AvenSci provides distinct publishing routes for authors and academic book editors, with clear responsibilities from proposal and manuscript preparation through peer review, production, proofs and final publication.
Prepare and revise scholarly content.
Lead the intellectual structure and coordinate contributors.
Maintain publisher-level editorial standards and final responsibility.
For authored books, monographs, chapters, theses and other scholarly contributions.
For edited books, thematic volumes, conference proceedings and multi-author scholarly projects.
For multi-author books, individual chapters can progress independently through submission, review, revision and decision while remaining part of one coherent volume.
Comprehensive manuscript preparation guidelines for authors publishing with AvenSci Publishing, covering scholarly structure, scientific integrity, authorship, research ethics, figures, references, permissions and editorial requirements for books, monographs and book chapters.
Confirm scope, authorship and completeness for the relevant editorial stage.
Use a clear hierarchy and supply complete scholarly and production-ready information.
Provide full contributor names, affiliations and persistent identifiers where available.
Supply high-quality figures, editable tables and required third-party permissions.
Respond carefully to editorial and reviewer comments during the assessment process.
Review production proofs and return essential corrections within the requested timeframe.
These guidelines apply to scholarly books, research monographs, edited-volume contributions, thesis-derived publications and other academic manuscripts considered for publication by AvenSci Publishing. They establish the general scientific, ethical and documentary standards expected during manuscript preparation and editorial assessment.
Authors should ensure that their manuscripts correspond to the agreed subject, purpose and scope of the publication, are sufficiently developed for the relevant editorial stage and have been reviewed and approved by all contributors whose agreement is required.
Scientific arguments should be supported by appropriate evidence, accurately represented research findings and relevant scholarly literature. The presentation should distinguish established knowledge from hypotheses, emerging interpretations and areas of scientific uncertainty.
Manuscripts should follow a clear and consistent intellectual structure appropriate to the publication type and intended readership. Titles and headings must accurately reflect the content and should be organised hierarchically to facilitate scholarly reading and editorial production.
Depending on the nature of the work, authors should provide an informative title, abstract, keywords, introduction, main sections, conclusions, acknowledgements and references. Books and edited volumes should include a coherent table of contents and clearly identified chapter titles.
Research monographs should present the conceptual background, relevant evidence, methodological considerations and scholarly implications in an integrated manner. Review-based works should critically evaluate the literature rather than merely reproduce or enumerate existing findings.
Abbreviations should be defined at first use, specialised terminology employed consistently and scientific nomenclature presented according to the standards applicable to the discipline.
Manuscript text should be supplied in an editable format agreed with AvenSci. Microsoft Word is generally suitable for manuscript preparation unless alternative arrangements have been approved.
Tables should be editable wherever practical, clearly numbered and accompanied by informative titles and explanatory notes when required. Numerical values, units and statistical notation should be presented consistently.
Figures should be scientifically accurate, legible and appropriate for reproduction in the intended publication formats. Authors should supply original or suitably licensed image files of sufficient quality, together with descriptive captions and source acknowledgements.
Where appropriate, authors may be asked to provide alternative text or descriptions for figures to support accessible digital publication. Complex equations, chemical structures, specialised symbols and supplementary resources should be identified clearly during manuscript preparation.
Supplementary material must be relevant to the scholarly content, appropriately described and free from confidential or unlawfully disclosed information.
Authorship should reflect genuine intellectual contributions and responsibility for the scholarly work. All listed authors must approve the version submitted for consideration and agree to the identification of their contribution in the publication.
Authors should provide their full names, institutional affiliations and professional contact information, together with ORCID identifiers where available. The corresponding author or designated editorial contact is responsible for facilitating communication and ensuring that required information is supplied.
For multi-author chapters, the allocation of responsibilities should be clear. Changes to authorship, contributor order or attribution after submission must be explained and may require written agreement from affected contributors.
Acknowledgements should distinguish contributions that do not justify authorship, including technical assistance, administrative support and other forms of assistance.
Authors must disclose any substantial overlap with previously published or submitted material, including journal articles, book chapters, preprints, repository deposits and doctoral theses. Such disclosure enables an appropriate assessment of originality, copyright status and the suitability of the proposed publication.
Submission of material that substantially duplicates an existing publication without appropriate disclosure or justification is not acceptable. Where a manuscript draws on previously published research, the relationship to that research should be transparent and properly referenced.
Authors are responsible for identifying copyrighted material belonging to third parties and obtaining the permissions or licences necessary for its intended use, where required. This includes figures, tables, photographs, maps, extended quotations and other protected content.
Permission documentation, source acknowledgements and applicable licence conditions must be supplied before final publication. Material distributed under an Open Access licence must be checked for compatibility with the proposed reuse and publication conditions.
Research reported or discussed in a manuscript must comply with applicable legal, institutional and disciplinary requirements. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of scientific claims and for presenting methods, results and limitations without fabrication, falsification or misleading selective reporting.
Where relevant, manuscripts should identify ethics committee approval, informed consent, clinical trial registration, animal research authorisation or other applicable oversight arrangements. When an exemption applies, its basis should be accurately described where necessary.
Information relating to identifiable individuals, patient records, personal data or confidential research materials must be handled consistently with applicable privacy, consent and confidentiality requirements.
Concerns involving research misconduct, plagiarism, inappropriate image manipulation, undisclosed duplicate publication or other significant integrity issues may require clarification, further examination or editorial action.
Authors must disclose financial, professional, institutional or personal relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the presentation or interpretation of the scholarly work.
Relevant funding sources should be identified, together with grant numbers where applicable. The role of funders in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation or publication decisions should be disclosed when relevant.
The absence of conflicts of interest or external funding may also be stated explicitly where the publication requirements call for such declarations.
Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, attribution and integrity of material included in their manuscripts, regardless of whether automated or generative artificial intelligence tools have assisted its preparation.
Generative AI systems must not be listed as authors because they cannot assume responsibility for scholarly claims, approve manuscripts or fulfil authorship obligations.
Where generative AI tools have materially contributed to drafting, analysis, image creation, translation or other substantive aspects of manuscript preparation, their use should be disclosed in a manner appropriate to the discipline and the nature of the contribution. Routine spelling and grammar assistance does not ordinarily require the same level of disclosure unless otherwise specified by the applicable publication policy.
Authors must verify references, quotations, factual statements, research interpretations and generated content independently. Unverified or fabricated citations, misleading synthetic data and unauthorised use of confidential materials are not acceptable.
References should accurately identify the sources supporting the manuscript's scientific arguments, methods, data and interpretations. Citation practices must reflect scholarly relevance rather than attempts to manipulate citation indicators.
Authors should apply a consistent reference style throughout the manuscript or chapter and provide sufficient bibliographic information to identify each cited work. Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) should be included where available and relevant.
Sources should be consulted and verified directly wherever practical. Retracted publications, disputed findings and preliminary research outputs should be treated with appropriate contextual explanation when cited.
Claims about scientific consensus, clinical implications, effectiveness or methodological superiority should be supported by evidence of suitable quality and interpreted in accordance with its limitations.
Where a publication presents or relies on original datasets, computational analyses, software, protocols or other research resources, authors should provide sufficient information to support scholarly understanding, verification and appropriate reuse.
Relevant data availability, code availability or repository information should be supplied when required by the nature of the research, applicable funder policies or the agreed publication conditions.
Public deposition is not appropriate where it would violate legal obligations, ethical restrictions, confidentiality or legitimate protections concerning sensitive information. Any restrictions on access should be explained where relevant.
Supplementary resources should be clearly labelled, appropriately referenced within the manuscript and accompanied by suitable descriptions of their content and accessibility.
Authors should provide the manuscript and supporting documentation requested for the relevant stage of the publishing process. The required materials may vary according to whether the project concerns an authored book, an edited volume, an individual chapter or another type of scholarly publication.
Submitted material should be organised clearly, with distinguishable manuscript files, figures, tables, supplementary resources and relevant declarations where applicable. The editorial team may request clarification, corrections or additional documentation before a manuscript can proceed.
Editorial evaluation may involve examination of scientific relevance, intellectual coherence, methodological foundations, completeness, quality of documentation and compliance with applicable publication policies.
Submission does not guarantee acceptance. A final publishing commitment is subject to the relevant editorial decision and applicable contractual arrangements.
Following editorial acceptance and production preparation, authors or designated Book Editors may be invited to review page proofs or other publication-ready files.
Proof review should focus on typesetting accuracy, figures, tables, equations, references, author information and errors introduced or identified during production. Substantial scientific or structural changes at this stage may require additional editorial review and may affect the agreed production schedule.
Corrections should be returned within the timeframe communicated by AvenSci. Final approval confirms that the designated contributors have examined the publication materials within their responsibilities.
Authors should promptly communicate any significant factual, ethical or attribution concerns identified before or after publication so that appropriate editorial action can be considered.
Guidelines for Book Editors working with AvenSci Publishing, covering academic leadership, contributor selection, independent peer review, chapter management, research integrity, editorial responsibilities and the preparation of scholarly edited volumes.
Establish the scope, scientific purpose, audience and structure of the volume.
Invite qualified authors whose expertise supports the planned chapter structure.
Manage chapter deadlines, contributor communication and completeness.
Help identify appropriate expertise while respecting conflicts and review integrity.
Monitor scientific consistency without compromising chapter-level assessment.
Coordinate final corrections and confirm readiness of the edited book for publication.
Book Editors play a central role in developing scholarly edited volumes published by AvenSci Publishing. They are responsible for establishing a coherent scientific vision, defining the intellectual scope of the publication and ensuring that the proposed content addresses a meaningful need within the relevant research community.
The scope of an edited volume should be sufficiently focused to provide scientific coherence while allowing the inclusion of complementary perspectives, methods and emerging areas of research. Editors should identify the intended readership, principal themes and expected contribution of the book to its field.
The agreed editorial scope provides the foundation for contributor selection, chapter assessment and the overall organisation of the volume. Substantial changes to that scope should be discussed with AvenSci before implementation.
Book Editors are expected to coordinate the academic development of the volume, maintain communication with contributors and promote consistent standards of scholarly quality throughout the project.
Their responsibilities include developing the proposed table of contents, defining chapter objectives, coordinating submission and revision schedules, assessing the relevance of contributions and identifying gaps or unnecessary overlaps in coverage.
Editors should communicate requirements and deadlines clearly, monitor the progress of individual chapters and inform AvenSci promptly of significant difficulties that may affect scientific quality or the agreed production timetable.
Where several Book Editors share responsibility for a volume, their respective roles and decision-making arrangements should be agreed to avoid ambiguity or inconsistent instructions to contributors.
Contributors should be selected primarily on the basis of their relevant expertise, scholarly experience and ability to provide a substantive contribution to the subject of the volume.
Editors should seek an appropriate balance of scientific perspectives and, where relevant, methodological approaches, career stages, institutional backgrounds and international research experience. Such considerations should support academic quality without replacing assessment of individual competence.
Invitations should describe the proposed chapter topic, expected scope, editorial requirements, anticipated schedule and any applicable publication conditions. Contributors should understand that an invitation or preliminary agreement does not in itself guarantee acceptance of a completed chapter.
Editors should avoid inappropriate preferential treatment and should not use contributor selection to advance unrelated personal, institutional or commercial interests.
Editorial assessment must be conducted fairly, consistently and on the basis of scholarly merit, scientific relevance, intellectual rigour and suitability for the publication.
Editors should distinguish constructive academic disagreement from deficiencies in research quality. Manuscripts should not be disadvantaged because their conclusions differ from an editor's own scientific position, provided that the work meets appropriate standards of evidence and integrity.
Decisions and recommendations should be supported by clear academic reasoning. Contributors should receive sufficiently informative feedback to understand the principal concerns requiring clarification or revision.
Editorial independence does not remove the obligation to comply with AvenSci's publication policies, applicable contractual arrangements or research integrity procedures.
Book Editors must disclose financial, professional, institutional, personal or competitive relationships that could reasonably be perceived as affecting their editorial judgement.
A conflict may arise when an editor is assessing a contribution by a close collaborator, a member of the same research group, a family member, a direct competitor or another person with whom a significant relevant relationship exists.
Where a conflict could compromise independent assessment, the editor should inform AvenSci and refrain from directing the affected evaluation or recommendation until appropriate arrangements have been agreed.
Such arrangements may involve another suitably qualified editor, independent reviewers or direct oversight by AvenSci. Conflicts must not be concealed or managed informally where impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
Peer review is intended to support rigorous, constructive and independent assessment of scholarly contributions. The review arrangements applicable to each project are determined by AvenSci's editorial policies and the nature of the publication.
Where Book Editors are authorised to recommend or identify reviewers, they should consider the reviewer's subject expertise, capacity to assess the work objectively, availability and potential conflicts of interest.
Reviewers should be asked to evaluate scientific accuracy, methodological appropriateness, relevance, clarity of argument, completeness of documentation and the contribution of the manuscript to existing scholarship.
Editors must respect the confidentiality requirements of the applicable review model. Reviewer identities, reports, unpublished manuscripts and privileged editorial communications must not be disclosed or circulated beyond authorised participants.
Editors should assess review reports critically, reconcile substantive differences where appropriate and avoid treating reviewer recommendations as automatic publication decisions.
In multi-author volumes, individual chapters may progress through submission, assessment, revision and editorial recommendation at different times. Book Editors are expected to monitor these parallel processes while maintaining oversight of the complete volume.
Each chapter should be assessed in relation to its scientific quality and its contribution to the agreed scope of the book. Editors should identify duplication, omissions, inconsistencies in terminology or differences in emphasis that may undermine the coherence of the final work.
Revision requests should be specific, proportionate and consistent with the scientific concerns identified during assessment. Authors should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive comments.
Where a chapter cannot meet the required standards, the Book Editor should communicate the academic concerns to AvenSci and make an appropriate recommendation. The final publisher decision remains with AvenSci.
Book Editors share responsibility for promoting responsible scholarly conduct and identifying potential concerns affecting material submitted to the volume.
Possible concerns include plagiarism, fabricated or falsified research findings, inappropriate manipulation of figures or data, undisclosed duplicate publication, misleading citation practices, disputed authorship and failures to disclose relevant ethical approvals or conflicts of interest.
Editors should not attempt to resolve serious allegations through informal arrangements or private negotiations that could compromise fairness or the preservation of relevant evidence.
Potential integrity concerns should be referred promptly to AvenSci for assessment under the applicable editorial procedures. Editors should cooperate with reasonable requests for clarification while preserving confidentiality and avoiding premature conclusions.
Book Editors should ensure that contributors are informed of the applicable authorship, attribution, copyright and permissions requirements. Individual chapter authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality and lawful use of the material they submit.
Editors should encourage clear identification of author names, affiliations, corresponding contributors and ORCID identifiers where available. Authorship changes or disputes must be communicated to AvenSci where they could affect attribution, consent or publication rights.
Contributors must identify third-party material requiring permission or licence verification, including figures, tables, illustrations and substantial reproduced content. Editors should raise apparent omissions before production progresses.
Material use of generative artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation should be disclosed in accordance with AvenSci's author requirements. AI tools must not be presented as authors, and editorial participants remain accountable for the scholarly accuracy and integrity of the content.
An edited volume should read as a coherent scholarly publication rather than an unrelated collection of contributions. Book Editors should promote a consistent level of scientific depth, appropriate terminology and complementary coverage across chapters.
Editors should review the organisation of the table of contents, the relationship between chapter subjects and the consistency of essential scientific concepts, abbreviations and nomenclature.
Contributors should follow the applicable Author Guidelines and any additional project-specific instructions agreed with AvenSci. The use of consistent reference conventions, figure labelling, table presentation and manuscript structure facilitates editorial review and production.
Editors may recommend introductory, concluding or integrative material where it meaningfully strengthens the scholarly value of the volume. Major restructuring or the addition or removal of chapters should be coordinated with AvenSci.
Following editorial assessment and acceptance, Book Editors may be asked to assist with the preparation of the complete manuscript for production and the verification of publication-ready materials.
Responsibilities may include confirming the final table of contents, chapter sequence, editor and contributor details, cross-references, acknowledgements and the consistency of material shared across chapters.
During proof review, editors should identify production errors, misplaced or missing content, incorrect attribution and other issues affecting the scholarly integrity or coherence of the volume.
Proof correction is not normally intended for extensive rewriting or introducing substantial new scientific content. Any significant proposed change should be referred to AvenSci for assessment of its editorial and production implications.
Final editorial confirmation should be provided within the agreed timeframe and in accordance with the responsibilities assigned to the Book Editors and chapter authors.
Book Editors provide academic leadership, coordinate contributors and make informed scholarly recommendations concerning the quality and suitability of chapters and the edited volume as a whole.
AvenSci Publishing retains final responsibility for publisher-level acceptance or rejection, publication ethics actions, contractual arrangements and authorisation of publication. Book Editor recommendations therefore inform, but do not replace, the publisher's decisions.
Editors must communicate significant scientific, ethical, legal or operational concerns promptly and must not independently promise publication, alter contractual conditions or commit AvenSci to arrangements that have not been authorised.
Effective cooperation between Book Editors, contributors, reviewers and AvenSci is essential to producing rigorous, coherent and responsibly published scholarly volumes.
Authors remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their work. Book editors provide academic leadership for collective publications. AvenSci retains final publisher responsibility for editorial standards, research integrity actions and publication decisions.
Begin with the project concept, intended readership, provisional structure and author or editor information.
Quick guidance about publishing and using AvenSci. Private manuscript or account data is never exposed here.
Open Help Centre