for Authors

Manuscript preparation

Authors must use the Microsoft Word template when preparing their manuscript. There is no fee for publication. The editorial team recommends that the final version of the translation in English to be verified by a translator authorised in that specific field.

The TITLE must strictly refer to the manuscript content and should be concise and relevant.

The NAMES OF THE AUTHORS and their affiliations must be entered. For manuscripts with several authors, at least one must be designated as the corresponding author.

The ABSTRACT must consist of 200 – 250 words with strict reference to the research conducted. The abstract must be brief, concise and synthetic. It should begin with a clear enunciation of the goal of the study, then continue with a brief presentation of the working methods used, followed by the important results of the study and the main conclusions. The abstract should not include reference sources.

KEYWORDS are mandatory and a maximum of 5 words or phrases should be provided.

The following successive sections must be included in every manuscript:


The INTRODUCTION must not exceed 1500 characters, including spaces. It will synthetically present the necessity of the research, arguing in terms of their scientific opportunity. In addition, any reference data from the scientific informational flow should be quoted within. The meaning of abbreviations should be explained on their first appearance in the text. The introduction should end with the specification of the purpose for which the scientific research was carried out.


The MATERIALS AND METHODS should present the data that were achieved using methods that comply with all biological, analytical and statistical techniques. If the data are issued from the usage of some new methods or from others that supposed modifications of the standard procedures, they must be mentioned. There will be also specified the conditions existing during data sampling, measurements and statistical models, all clearly and briefly described.


The RESULTS AND DISCUSSION can be presented together or separately. It is recommended to use tables, figures and photos as the presentation form for the results. In order to allow the reader to correctly interpret the data, the presentation of the significant results must be associated with any information concerning the kind and volume of the original data and, when necessary and appropriate, the data might be related to other results in various reference sources of the scientific field.

In cases where the DISCUSSION is separate to the results, it should strictly refer to the interpretation of the scientific results. In order to enhance the quality of the scientific work, there must be made a comparative analysis with other results in national and international references. The resumption of any previously presented results should be avoided.

Tables must be numbered as they appear in the manuscript. Abbreviations used in the table should be explained in footnotes (numbered), placed just under the table, so as the table should be interpreted separately from the text.

Non-textual elements (figures, schematics and photographs) must be numbered in the order in which they appear in the manuscript. Legends and other explanations will be written below.


When writing the CONCLUSIONS, it is not recommended to resume data previously specified in text, tables, figures or schematics.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (in case that the scientific manuscript has been prepared based on research funded from various research grants or other situations).

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Authors should declare any personal circumstances or interests that may be perceived as influencing the results obtained and reported. If there are no conflicts of interest, the authors had to state this clearly.


The REFERENCES must be written and numbered in the order of their citation in the text. It is preferable to enter the DOI codes if they exist.

Publication Ethics Statement

ALSE is open to the entire academic community.

In order to ensure the highest possible standard for the published contents, a single blind revision policy is carried out.

All authors, editors and reviewers must accept and fulfil the responsibilities arising from the journal’s statement of ethics.

Thus, the authors must assure us that the manuscript sent to the editor is original, that they obtained the consent of all co-authors to send it and that it was not sent to other journals. They must also ensure that the provisions relating to the academic citation have been complied with, that they do not infringe the rights of other authors and that they are not aware of any conflict of interest.

The members of the editorial board evaluate the manuscripts in terms of academic requirements and are responsible for making publication decisions or, on the contrary, for rejection, taking into account the originality and relevance to the topic of the journal. Respects the confidentiality of the information contained in the manuscripts, identifies the reviewers to whom they send them depending on their specialisation and the non-existence of conflicts of interest. Inform both authors and reviewers correctly and in a timely manner.

The reviewers assume the evaluation of the articles taking into account their original character and their significance in connection with the topic of the journal.

They must send consistent and pertinent comments and recommendations to effectively help authors improve the quality of manuscripts and also have the obligation to report possible conflicts of interest and to respect the confidentiality of the information contained in the manuscripts.

Editorial Procedures and Peer-Review

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluates by the Editor-in-Chief, who decides their suitability and appropriateness for the Journal. After the editorial examination, if considered and recommended before publishing, the manuscript is checked for similarity.

Manuscripts with no overlaps are then submitted to two independent reviewers for peer review, which takes the form of a technical recommendation to the editor.

The reviewers will be chosen so as not to be in conflict of interest with the authors, and to have visibility in the field of study approached in the manuscript.

For minor or major revisions, the editor returns the article to the authors for improvement. The articles are accompanied by reviewer reports that contain observations, suggestions and recommendations to help authors make improvements in terms of scientific content and presentation.

Authors must respond reasonably to each comment of the reviewers, in a cover letter, as soon as possible, so as not to unnecessarily prolong the editorial process.

In the revised manuscript, each change must be visible to reviewers and editors, preferably using the track changes function of Microsoft Word.

If the authors do not agree with the reviewers’ comments, they can express their opinion in a separate document.

Editors will consider authors’ opinions carefully but they are not obliged to accept their objections. In all cases, the Editor-in-Chief will take the final decision.

This reviewing process may last up to a month.