Our story

Launched in 2015

Nearly full Open Access

We used SPARC*'s (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) - HowOpenIsIt Guide for Evaluating the Openness of Journals (pdf leaflet available here) and the Open Access Spectrum Evaluation Tool to evaluate the 'openness' of ESNBU and we scored 86% Open Access! We're working to improve our machine readability.

We operate two peer review systems

  • double blind - author and reviewers are undisclosed
  • open review - reviewers choose to disclose their names and publish their review, disclose their name but withold the review, or remain anonymous but publish the review

We reward our reviewers through an online platform, Publons.com.

Visit the ESNBU journal profile and see that many of our reviewers have signed up so their work is acknowledged. Some of them have also used their verified peer review records in job applications, performance reviews, competency assessments, development plans, salary reviews. If nothing else, this verified record helps them build an evidence-based case in one of the harder categories to prove: Service.

We love submissions from doctoral students

Most often PhD students have very interesting and original ideas. Big and 'reputable' journals also often reject such papers because the PhD candidate hasn't published earlier and their names are not of 'renowned' authors. Vicious circle...
Not us, though. We encourage PhD students to submit manuscripts and we offer them the chance to publish if they can meet the requirements. However, beginning researchers may need help with academic writing and we offer such help along the way if we see potential in a manuscript. Therefore, we have a special Doctoral Section in the journal.

We also love 'negative results' submissions

Who said research is a smooth one-time-perfect experiment? As researchers we are objective observers, and results are judged as positive-negative based on our hypothesis. Proving our hypothesis wrong is not embarrassing so that you'd hide years of hard work at the bottom of your desk drawer. Rather 'wrong' hypotheses must be anounced as this may save time, effort and resources for other researchers, so that they do not repeat the same procedure, or think in that direction. We believe that 'research failures' are even more developmental than only positive results in working models.

Discuss