- Home/Current Issue
- About the journal
- Editorial board
- Online submission
- Instructions for authors
- Foundation Acta Endocrinologica
The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy
ACTA ENDOCRINOLOGICA (BUC)The International Journal of Romanian Society of Endocrinology / Registered in 1938
in ISI Thomson Master Journal List
1)Purpose and Scope
2)Expectation of Ethical Conduct
5)Manuscript Submission Procedures
6.4)Materials and Methods
6.5)Results and Discussion
6.9)Figures and Legends
6.10)Units of Measure
7)Editorial Policies and Guidelines
7.3)Obligations of Reviewers
7.6)Manuscripts Reporting New Amino Acid or Nucleotide Sequence
7.7)Manuscripts Reporting Novel Compounds
7.8)Validation of Data and Statistical Analysis
7.9)Digital Image Integrity
8)Publication and Production Guidelines
8.1)Proofs and Reprints
8.2)Page and Color Charges
|1)Purpose and Scope|
Acta Endocrinologica is an international, endocrine journal covering the fields of basic and clinical Endocrinology, Neuroendocrinology, Reproductive Medicine, Chronobiology, Human Ethology and related areas for RAPID publication of Original Papers, Review Articles, Clinical Reports and other contributions from all related fields. "This is an Open Access journal. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles in the Journal, and users can use, reuse and build upon the material in the Journal as long as attribution is given when appropriate or necessary." It is the official international journal of the Romanian Society of Endocrinology. It is published quarterly by Romanian Academy Publishing House.
|2)Expectation of Ethical Conduct|
The mission of Romanian Society for Endocrinology and Acta Endocrinologica Foundation is to advance excellence in endocrinology and be an integrative force in scientific research and medical practice in Romania. Such progress depends on integrity in the conduct of scientific research and truthful representation of findings. Specific guidelines regarding the expectations of Acta Endocrinologica (Buc) editors for ethical conduct can be found in the Ethical Guidelines for Publications of Research. The journal editors and publication oversight committees of The Romanian Society for Endocrinology and Acta Endocrinologica Foundation are dedicated to upholding high ethical standards in its publications and expect authors and reviewers to do the same.
Manuscripts must be written in idiomatic English and conform to the specifications described below. Papers that do not meet these requirements will be returned to the author for necessary revision before formal review. Manuscripts submitted to Acta Endocrinologica (Buc) are usually evaluated by peer reviewers who remain anonymous; but the disposition of some manuscripts is determined by the editors alone. Authors of manuscripts requiring modifications have three (3) months to resubmit a revision of their paper. Manuscripts returned after more than three (3) months will be treated as new submissions. An unsolicited revision of a rejected manuscript will either be returned or treated as a new submission, at the editor's discretion.
Manuscript categories are described below.
|5)Manuscript Submission Procedures|
All Original Articles, Editorials and Notes & Comments/Extensive Clinical Experiences should be submitted with structured abstracts of no more than 250 words. All information reported in the abstract must appear in the manuscript. The abstract should not include references. Write the abstract with a general medical audience in mind. Please use complete sentences for all sections of the abstract.
Reports of Original Data(i.e., General Endocrinology, Endocrine Care, Case Reports) should include an abstract with the following headings. Each section should include the following content:
1. Context. The abstract should begin with 1-2 sentences explaining the clinical (or other) importance of the study question.
2. Objective. State the precise objective or study question addressed in the report. If more than one objective is addressed, the main objective and only key secondary objectives should be stated. If a hypothesis was tested, it should be stated.
3. Design. Describe the basic design of the study, years of study performance, and duration of follow-up.
4. Subjects and Methods. State the clinical disorders, number, eligibility criteria, key sociodemographic features, and method of selection of patients. If matching is used for comparison groups, characteristics matched should be specified. In follow-up studies, the proportion of participants who completed the study must be indicated. In intervention studies, the number of patients withdrawn because of adverse effects should be given.
5. Results. The main outcomes of the study should be provided and quantified, including confidence intervals or P values. For comparative studies, confidence intervals should relate to the differences between groups. If relevant, indicate whether observers were blinded to patient groupings, particularly for subjective measurements. If differences for the major study outcome measure(s) are not significant, the clinically important difference sought should be stated and the confidence interval for the difference between the groups should be given. When risk changes or effect sizes are given, absolute values should be indicated. Studies of screening and diagnostic tests should report sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio. If predictive value or accuracy is given, prevalence or pretest likelihood should be given as well. All randomized controlled trials should include the results of intention-to-treat analysis, and all surveys should include response rates.
6. Conclusions. Provide only conclusions directly supported by the results, along with implications for clinical practice; avoid speculation and overgeneralization. Indicate whether additional study is required before the information should be used in usual clinical settings. Give equal emphasis to positive and negative findings of equal scientific merit.
|Editorials. 6.2)The editorialist is free to decide on the abstract|
Notes & Commentsshould include an abstract with the following sections:
1. Context. Include 1 or 2 sentences describing the relevant condition and its importance in clinical practice or public heath.
2. Subjects and Methods. State the clinical disorders, eligibility criteria, key sociodemographic features, and number of patients described.
3. Results. The main outcomes of the study should be provided and quantified
4. Conclusions. Provide conclusions supported by the results or clinical experience, along with implications for practice.
The article should begin with a brief introductory statement that places the work to follow in historical perspective and explains its intent and significance.
|6.4)Materials and Methods|
These should be described and referenced in sufficient detail for other investigators to repeat the work. The source of hormones, unusual chemicals and reagents, and special pieces of apparatus should be stated. For modified methods, only the modifications need be described.
|6.5)Results and Discussion|
The Results section should briefly present the experimental data in text, tables, and/or figures. For details on preparation of tables and figures, see below. The Discussion should focus on the interpretation and significance of the findings with concise objective comments that describe their relation to other work in that area. The Discussion should not reiterate the Results.
The Acknowledgments section should include the names of those people who contributed to a study but did not meet the requirements for authorship. The corresponding author is responsible for informing each person listed in the acknowledgment section that they have been included and providing them with a description of their contribution so they know the activity for which they are considered responsible. Each person listed in the acknowledgments must give permission – in writing, if possible – for the use of his or her name. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to collect this information.
References to the literature should be cited in numerical order (in parentheses)
in the text and listed in the same numerical order at the end of the manuscript
on a separate page or pages. References first cited in a table or figure legend
should be numbered so that they will be in sequence with references cited in the
text at the point where the table or figure is first mentioned. The author is responsible
for the accuracy of references. The number of references cited should be limited.
Appropriate recent reviews should be cited whenever possible.
Tables must be constructed as simply as possible and be intelligible without reference to the text. Each table must have a concise heading and legend and must not simply duplicate the text or figures. Tables should be numbered consecutively. Be sure that each table is cited in the text e.g. Table 3. Tables must be sent as separate files. Do not insert tables or legends in the main document.
|6.9)Figures and Legends|
All figures must display the figure number and must have a concise title and legend.
Be sure that each figure is cited in the text.
|6.10)Units of Measure|
|Results should be expressed in metric units. Système Internationale (SI units) must be added in parentheses. Temperature should be expressed in degrees Celsius (e.g., 28 C) and time of day using the 24-hour clock (e.g., 0800 h, 1500 h).|
|All nonstandard abbreviations in the text must be defined immediately after the first use of the abbreviation.|
|7)Editorial Policies and Guidelines|
The journal publishes only original research and review material. Material previously published in whole or in part shall not be considered for publication. This includes materials published in any form of mass communication. At the time of submission, authors must divulge in their cover letter all prior publications or postings of the material in any form of media.
An author should have participated in either the conception or planning of the work, the interpretation of the results and the writing of the paper. An acknowledgment accompanying the paper is appropriate recognition for others who have contributed to a lesser extent, e.g., provision of clones, antisera or cell lines, or reading and reviewing manuscripts in draft. The signature of each author on the Affirmation of Originality and Assignment of Copyright form that must be submitted with the manuscript indicates that all authors have had a part in the writing and final editing of the report, all have been given a copy of the manuscript, all have approved the final version of the manuscript, and all are prepared to take public responsibility for the work, sharing responsibility and accountability for the results.
|7.3)Obligations of Reviewers|
The critical and confidential review of manuscripts is an essential element of research
publications. Every scientist has an obligation to contribute to the peer review
process by serving as a reviewer. Among the obligations of reviewers is the commitment
to providing an expert, critical, and constructive scientific and literary appraisal
of research reports in their fields of knowledge, skills, and experience in a fair
and unbiased manner. In order to facilitate the prompt sharing of scientific results,
it is also the obligation of each reviewer to complete their assignments promptly,
within the editor's deadline. Should a delay in their review occur, the reviewer
has the obligation to notify the editor at once. Reviewers should not review a manuscript
if: 1) they do not think that they are competent to assess the research described,
2) they believe there is a conflict of interest or personal or professional relationship
with the author(s) that might bias their assessment of the manuscript, or (3) there
is any other situation that could bias their review. Employment at the same institution
as one of the authors does not automatically represent a conflict. Having previously
reviewed the article for another journal does not disqualify a reviewer, although
the editor should be informed so the reviewer's perspective can be considered. In
circumstances when reviewers need to recuse themselves, they should notify the editor
promptly, preferably with an explanation. If reviewers are uncertain whether they
should recuse themselves, they should consult with the editor.
Detailed instruction for reviewers can be found here.
To be considered, all clinical investigations described in submitted manuscripts must have been conducted in accordance with the guidelines in The Declaration of Helsinki and must have been formally approved by the appropriate institutional review committees or its equivalent. All manuscripts must indicate that IRB approval was acquired; and that when informed consent was required by the IRB, that this was obtained from subjects in experiments involving humans. Investigators must disclose potential conflict of interest to study participants and should indicate in the manuscript that they have done so. The study populations should be described in detail. In many studies details of age, race, and sex are important. However, subjects must be identified only by number or letter, not by initials or names. Photographs of patients' faces should be included only if scientifically relevant. Authors should obtain written informed consent from the patient (EN) (RO) for use of such photographs." For further details, see the Ethical Guidelines.
A statement confirming that all animal experimentation described in the submitted manuscript was conducted in accord with accepted standards of humane animal care, as outlined in the Ethical Guidelines, should be included in the manuscript.
|7.6)Manuscripts Reporting New Amino Acid or Nucleotide Sequence|
Manuscripts reporting amino acid or nucleotide sequences of proteins with sequences already known from other tissues or species will be considered only if they provide new biological insight. Manuscripts dealing with partial sequence data are not likely to be considered. When a manuscript is accepted that contains novel sequences, such sequences must be deposited in the appropriate database (such as GenBank) and an accession number obtained before the manuscript is sent to the printer.
|7.7)Manuscripts Reporting Novel Compounds|
Manuscripts describing experiments with new compounds must provide their chemical structures. For known compounds, the source and/or literature reference to the chemical structure and characterization must be provided.
|7.8)Validation of Data and Statistical Analysis|
Assay validation: Bioassay and radioimmunoassay potency estimates should
be accompanied by an appropriate measure of the precision of these estimates. For
bioassays, these usually will be the standard deviation, standard error of the mean,
coefficient of variation, or 95% confidence limits. For both bioassays and radioimmunoassays,
it is necessary to include data relating to within-assay and between-assay variability.
If all relevant comparisons are made within the same assay, the latter may be omitted.
Authors should be aware that the precision of a measurement depends upon its position
on the dose-response curve.
|7.9)Digital Image Integrity|
When preparing digital images, authors must adhere to the following guidelines as stated in the CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications:
Deviations from these guidelines will be considered as potential ethical violations.
Note that this is an evolving issue, but these basic principles apply regardless of changes in the technical environment. Authors should be aware that they must provide original images when requested to do so by the Editor-in-Chief who may wish to clarify an uncertainty or concern.
[Please see paper of Rossner and Yamada (Journal of Cell Biology, 2004, 166:11-15), which was consulted in developing these policy issues, for additional discussion, and the CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, published by the Council of Science Editors, 2006.]
|8)Publication and Production Guidelines|
|8.1)Proofs and Reprints|
|Reprints are sent to the corresponding author. The corresponding author can order a number of reprints, when the paper was accepted for publication, at the price of 200 EUR/20 reprints. A pdf copy can be ordered at a price of 25 EUR/pdf.|
|8.2)Page and Color Charges|
|There are no processing fees for the Journal, if the length of the paper (word count) and the number and size of tables and figures are respected. The word count for original articles (general endocrinology or Clinical reports) should be no longer than 3,500 words, references no more than 40 and figures / tables no more than 8 in total (word count is for text only, not including the abstract, references, figure legends and table legends). The structured abstract should be no longer than 300 words. Case reports no longer than 2,000 words, with maximum 20 references and 4 figures or tables. Review articles should be no longer than 4,500 words, references no more than 80, and figures and tables no more than 6 in total. For extra pages the fees are of 12 EUR per page. Colored figures or tables can be published at special request, but no more than 4. More than four colour figures or tables can be published after payment of 40 EUR per figure or table. Payment of these additional publication fees must be done only after the manuscript was accepted for publication, before print edition is released.|
|9)Journal Facts for Acta Endocrinologica (Buc)|
Editor-in-Chief: Corin Badiu
Editorial Board: Acta Endocrinologica (Buc) Editorial Board
Frequency of Publication: Quarterly
ISSN (print journal): 1841-0987
ISSN (online): 1843-066X
Indexing: Science Citation Index Expanded, ISI Master Journal List, DOAJ
Prof. Corin Badiu, MD, PhD, Editor-in-Chief
Acta Endocrinologica (Bucharest)
34-36 Aviatorilor blvd., 011863 Bucharest, Romania
Phone/Fax: +4021 319 87 18