all references is required (if exist), and should be presented e.g.: http://dx.doi.org/10.17306/J.NPT.2016.2.16
Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list (and vice versa).
Original papers should not contain more than 30 references.
Review articles should not contain more than 60 references.
- Paper length: In general papers should not exceed 12 pages (A4 format) inclusive of tables and illustrations.
- Manuscripts must by typewritten, double-spaced with wide margins (4 cm)). Good quality printouts with a font size (Times New Roman) of 12 pt is required.
- Tables and illustrations should not exceed B5 format (12.5 cm x 19.5 cm). Tables should not duplicate results presented elsewhere in the manuscript (e.g. in graphs) and include only essential data with appropriate statistical values. All descriptions should be printed with a font size 8-9 pt. Tables and illustrations should be numbered consistently and given a suitable caption and each one presented at the end of the paper. Illustrations should be attached in a separate files.
- Text: Follow this order when typing manuscripts:
- title: in Polish and English,
- authors: the corresponding author must be identified by e-mail and full postal address,
- key words: up to 8 words or phrases for the main topics of the paper,
- abstract: each paper should be provided with abstract of about 600-1000 spaces, reporting concisely on the purpose and results of the paper,
- the main text should contain the following elements: introduction, aim of the work, materials, results and discussion (may be presented together or separately), conclusions, summary (up to 20 lines),
- references: must be listed alphabetically on the separate sheets in the form as following:
Desai, J.D., Banat, I. (1997). Microbial production of surf nts and their commercial potential. Microbiol Mol. Biol. Rev., 61, 1, 47-64.
Brisson, G.J. (1982). Lipid in human nutrition. MTP Press Limited, Lancaster, England.
Tamuri M., Kanno M., Ishii Y. (1981). Heat and acid-stable alpha-amylase enzymes and processes for producing the same. US. Patent US 4,284,722.
Huffman, D.L. (1993). The development of low-fat ground products. In: 39ICoMST, 1-6 August, Calgary, Abstracts and Reviev Papers, Session 7, 293-303.
- Units: the SI system should be used for all scientific laboratory data.
The procedure of reviewing
- Each publication is evaluated by Editor-in-Chief and if the basic requirements are fulfilled the text is sent to review.
- We have therefore decided that the criteria for acceptance must be rigorously enforced to ensure quality. Two key questions authors (and reviewers) must ask themselves are:
- Is the paper an addition to knowledge?
- Is it of interest to an international audience?
If the answer to either of these questions is no, then the paper wall not be deemed suitable for publication. If, however, the answer to both these questions is yes then the paper will be subjected to rigorous scientific review.
- Each publication is evaluated by at least two independent Reviewers.
- If the text was written in a foreign language, at least one of the Reviewers is affiliated in a foreign institution, which is different than the Author’s nationality.
- The double-blind review process is applied, where neither the Authors nor the Reviewers know each other’s identities.
- The review is a written document, which ends with a definite conclusion whether the article should be published or rejected.
- The following evaluation criteria and procedures are applied:
- A – very good article – accept
The article is accepted for printing without sending back to the Author. The Author receives a message about the positive review.
- B – good article – accept when the Reviewer’s comments have been fulfilled
The article is sent back to the author to make changes suggested by the Reviewer. Then the Author resends a corrected copy of the article with the opinion about the remarks in the review to the editors. The Editor-in-Chief makes a decision whether the article should be accepted for printing
- C – acceptable after general reconstruction
The article is sent back to the Author to make general changes suggested by the Reviewer. Then the Author sends a corrected copy of the article with the opinion about the remarks in the review to the Editors. The Editors send the article for another review. The Author may be committed to pay extra costs of the review of the corrected article.
- D – poor – the article should not be published in Nauka Przyroda Technologie
The article is not accepted for publication and cannot be resent to the Editors.
- A – very good article – accept
- Every year a list of reviewers collaborating with the Editors is published in the last (fourth) issue of the quarterly and on the website, when all the four issues of the journal have been sent to printing.
Instructions for reviewers
An assessment of the reviewed paper is expected to consider both the scientific and formal aspects.
The primary objective of the reviewer's evaluation is to provide sufficient and unambiguous answers to the following questions and also recommendations for possible changes and improvements to the paper:
- does the title match the subject of the paper and does the subject of the paper correspond with the area of interest of the journal (according to " Aim and Scope "),
- is the Abstract correct, i.e. short but presenting the main results of the researches and conclusions based on these results,
- does the Introduction present the subject and the objective of the researches correctly,
- are the implemented methods used properly and is the research material sufficient,
- are the results described, analysed, commented on and presented correctly, without repetitions of data in tables and diagrams,
- is the discussion presented correctly, based on actual knowledge and with the use of properly chosen scientific literature (as recent as possible),
- do the conclusions generalise the obtained results and provide recommendations, which are appropriately prepared on the basis of results and are not merely the repetition of those results,
- does the paper introduce new and interesting information and does it have sufficient impact and add to the knowledge base.
In regard to review papers, the most important information required is the judgment, whether the paper is based on corrected and recent scientific literature and discusses the area, which is essential to our Journal.
The formal evaluation of the paper should include answers to the following questions:
- whether the layout and contents of tables, graphs and diagrams is readable and convenient for recipients,
- is the information in tables not repeated in diagrams and vice versa,
- are there no reservations about the length of the paper, its linguistic correctness, the method of citation of the literature and usage of units, etc?
When making a final recommendation, it should be clearly stated whether the paper is suitable for publication in NPT. In the case of a positive answer, please indicate whether:
- it might be accepted without changes,
- it might be accepted after minor changes, suggested by the reviewer in the manuscript or in his/her opinion,
- it might be accepted after major changes (please indicate them).