IdeaSquare CERN Innovation Social Innovation Business Experimentation Experimental Innovation

Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

CIJ is an interdisciplinary, double-blind peer-reviewed journal seeking to advance theoretical and practical understanding and methodologies on how new knowledge turns into use for society. The current pilot activities at CERN’s IdeaSquare are used as an initial reference point and open data depository for comparative research purposes. The journal publishes original, short articles on in-situ innovation experiments dealing with various domains ranging from idea creation to consumer, end-user, business-to-business, policy decision-making or other topical areas. The submitted manuscripts may consider empirically different contexts e.g. projects, start-ups, small-medium enterprises, large multinational, or governmental agencies. The journal is receptive to all types of quantitative and qualitative methodologies investigating innovation management in-situ in these environments empirically. Authors across the world from diverse disciplines and functional perspectives are welcome to submit to the journal.

 

Section Policies

Original Articles

Editors
  • Valeria Brancolini
  • Valeria Brancolini
  • Saku Makinen
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

IdeaSquare Coffee papers

In addition to its main purpose of publishing experimental innovation research related results, CIJ also publishes more light, inspirational food-for-thought intended "IdeaSquare Coffee Papers". These pieces are collaborative efforts prepared by visiting researchers from various walks of life visiting or staying at CERN IdeaSquare premises. The identity of the contributing authors is kept anonymous (although known) but helpful hints can be found in the literature references. Editors of this section are Dr. Markus Nordberg and Valeria Brancolini.

Editors
  • Valeria Brancolini
  • Valeria Brancolini
  • Markus Nordberg
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted will first go through the initial screening that contains the evaluation of suitability of the submitted manuscript according to following criteria:

  1. topic of the submission is in line with the Aims and Scope of the CIJ;
  2. the submission presents results of empirical, experimental research;
  3. the formatting guidelines have been appropriately followed;
  4. the submission exhibits novelty and progress of scientific results.

If the submitted manuscript passes the initial screen, the Editor-in-Chief will recruit reviewers to assess the merits of the manuscript. Upon receipt of the reviews, the Editor-in-Chief will provide a recommendation to the authors stating whether the submission is accepted as is, revised, or rejected. Note that CIJ makes use of a double-blind review process in which the Editor-in-Chief knows the identity of the authors but the reviewers or authors do not. Our policy is to have a definite editorial decision by the end of the second review round.

CIJ strives to provide high-quality feedback to all authors within 30 days for each review round. The decision of the Editor-in-Chief (Reject, Major Revision, Minor Revision, and Accept) is emailed to corresponding author. The e-mail message will contain any reviews submitted and also in case of revision is needed the information for the steps needed in preparing the re-submission.

Revisions

All revisions should:

  1. at minimum address all issues identified by the reviewers and also other subsequent changes that author(s) feel implementing in improving their manuscript;
  2. be accompanied by a separate "Response to Reviewers" providing a point-by-point description of how the issues raised by the reviewers have been addressed.

 

Publication Frequency

Published twice a year, in June and December.

 

Open Access Policy

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

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The principles outlined below are inspired by the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

For more details please refer to the general guidelines of COPE at https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

Duties of Editors

  1. The Editors are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published;
  2. The Editors may discuss with other editors or reviewers in making decision;
  3. The Editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors;
  4. The Editors 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;
  5. The Editors should ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process;
  6. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author;
  7. The Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.

Duties of the Editorial Board

  1. The Editorial Board must keep information pertaining to submitted manuscripts confidential.
  2. The Editorial Board must disclose any conflicts of interest.
  3. The Editorial Board must evaluate manuscripts only for their intellectual content.
  4. The Editorial Board is responsible for making publication decisions for submitted manuscripts.

Duties of the Reviewer

  1. Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information;
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments;
  3. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation;
  4. Reviewers should request to the Editors attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge;
  5. In case, any reviewer feels that it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then the same must be communicated to the editors, so that the same could be sent to any other reviewer;
  6. Reviewers should not review 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 the Author

  1. The Authors should submit papers only on work that has been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and that complies with all relevant legislation;
  2. The Authors should   present   their   results   clearly,   honestly,   and   without   fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation;
  3. The Authors should endeavor to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others;
  4. The Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarized, and has not been published elsewhere;
  5. The Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere;
  6. The Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited;
  7. The Authors should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work;
  8. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Duplicitous or expressively inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable;
  9. 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;
  10. The Authors should ensure that the authorship accurately reflects individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting; and where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged;
  11. The Authors should disclose relevant funding sources and any existing or potential conflicts of interest. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed;
  12. 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 editors and the editor to retract or correct the paper.

 

Indexing

CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation is indexed in DOAJ.