1) ABOUT (Journal information)

NEMESIS 

Editor-in-Chief: Prof Raphael Olszewski, Department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, Cliniques universitaires saint Luc, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium

1. Introduction

Currently scientific journals all around the world accept to publish only positive effects of experimental and clinical research. Only successful studies have the right to be published and cited.

However, positive effects in research are frequently achieved after years of negative results. The negative results should also be accessible for scientific community as they represent the main source of progress, of inspiration, and of hope.

2. Aim and scope

Nemesis (Negative Effects in MEdical ScIenceS) is free open-access, post-publishing open evaluation peer-reviewed, and university funded journal (Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium). Nemesis is uisng CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence. Nemesis accepts for publication: original contribution in the field of oral surgery, oral and maxillofacial surgery, oncologic and reconstructive surgery, orthognathic surgery, distraction osteogenesis, craniofacial dysmorphoses and their surgery, salivary glands surgery, plastic facial surgery, cleft palate surgery, periodontal surgery, implant surgery, bone graft surgery around the head and face, trauma surgery of the face and the head, pre-prosthetic surgery, orofacial pain disorders, temporomandibular disorders, oral pathology, physical anthropology, bioarcheology around the head, face, and teeth, and dentomaxillofacial imaging.

The main scope of Nemesis is to accept studies providing with negative results obtained after applying a correct methodology (p-value>0.05, unconclusive studies, null hypothesis accepted). Nemesis accepts also submissions providing with sound results that are clearly in contradiction with current scientific literature on a specific topic, replication studies without reproducing the positive results that other authors described in primary article, studies describing complications and their management, the worst cases, diagnostic and treatment failures, devices and implants failures, three-dimensional anatomical descriptions of craniofacial syndromes and dysmorphoses, mysterious and orphan diseases, neglected areas of research related to our journal scope, drugs adverse effects, technical problems, relapse and failures in oral and maxillofacial surgery. Experimental and clinical studies are accepted. We do not accept animal studies. We accept original articles, reviews and systematic reviews, case reports, case series, technical notes, and letters to the Editor-in-Chief about our journal aims and scopes as negative effects may concern all of us. The target readership consists of dentists, maxillofacial surgeons, plastic surgeons, craniofacial surgeons, pediatric surgeons, maxillofacial physiotherapists, dentomaxillofacial radiologists, physical anthropologists, and forensic and legal experts in oral and maxillofacial area.

 Nemesis publishes articles in two languages: English and French with an abstract in English.

 Nemesis is a full open-access, full open evaluation peer-reviewed (post-publication external peer review), and evidence-based journal. Nemesis journal and instructions for authors are continuously improving to guarantee the readers and the authors the best quality achievable against other open access and not open access journals in the same field. Nemesis journal is following the guidelines of ICMJE (International Committee of medical journal editors; www.icmje.org/) (http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf).

Nemesis states the following: “This is an English language reprint of the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journal. Nemesis editor-in-chief prepared this reprint with support from Université catholique de Louvain (https://uclouvain.be/fr/index.html). The ICMJE has not endorsed nor approved the contents of this reprint. The official version of the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journal is located at www.ICMJE.org. Users should cite this official version when citing the document." Moreover, Nemesis follows extensively the information for authors from PLOS one journal (www.plos.org). Nemesis follows the highest publishing and ethical standards. We have modelled our submissions on the standards, and procedures established by the Public Library of Science (PLOS). Nemesis follows also the principles of transparency and best practice guidelines of WAME (World association of medical editors) (http://www.wame.org/about/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice).

 3. Nemesis follows the main criteria for publication below:

 3.1 The study presents the negative results of primary scientific research

 Nemesis publishes negative primary scientific research. We welcome submission in oral and maxillofacial surgery, oncologic reconstructive surgery, orthognathic surgery, distraction osteogenesis, craniofacial surgery, salivary glands surgery, plastic facial surgery, cleft palate surgery, periodontal surgery, implant surgery, bone graft surgery around the head and face, trauma surgery of the face and the head, pre-prosthetic surgery, orofacial pain disorders, temporomandibular disorders, oral pathology, physical anthropology and bioarcheology around fead, face and teeth, and the dentomaxillofacial imaging. We will not consider study protocols, hypotheses, essays, opinion pieces, policy papers, other type of secondary literature, or monographs.

We will consider the following types of articles:

Studies reporting negative results obtained after applying a correct methodology (p-value>0.05, inconclusive studies, null hypothesis accepted), studies providing with sound results that are clearly in contradiction with current scientific literature on a specific topic, replication studies without reproducing the positive results that other authors described in primary article, studies describing complications and their management, the worst cases, diagnostic and treatment failures, devices and implants failures, three-dimensional anatomical description of rare syndromes and/or of anatomical variations, mysterious and/or orphan diseases, neglected areas of research related to our journal scope, drugs adverse effects, technical problems, failures and relapse in surgery.

Reviews and systematic reviews are accepted for submission only if the methods used ensure the comprehensive and unbiased sampling of existing literature and their methodology can be reproduced. See the submission guidelines for more information about requirements for submitting a systematic review.

We accept submissions describing methods, software, hardware, databases, or other tools that failed in some of the domains that belong to Nemesis journal scope. We consider submissions if they follow the appropriate reporting guidelines. See the submission guidelines for more information.

Qualitative research can be submitted only if it adheres to appropriate study design and reporting guidelines as described in the submission guidelines.

Case reports and case series of complications, of failures, and of negative results in all the domains of Nemesis are accepted for publication as our journal follows the Hippocratic medicine which is primary built on knowledge from clinical cases. We consider these submissions only if they adhere to follow appropriate reporting guidelines (CARE guidelines, http://www.care-statement.org/resources/checklist). See the submission guidelines about requirements for clinical cases reporting.

 3.2 Results reported have not been published elsewhere

 3.2.1 Previously published studies

Nemesis does not accept for publication studies that have already been published, in whole or in part, elsewhere in the peer-reviewed open-access and/or in not-open access literature. All figures included in manuscripts should be original, and should not have been published in any previous publications. In addition, we will not consider submissions that are currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Nemesis will also consider work that has already been presented at conferences, and published as abstract or poster in conference proceedings.

 3.2.2 Replication studies

 Nemesis accepts replication studies that failed to provide the positive results from initial article. However, if a submitted study replicates or is very similar to previous work and gives the same result, authors must provide a sound scientific rationale for the submitted work and clearly reference and discuss the existing literature. Submissions that replicate or are derivative of existing work will likely be rejected if authors do not provide adequate justification.

 3.3 Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail

 Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls and replication. Sample sizes must be large enough to produce robust results, where applicable. Methods and reagents must be described in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce the experiments described. Nemesis may reject papers that do not meet these standards.

 3.4 Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data

 The data presented in the manuscript must support the conclusions drawn. Submissions will be rejected if the interpretation of results is unjustified or inappropriate, so authors should avoid overstating their conclusions. Authors may discuss possible implications for their results as long as these are clearly identified as hypotheses instead of conclusions.

 3.5 The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English or French

Nemesis does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Nemesis may reject papers that do not meet these standards. If the language of a paper is difficult to understand or includes many errors, we may recommend that authors seek independent editorial help before submitting a new version. These services can be found on the web using search terms like “scientific editing service” or “manuscript editing service.”

 3.6 The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics and experimentation and research integrity

3.6.1 Ethics on experimentation

Research published in Nemesis must have been conducted to the highest ethical standards. We reserve the right to reject any submission that does not meet these standards, which in some cases are more stringent than local ethical standards. Approval from the relevant body is required for studies involving: 1) Humans (live or tissue), including studies that are observational, survey-based, or include any personal data (see Editorial policies and Submission Guidelines), 2) Cell lines that are not commercially available (see Submission Guidelines). If approval was not obtained, authors must explain why it was not required. Please contact Nemesis staff at nemesis-pul@uclouvain.be if you have questions regarding your work and compliance with accepted ethical standards.

 3.6.2 Publication ethics

Nemesis adheres to principles ruled out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, https://publicationethics.org/). We adhere to its Code of Conduct (https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct) and to its Best Practice Guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines). Authors are expected to comply with best practices in publication ethics, specifically regarding authorship, dual publication, plagiarism, figure manipulation, and competing interests. For more details about Nemesis journal expectations for publication ethics, see the Editorial policies. Any concerns about the above should be addressed to the editorial office at nemesis-pul@uclouvain.be.

3.7 The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines

 Results must be rigorously reported, as appropriate based on community standards. More information about discipline-specific reporting guidelines can be found in the submission guidelines.

 4. Open evaluation external peer-review process

 4.1 Introduction

 A true scientific peer-review starts after publication of the article. Therefore, Nemesis applies a concept of a full post-publishing open-evaluation peer-review. Each submission to Nemesis passes through a rigorous quality control process before receiving a first decision. The initial in-house quality control deals with issues such as: 1) Compliance with the aim and scope of Nemesis, 2) Compliance with the instructions for authors (ORCID number for first and/or equivalent author and/or corresponding author, use of a correct template, compliance with styles, and references, language correctness), 3) Compliance with ethics in medical publication (ethical committee approval if needed, competing interests disclosure); 4) Check of article with anti-plagiarism software Compilatio; 5) Signing of copyright license CC-BY-SA 4.0.

Submissions may be returned to authors for queries. Then, the submission is published as version n°1. All active readers can apply for a open-evaluation peer-review of any published submission in Nemesis. An open-evaluation peer-review is also considered as a publication itself and must follow specific instructions and must use a open-evaluation template form [download here]. An open-evaluation peer-review cannot be anonymous as it will receive indexation, pagination, archiving and Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number. Each received open-evaluation peer-review will be checked by editorial team for compliance with Nemesis scope, for editorial policies, for ORCID ID, and for competing interests. The open-evaluation peer-reviewer cannot be any author or co-author of present or of any previous articles written by the same authors. An open evaluation peer-reviewer must be at least the first author of one article in the area of oral and maxillofacial surgery, and the abstract of that article should be accessible on Pubmed or in any open access oral and maxillofacial journal from DOAJ (Directory of open access journals) database. An open-evaluation peer-review must be polite, and bring added-value for the article or for the discussed topic. We can accept only one open-evaluation peer-review from the same reviewer for a single article. Each further version of a single initial article can be open evaluated once again by the initial open-evaluation peer-reviewer. The articles of main interest for the readership will receive many open-evaluation peer-reviews. The article with less interest will receive less open-evaluation peer-review. All types of articles published in Nemesis can receive open-evaluation peer-reviews. The time for sending an open-evaluation peer-review for any published article is not limited. At any time in the future, the authors may submit a new version of their initial article, called version n°2, n°3, etc. All versions of the same article together with all related open-evaluation peer-reviews belonging to these versions will be fully and freely accessible for all readers of Nemesis. Open-evaluation process guarantees a transparent peer-review of the author’s article. In Nemesis the reviewer is truly scientifically acknowledged for his/her intellectual work by a formal publication and archiving of his/her open-evaluation peer-review. The learning of medical reviewing is also made possible with this type of open evaluation system.

 4.2 Manuscript status

 Authors can check the status of a manuscript at any time in the submission system. Authors will also be notified by email when a decision is made.

 4.2.1 In-house quality control

New submission go through an in-house quality control to ensure adherence to our policies and requirements, including: 1) Relationship with aims and scopes of Nemesis, 2) Ethical requirements for human experimentation, 3) Patient informal consent (original studies, case reports), 4) Financial disclosures, 5) Competing interests, 6) Author names, affiliations, and emails, 7) ORCID Id provided for the first author, 8) Correct template use, 9) Figures and tables formatting, 10) Language correctness. We aim to check manuscripts as efficiently as possible, but timing may vary depending on whether we need to return the submission to the author for follow-up queries or additional information. You can expedite the progress of your manuscript during this stage by reviewing our submission guidelines beforehand and by responding promptly to our queries.

 4.2.2 Appeals

 Authors may submit a formal appeal for rejected submissions. Appeal requests must be made in writing to email address nemesis-pul@uclouvain.be with the word “appeal” in the subject line. Authors must provide detailed reasons for the appeal and point-by-point responses to Editor's comments. Decisions on appeals are final without exception. Priority is given to new submissions, so the appeal process may take longer than the original submission process.

 4.2.3 Author Proof

To ensure prompt publication, your manuscript will not be subject to detailed copyediting and you will not receive a typeset proof for review.

4.2.4 Indexing and archiving

All published articles (original articles and open-evaluation peer-reviews articles) will be deposited in Université catholique de Louvain university library depository system.

4.2.5 Publishing schedule

Nemesis strives to keep to a continuous publication schedule so that articles are published as quickly as possible, as soon as they are ready. We make exceptions for articles that need to be scheduled at a specific time, press released content, and other situations.

 4.2.6 Reprints

 All Nemesis content is freely Open-Access and you can print as many copies as you like for any purpose for free.

 4.3 Contact

 If you have any question at any stage please email us at nemesis-pul@uclouvain.be.

 4.4 Guidelines for reviewers in open-evaluation peer-review system

 All readers can access all content of the Nemesis (full open access) without registration.

 All reader which want to perform an open-evaluation peer-review needs to register and log in through the Nemesis webpage and provide with current institutional affiliation, current professional email, ORCID number, and competing statement. Open-evaluation peer-reviewing reader is called “active reader”. The open-evaluation peer-review is NOT anonymous and needs to use a open-evaluation template document [download here] to fill in. Tables and figures and allowed. There is no limitation for words, pages, figures, tables in open-evaluation peer-review article. Open-evaluation peer-review articles are free of charges.

 4.4.1 Competing interests

 You should not open evaluate and peer-review an article if you have a potential competing interest, including the following: 1) Prior or current collaborations with the author(s), 2) You are a direct competitor, 3) You may have a known history of antipathy with the author(s), 4) You might profit financially from the work. When submitting your open-evaluation peer-review, you must indicate whether or not you have any competing interests.

5. Editorial oversight

 5.1 Editor-in-chief

 Prof Raphael Olszewski DDS, MD, PhD

Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium

 5.2 International advisory board

 Prof Pierre Mahy, DDS, MD, PhD, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium

Prof Joël Ferri, MD, PhD, Université de Lille, France

Prof Jan Zapala, DDS, PhD, Collegium medicum, Uniwersytet Jagiellonski, Krakow, Poland

Prof Marcin Kozakiewicz, DDS, PhD, Uniwersytet medyczny Lodz, Poland

Dr Roman Khonsari, MD, PhD, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France

Dr Michèle Magremanne, MD, DDS, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium

 5.3 Technical support

 Mr Arnaud Willame, Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium

 5.4 Publisher

Université catholique de Louvain, Belgium

 

 6. Submission of your manuscript

 6.1 Checklist for getting started

 6.1.1 Is your manuscript the right for Nemesis journal?

 Read the criteria for publication and journal aims and scope for information on what we publish.

 6.1.2 Have you read our editorial policies?

 Review the editorial and publishing policies to understand the requirements that apply to your submission.

 6.1.3 Is the author list confirmed?

 Do you have the following information for all authors listed on the manuscript: 1) Full names, including initials if using, 2) All academic titles, 3) Current affiliations, 4) Email address, 5) Any potential competing interests, 6) Funding information, 7) Author contributions? Are all authors aware of the submission? Is the order of authors confirmed? Does the corresponding author and first equivalent authors have an ORCID iD?

 Read about authorship policy.

 6.1.4 Have you read our style and format guidelines?

 Read the submission guidelines for information about manuscript style and format.

Download sample of manuscript template here [download here].

 6.1.5 Does your study follow appropriate reporting guidelines?

 Read more about best practice in research reporting policies.

 6.1.6 Are you ready to declare funding sources and competing interests?

 Read our policies on disclosure of funding sources and competing interests.

 6.1.7 Have your read the license agreement?

 Nemesis applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-SA 4.0) license to works we publish. You must be prepared to sign the license agreement on behalf of all the authors. Read our licenses and copyright policy.

 6.1.8 Can you access the submission system?

 All manuscripts (articles and open-evaluation peer-reviews) must be submitted in the online submission system. If you are a new user, click “Register Now” to create an account. If you are having trouble accessing an existing account, click “Login Help” or email nemesis-pul@uclouvain.be.

 7. Open access

 Nemesis applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-SA 4.0) license to works we publish. Read Nemesis license and copyright policy.

 8. Journal impact and alternative metrics

 Following DORA (San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), 2012) statement lhttp://www.ascb.org/dora/], Nemesis does not consider Impact Factor to be a reliable metric to assess the performance of a given journal. Instead, Nemesis adheres to H-index, and to the development of modern alternative Article-Level Metrics, which enable scientists and the general public to engage more dynamically with open access published research.

 9. No publication fees

 Nemesis is independent from editorial Majors of medical scientific publication. Nemesis receives only support from Université catholique de Louvain, and adheres to open science initiative. Therefore, Nemesis publish articles for free without any author publication charges. There are no additional charges when authors submit further revised versions of the initial article. There are no charges on open-evaluation peer-review articles related to articles. There are no charges on correspondence with Editor in Chief. There are no additional charges based on color, length, figures, or other elements. 

 10. Indexing and archiving

 10.1 Indexing and archiving

 Nemesis preserves articles on the journal website, on Université catholique de Louvain repository, and will work with all new technologies to provide safe archiving for authors published articles and open-evaluation peer-reviews. The archives of Nemesis are free and open access. Permanent preservation of a journal total content is the responsibility of the journal publisher (Université catholique de Louvain) (ICMJE). In the event of Nemesis termination the journal publisher (Université catholique de Louvain) will transfer journal files to the Library of Université catholique de Louvain who can make the content available.

Nemesis journal have print-ISSN: 2593-3604 and electronic-ISSN: 2593-3612.

 10.2 Publishing schedule

 Nemesis strives to keep to a continuous publication schedule so that articles are published as quickly as possible, as soon as they are ready. We make exceptions for articles that need to be scheduled at a specific time, press released content, and other situations.

 11. Corrections and retractions

 11.1 Corrections

 Honest errors are a part of science and publishing and require publication of a correction when they are detected. Corrections are needed for errors of fact. Errata are accepted as further versions of the same article. Updates of previous publications (systematic review, clinical guidelines) are considered a new publication rather than a version of a previously published article.

If correction is needed, Nemesis will follow the following standards:

  • authors will be asked to publish a new version of the article including a correction notice as soon as possible detailing changes from and citing the original publication; the correction will be properly indexed,

  • Nemesis will post a new article version with details of the changes from the original version and the date on which the changes were made,

  • Nemesis will archive all prior versions of the article. The archive will be directly accessible to readers,

  • Previous electronic versions will prominently note that there are more recent versions of the article,

  • The citation will be to the most recent version.

Pervasive errors can result from a coding problem or a miscalculation and may result in extensive inaccuracies throughout an article. If such errors do not change the direction or significance of the results, interpretations, and conclusions of the article, a correction should be published that follows the standards above.

Errors serious enough to invalidate a paper’s results and conclusions may require retraction. However, retraction with republication can be considered in case where honest error (misclassification or miscalculation) leads to a major change in the direction or significance of the results, interpretations, and conclusions. If the error is judged to be unintentional, the underlying science appears valid, and the changed version of the paper survives further open-evaluation peer-review and editorial scrutiny, then retraction with republication of the changed paper, with an explanation, allows full correction of the scientific literature. All versions of the article will be accessible in Nemesis for all readers to assure a full transparency.

 11.2. Scientific misconduct, expression of concern, and retraction

 Scientific misconduct includes but is not necessarily limited to data fabrication; data falsification including deceptive manipulation of images; and plagiarism. When scientific misconduct is alleged, or concerns are raised about the conduct or integrity of work described in submitted or published papers, the Editor-in-chief will initiate appropriate procedures detailed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org/) and may choose to publish an expression of concern pending the outcomes of those procedures. If the procedures involve an investigation at the authors’ institution, the editor-in-chief will seek to discover the outcome of that investigation, notify readers of the outcome if appropriate, and if the investigation proves scientific misconduct, publish a retraction of the article. There may be circumstances in which no misconduct is proven, but an exchange of letters to the editor could be published to highlight matters of debate to readers.

Expressions of concern and retractions are not simple letter to the editor. They will be labeled, appear on electronic page, be indexed, and include in their heading the title of the original article. Online the retraction and original article will be linked in both directions and the retracted article will be clearly labeled as retracted in all of its forms (abstract, full text, pdf). The authors of the retraction should be the same as those of the article, but if they are unwilling or unable the editor will under certain circumstances accept retractions by other responsible persons, or the editor will be the sole author of the retraction or expression of concern. The text of the retraction will explain why the article is being retracted and include a complete citation reference to that article. Retracted articles will remain in the public domain and be clearly labeled as retracted. The validity of previous work by the author of a fraudulent paper cannot be assumed. Editors may ask the author’s institution to assure them of the validity of other work published in Nemesis, or they may retract it. If this is not done, editors may choose to publish an announcement expressing concern that the validity of previously published work is uncertain. The integrity of research may also be compromised by inappropriate methodology that could lead to retraction.

 12. Correspondence

Nemesis provides readers with the possibility of transparent, not anonymous, open-evaluation peer-review at any time after publication, and for all articles published in the journal. Moreover, Nemesis allows for comments, criticism, and questions over the journal itself, the journal policies and themes, and any relevant (ethical) issue in the correspondence section of the journal. You can download the correspondence template here [download here]. Authors of correspondence will be asked to declare any competing or conflicting interests. Correspondence will be edited for length, grammatical correctness, and journal style. Correspondence will receive an indexation, a DOI number, and a numbered electronic pagination. Editors will discard any discourteous, inaccurate, or libelous comments. Responsible debate, critique and disagreement are very important features of science, and Nemesis journal editors will encourage such discourse in Nemesis journal about the material already published. Editors will however reject correspondence that is irrelevant, uninteresting, or lacking cogency. Editors will allow a range of opinions to be expressed and to promote the debate. Nemesis journal encourages open-evaluation post-publishing peer-review by readers. Therefore we do not restrict the time for responding to published material and for debate on a given topic.

 13. Journal owner and editorial freedom

 13.1 Journal host

Nemesis is hosted by Université catholique de Louvain.  Nemesis shares the common values with Université catholique de Louvain.

 13.2 Editorial freedom

Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of Nemesis and the timing of publication of the content. Université catholique de Louvain do not interfere in the evaluation, selection, scheduling, or editing of individual articles either directly or by creating an environment that strongly influences decisions. Editors base editorial decisions on the validity of the work and its importance to the Nemesis readers.

Nemesis is a non-profit journal. Nemesis has an independent editorial advisory board to help the Editor-in-Chief to establish and to maintain editorial policies. If legal problems arise the Editor-in-Chief will inform the legal adviser of Université catholique de Louvain as soon as possible.

 14. Electronic publishing

Nemesis is an electronic open-access journal, and may be linked to sites and resources beyond over which journal editors have no editorial control. For this reason, and because links to external sites could be perceived as implying endorsement of those sites, Nemesis editors state that it does not endorse or take responsibility or liability for any content, advertising, products, or other materials on the linked sites, and do not take responsibility for the sites’ availability. Permanent preservation of Nemesis is essential for historical record.

 15. Advertising

 Advertising other than announcement of congresses, symposia, workshops related to the topic of Nemesis journal and to those related to university-quality open-access medical publishing and open evaluation peer-review approach are prohibited.

16. Authors of instructions for authors

The authors of instructions for authors are Olszewski Raphael and Hebda Aleksandra.

The last review of the instructions for authors was performed on 25.11.2018.