Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Annals of Silvicultural Research (ASR) features original scientific articles, reviews, international project reports and notes on all aspects of silviculture. Related subject-matters include forest dynamics, forest ecology, dendro-ecology, forest stand assessment, agro-forestry and silvopastoralism, conservation of biodiversity and genetic resources, protection of forest ecosystems, maintenance of their multifunctional role and of the provision of goods and services.  For more details see Topics of ASR and the Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement


 

Section Policies

Review papers

A review paper reports a critical, complete and updated synthesis of information on a target topic. Any proposal of review has to be discussed with editors prior to submission. A blind peer review process will be conducted on submissions.

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Research papers

research paper reports the results of a novel, substantial, and completed scientific work; it can also refer to a study case, but has to provide a meaningful contribute to the scientific community. A blind peer review process will be conducted on submissions.

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

International project reports

An international project report communicates the outcomes or contents of a scientific or innovation-oriented project with transnational importance. A blind peer review process will be conducted on submissions.

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Dataset papers

A dataset paper reports a metadata description of a set of data collected and organised by the authors and released under an open access policy. The rough data can be published as and supplementary file or (if the size does not allow) they can be stored in any other permanent repository. Alternatively, for very big dataset, the private storage can be admitted but the on-demand-delivery must be guaranteed.

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Concept notes

A concept note should be short well-documented text that would expose novel ideas that challenge current scientific thinking on silviculture issues.

Submission of a concept note is subjected to a formal invitation by the Editor in chief. Nonetheless, authors interested in submitting a concept note can contact the editors for an invitation to submit.

The Editor in chief (with the help of a qualified member of the Editorial board) will conduct the review of any concept note.

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Technical notes

A technical note is an article giving a brief description of a technique or procedure supporting silvicultural research. It may also refer to the modification of a technique, procedure or equipment of interest to the journal. A blind peer review process will be conducted on submissions.

Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The correspondence of each submitted manuscript to the Topics of ASR has to be verified by the editorial board. If the manuscript meets the editorial requirements it is forwarded to a double blind peer review process. The peer review process ensures the scientific effectiveness of the paper and it is done by experts of the specific subject of the manuscript. Up to three referees are asked to review the submitted manuscript. They are invited to complete the whole process in 4/8 weeks and fill a review form with comments to the author(s). The reviewers are asked to give their opinion also on the suitability to the publication. The chief editor then makes a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:

  1. accept, with or without minor editorial revisions;

  2. invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached;

  3. reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission

  4. reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or substantial problems.

The author(s) is (are) informed by the editorial boards on the decision and is (are) invited to address reviewers' comments or discuss their comments with proper justifications. In the case of decision 1 the manuscripts is managed only by editors before publication. In the case of decision 2 the amended manuscript version has to be returned to the same reviewers. In the case of the decision 3 the new manuscript has to be resubmitted for a new entire process with potentially different reviewers. After the author(s) submit(s) the last amended version of the manuscript the editorial board checks if it meets the criteria of the peer review process and forward it to the chief editor for the final decision.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides an immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Furthermore ASR does not charge Authors for any submission or processing fee.  

 

Topics

The topics of ASR are the theory and the practice of silvicultural systems, and related forestry issues. Distinctively, the journal deals with research experiences concerning:

- theoretical development and check in the practice of innovative criteria and methods of cultivation of forest stands of natural origin and of forest plantations,

- conservation of forest biodiversity and environmental protection related to silvicultural systems,

- bioecological functioning and monitoring of forest ecosystems under-cultivation and in the post-cultivation phase,

- forest genetic resources related to silvicultural systems,

- forest management, inventory and geomatics to support silvicultural system application,

- forest tree farming and integrated agroforestry systems,

- silvicultural prevention of forest fires and post-fire management.

 

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Publication decisions
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
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 confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play
An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

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 exclude 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.

Acknowledgement 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 published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

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 behavior and are unacceptable.

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. Tools to detect plagiarism are used by the editors to assure originality.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

Journal history

Annals of Silvicultural Research is the following up, translation and on-line transformation of the printed scientific journal featured under different names since 1932 by the Forestry Research Centre.

 

Volumes          Years               Name of journal

1-14                1932-1967      Pubblicazioni della Regia Stazione Sperimentale di Selvicoltura

15-18              1968-1969      Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura

19-30              1970-1999      Annali dell’Istituto Sperimentale per la Selvicoltura

31-36              2004-2010      Annali CRA-Centro di Ricerca per la Selvicoltura

 

Previous numbers are available to download here.

 

Cookie Policy

A number of our pages use cookies to remember:

  • your display preferences, such as contrast colour settings or font size
  • if you have already replied to a survey pop-up that asks you if the content was helpful or not (so you won't be asked again)
  • if you have agreed (or not) to our use of cookies on this site

Also, some videos embedded in our pages use a cookie to anonymously gather statistics on how you got there and what videos you visited.

Enabling these cookies is not strictly necessary for the website to work but it will provide you with a better browsing experience. You can delete or block these cookies, but if you do that some features of this site may not work as intended.

The cookie-related information is not used to identify you personally and the pattern data is fully under our control. These cookies are not used for any purpose other than those described here.