About the Journal
Focus and Scope
Human Origins Research is a quality Open Access international journal publishing research in the field of palaeoanthropology and related disciplines. The journal is committed to the rapid publication of research and aims to publish articles within 2-3 months of submission. We publish four types of contributions:
- Invited Reviews
Human Origins Research is dedicated to publishing internationally important research in a wide range of areas directly about or informing studies of human evolution. Where it is not explicit, the topics covered by an article must be demonstrated to be relevant to human evolution by virtue of the taxa, sites, methods or results included. We publish articles in the following broad topics:
- Hominin palaeontology
- Human and primate variation, biomechanics, ontogeny and evo-devo
- Human evolutionary and behavioural ecology
- Anthropological genetics
- Evolutionary medicine
- Evolutionary psychology and cognitive archaeology
- Palaeolithic archaeology
- Theory and history of palaeoanthropology and palaeolithic archaeology
- Archaeological science and geoarchaeology
- Geochronology reports and technical developments
- Zooarchaeology and taphonomy
- Primate evolution and ecology including biogeography
- Palaeoecology, palaeoenvironment and palaeoclimate studies
- Reports of fossil and archaeological sites including excavation results
Peer Review Process
Our journal follow the Council of Science Editors about the Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications.
At Human Origins Research, we believe there should be as few barriers as possible to publishing quality scientific research. With this in mind, we aim to make the process of publishing as straightforward as possible. Our peer review process centres on ensuring that submitted work is rigorous and lacks technical flaws. We ask our reviewers to focus on undertaking an objective evaluation of submitted work to assess its technical merits, rather than providing a recommendation to publish or reject.
Submission of a manuscript indicates that all authors have read and approved the paper for publication prior to submission, each author is responsible for its content and that all necessary approvals and ethics clearances/permits have been obtained and are indicated in the acknowledgements along with sources of funding. When submitting a manuscript, authors are requested to provide a list of up to five potential reviewers of their manuscript (name, email address, institution) who would be qualified to review their work. The decision to use these reviewers is solely at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief.
After a preliminary check to ensure that the article falls within the scope of the journal, and that it meets the requirements specified in the Section Policies, the Editor-in-Chief will send the manuscript to a member of the Scientific Board and several additional reviewers (who may or may not be members of the Scientific Board) for technical evaluation.
Reviewers and members of the Scientific Board are asked to provide an objective technical evaluation of the manuscript. This is to determine whether a paper is rigorous, technically sound and worthy as addition to the scientific literature. A recommendation of acceptance or otherwise is not normally solicited. The decision to accept, require revision or to reject a manuscript rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult members of the Scientific Board.
We consider ethics in review to be of utmost importance. Therefore, reviewers are required to act in an objective, non-partisan manner. Reviewers are asked to maintain confidentiality with respect to the information presented in the manuscript and to inform the Editor-in-Chief of any possible conflict of interest that may bias their judgement. Reviewers should strive at all times to provide their opinions in an unbiased and fair manner, provide helpful guidance, and objective, constructive, criticism to authors. As Human Origins Research is a rapid publication journal, reviewers are asked to return their comments on the manuscript to the journal within three (3) weeks. Although reviewers may reveal their identify in the review if they wish, this is generally not recommended. Where this occurs, the Editor-in-Chief, members of the Scientific Board or editorial team will not be responsible for, intervene on behalf of the reviewer or mediate in cases where author’s contact reviewers directly. Any such correspondence is solely between the reviewer and author and will have no bearing on the decision of the journal to publish or reject an article or revisions to be made. It is a requirement of the journal that members of the Scientific Board who review a given article are required to keep their identity anonymous.
Manuscripts that require revisions will be returned by the journal to the corresponding author for improvement. A maximum of two rounds of peer review will occur for each article. Manuscripts may be rejected at the second review if reasonable and substantive revisions are not made following the first round of review (as requested by the Editor-in-Chief) or if new material is introduced which alters the scope of the manuscript or is found to be technically flawed by reviewers. The revised manuscript should be resubmitted electronically within 28 days from the date of receipt by the author. If the revised manuscript is returned to the journal after this time, it will be considered to be a new submission (unless prior permission for a short extension is provided by the Editor-in-Chief).
Authorship. All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship according to the CSE' criteria (http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3355). Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for the content. Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to (a) conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of data; and to (b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and on (c) final approval of the version to be published. These three conditions must all be met. Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data does not justify authorship. General supervision of the research group is not sufficient for authorship. Any part of an article critical to its main conclusions must be the responsibility of at least one author. Submission of an article is taken as acceptance of these requirements by all authors.
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.
Pre- and post-prints
PAGEPress allows and encourages authors to deposit both their pre- and post-prints in Open-Access institutional archives or repositories. The primary benefit of pre- and post-print self-archiving is reaching a larger audience which enhances the visibility and impact of your research.
PAGEPress strongly support the mission of the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors; all individuals collaborating with PAGEPress are strongly invited to comply with this mission.
All research articles published by PAGEPress journals are subject to a rigorous ethical standards. Our journals endorses the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the COPE International Standards for Editors and Authors Guidelines. The Editorial Board of each journal is responsible for the form the peer review process will take; therefore, all authors in the biomedical field must adhere to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. PAGEPress endorses the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Policy Statement on Geopolitical Intrusion on Editorial Decisions, too.
The European Science Foundation released a Code of Conduct on Research Integrity, which is fully supported by our journals. All authors submitting papers to our journals are required to adopt these policies.
Below some online resource to help you in understanding plagiarism:
Roig, M. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing. St Johns University.
Long TC, Errami M, George AC, et al. Responding to Possible Plagiarism. Science 2009; 323:1293-1294.
Lewis J, Ossowski S, Hicks J, Errami M, and Garner HR. Text similarity: an alternative way to search MEDLINE. Bioinformatics 2006; 22:2298-2304.
Conflict of Interests
Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). These relationships vary from negligible to great potential for influencing judgment. Not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. On the other hand, the potential for conflict of interest can exist regardless of whether an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.
All participants in the peer-review and publication process must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest. Disclosure of such relationships is also important in connection with editorials and review articles, because it can be more difficult to detect bias in these types of publications than in reports of original research. Editors may use information disclosed in conflict-of-interest and financial-interest statements as a basis for editorial decisions.
When authors submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist. Authors should do so in the manuscript on a conflict-of-interest notification page, providing additional detail, if necessary, in a cover letter that accompanies the manuscript. Increasingly, individual studies receive funding from commercial firms, private foundations, and government. The conditions of this funding have the potential to bias and otherwise discredit the research.
Scientists have an ethical obligation to submit creditable research results for publication. Moreover, as the persons directly responsible for their work, researchers should not enter into agreements that interfere with their access to the data and their ability to analyze them independently, and to prepare and publish manuscripts. Authors should describe the role of the study sponsor, if any, in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. If the supporting source had no such involvement, the authors should so state. Biases potentially introduced when sponsors are directly involved in research are analogous to methodological biases.
Editors may request that authors of a study funded by an agency with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome sign a statement, such as "I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis." Editors should be encouraged to review copies of the protocol and/or contracts associated with project-specific studies before accepting such studies for publication. Editors may choose not to consider an article if a sponsor has asserted control over the authors' right to publish.
Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. As in the case of authors, silence on the part of reviewers concerning potential conflicts may mean either that conflicts exist and the reviewer has failed to disclose them or conflicts do not exist. Reviewers must therefore also be asked to state explicitly whether conflicts do or do not exist. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.
Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts must have no personal, professional, or financial involvement in any of the issues they might judge. Other members of the editorial staff, if they participate in editorial decisions, must provide editors with a current description of their financial interests (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which a conflict of interest exists.
Protection of Human Subjects and Animals in Research
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether 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 2008. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
Sources of Support
The Asian-Australasian Association of Palaeoanthropologists (AAAP) is the first professional association of its kind to be established in the region. It provides an international academic organisation for professional researchers and postgraduate students working in the broad field of palaeoanthropology, and allied areas, with a geographical focus on Asia and Australasia.