Focus and Scope

ARPHA Conference Abstracts (ACA) is an innovative open access, peer reviewed, human- and machine-readable journal-style platform designed to assist conference organisers and participants in submission, peer review, editorial management, production, publication and dissemination of conference abstracts in any field of science. The whole process takes place within a single online collaborative environment: ARPHA Writing Tool. Thus, ACA is recommended as a convenient abstract-submission portal to serve as such as soon as a conference’s call for abstracts is opened. 

In ACA, abstracts are published into conference-branded collections, which can be subdivided, e.g. by symposia, workshops, or sections, so that each sub-collection can be managed by different conference conveners and editors.

ACA allows for innovative publication that may also include data, citations, figures and tables. Video recordings of conference talks or graphic files of poster presentations can be uploaded after the conference and visualised on each article page. 

ACA publishes conference abstracts in semantically enhanced HTML and PDF formats, as well as machine-readable XML. Several additional services (e.g., linguistic editing, promotion and PR) are also available per agreement.

ACA assigns and registers DOIs for individual conference abstracts in full compliance with CrossRef's metadata requirements for conference materials.
The platform does not publish conventional research articles or full-text papers. 


Open Access

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.

Copyright Notice

License and Copyright Agreement

In submitting the manuscript to any of Pensoft’s journals, authors certify that: 

  • They are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements. 
  • The work described has not been published before (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review or thesis); it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; its publication has been approved by all author(s) and responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out. 
  • They secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or where copyright is owned by someone else. 
  • They agree to the following license and copyright agreement:


  • Copyright on any article is retained by the author(s) or the author's employer. Regarding copyright transfers please see below. 
  • Authors grant Pensoft Publishers a license to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. 
  • Authors grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its original authors and citation details are identified. 
  • The article and published supplementary material are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0):

Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0)

Anyone is free:

to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work 
to Remix — to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution. The original authors must be given credit. 

  • For any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are. 
  • Any of these conditions can be waived if the copyright holders give permission. 
  • Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.

The full legal code of this license.

Copyright Transfers

Any usage rights are regulated through the Creative Commons License. Since Pensoft Publishers is using the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), anyone (the author, their institution/company, the publisher and the public) is free to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt the work as long as the original author is credited (see above). Therefore, specific usage rights cannot be reserved by the author or their institution/company and the publisher cannot include a statement "all rights reserved" in any published paper.

Website design and publishing framework: Copyright © Pensoft Publishers.

CLOCKSS system has permission to ingest, preserve, and serve this Archival Unit.

Privacy Statement

The personal information used on this website is to be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal. It will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.


Some journals are integrated with Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT), in order to recognise individual author input within a publication, thereby ensuring professional and ethical conduct, while avoiding authorship disputes, gift / ghost authorship and similar pressing issues in academic publishing.

During manuscript submission, the submitting author is strongly recommended to specify a contributor role for each of co-author, i.e. Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing - Original draft, Writing - Review and Editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding Acquisition (see more). For the journals that are not integrated with CRediT, the submitting author is encouraged to specify the roles as a free text. Once published the article will include the contributor role for all authors in the article metadata.

Use of AI

Authors must be transparent about the use of Artificial Intelligence tools such as ChatGPT and other large language models in the manuscript preparation, and disclose details of how the AI tool was used within the "Materials and Methods" section.

Indexing and Archiving

ARPHA Conference Abstracts (ACA)  provides indexing and archiving services to enhance the visibility and discoverability of publications by submitting all published abstracts collections in a wide range of globally recognised databases, including:

  • Altmetric
  • ASOS Indeks
  • BASE
  • CNKI
  • CrossRef
  • Dimensions
  • GALE
  • OpenAIRE
  • Portico
  • ScienceOpen
  • Scilit
  • Semantic Scholar
  • Sherpa/Romeo
  • Ulrichsweb™
  • Zenodo

Conference abstracts collections are included in the specific database only if they meet the criteria.


The journal will consider inquiries for the placement of advertisements as a banner (specified size) in a dedicated section on the journal’s homepage on a case-by-case basis. Each request will be subject to evaluation by the journal’s management team in order to determine if the content is appropriate and that it does not infringe the rights of any persons or other third parties. The content should be related to the journal’s topical focus. Illegal, discriminatory, obscene, abusive, pornographic, and otherwise harmful or offensive content will not be permissible. The journal does not endorse and is not liable for the content of advertisements displayed on its website.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement


The publishing ethics and malpractice policies follow the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, WAME, and OASPA), the NISO Recommended Practices for the Presentation and Identification of E-Journals (PIE-J), and, where relevant, the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals from ICMJE.

Privacy statement

The personal information used on this website is to be used exclusively for the stated purposes of each particular journal. It will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party. 

Open access

Pensoft and ARPHA-hosted journals adhere strictly to gold open access to accelerate the barrier-free dissemination of scientific knowledge. All published articles are made freely available to read, download, and distribute immediately upon publication, given that the original source and authors are cited (Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0)).

Open data publishing and sharing

Pensoft and ARPHA encourage open data publication and sharing, in accordance with Panton’s Principles and FAIR Data Principles. For the domain of biodiversity-related publications Pensoft has specially developed extended Data Publishing Policies and Guidelines for Biodiversity Data. Specific data publishing guidelines are available on the journal website. 

Data can be published in various ways, such as preservation in data repositories linked to the respective article or as data files or packages supplementary to the article. Datasets should be deposited in an appropriate, trusted repository and the associated identifier (URL or DOI) of the dataset(s) must be included in the data resources section of the article. Reference(s) to datasets should also be included in the reference list of the article with DOIs (where available). Where no discipline-specific data repository exists authors should deposit their datasets in a general repository such as, for example Zenodo or others. 

Submission, peer review and editorial process

The peer review and editorial processes are facilitated through an online editorial system and a set of email notifications. Pensoft journals’ websites display stepwise description of the editorial process and list all necessary instructions and links. These links are also included in the respective email notification.

General: Publication and authorship

  • All submitted papers are subject to a rigorous peer review process by at least two international reviewers who are experts in the scientific field of the particular paper. 
  • The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language. 
  • A declaration of potential Conflicts of Interest is a mandatory step in the submission process. The declaration becomes part of the article metadata and is displayed in both the PDF and HTML versions of the article.
  • The journals allow several rounds of review of a manuscript. The ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions lies with the respective Subject Editor and, in some cases, with the Editor-in-Chief. All appeals should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief, who may decide to seek advice among the Subject Editors and Reviewers.
  • The possible decisions include: (1) Accept, (2) Minor revisions, (3) Major revisions, (4) Reject, but re-submission encouraged and (5) Reject. 
  • If Authors are encouraged to revise and re-submit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. 
  • The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. 
  • No research can be included in more than one publication.
  • Editors-in-Chief, managing editors and their deputies are strongly recommended to limit the amount of papers co-authored by them. As a rule of thumb, research papers (co-)authored by Editors-in-Chief, managing editors and their deputies must not exceed 20% of the publications a year, with a clear task to drop this proportion below 15%. By adopting this practice, the journal is taking extra precaution to avoid endogeny and conflicts of interest, while ensuring the editorial decision-making process remains transparent and fair.
  • Editors-in-Chief, managing editors and handling editors are not allowed to handle manuscripts co-authored by them.

Responsibility of Authors

  • Authors are required to agree that their paper will be published in open access under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) license.
  • Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work. 
  • Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere. 
  • Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 
  • Authors should submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English and formatted in accordance with the journal’s Author Guidelines.
  • Authors must participate in the peer review process. 
  • Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes. 
  • All Authors mentioned are expected to have significantly contributed to the research. 
  • Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest. 
  • Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript. 
  • Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
  • Authors should acknowledge all significant funders of the research pertaining to their article and list all relevant competing interests.   
  • Other sources of support for publications should also be clearly identified in the manuscript, usually in an acknowledgement (e.g. funding for the article processing charge; language editing or editorial assistance).
  • The corresponding author should provide the declaration of any conflicts of interest on behalf of all authors. Conflicts of interest may be associated with employment, sources of funding, personal financial interests, membership of relevant organisations or others.
  • Manuscripts in revision have to be revised and resubmitted within a reasonable time span. The authors are aware that manuscripts not revised within 100 days after the revision decision will be rejected and have, if desired by the authors, to be submitted afresh.

Responsibility of Reviewers

  • The manuscripts will be reviewed by two or three experts in order to reach first decision as soon as possible. Reviewers do not need to sign their reports but are welcome to do so. They are also asked to declare any conflicts of interests.
  • Reviewers are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to focus on its scientific quality, as well as for the overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. If Reviewers recognize that a manuscript requires linguistic edits, they should inform both Authors and Editor in the report.
  • Reviewers are asked to check whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, how interesting it is and whether the quality of the writing is acceptable.
  • In cases of strong disagreement between the reviews or between the Authors and Reviewers, the Editors can judge these according to their expertise or seek advice from a member of the journal's Editorial Board.
  • Reviewers are also asked to indicate which articles they consider to be especially interesting or significant. These articles may be given greater prominence and greater external publicity, including press releases addressed to science journalists and mass media.
  • During a second review round, the Reviewer may be asked by the Subject Editor to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript with regards to Reviewer’s recommendations submitted during the first review round.
  • Reviewers are asked to be polite and constructive in their reports. Reports that may be insulting or uninformative will be rescinded.
  • Reviewers are asked to start their report with a very brief summary of the reviewed paper. This will help the Editors and Authors see whether the reviewer correctly understood the paper or whether a report might be based on misunderstanding.
  • Further, Reviewers are asked to comment on originality, structure and previous research: (1) Is the paper sufficiently novel and does it contribute to a better understanding of the topic under scrutiny? Is the work rather confirmatory and repetitive? (2) Is the introduction clear and concise? Does it place the work into the context that is necessary for a reader to comprehend the aims, hypotheses tested, experimental design or methods? Are Material and Methods clearly described and sufficiently explained? Are reasons given when choosing one method over another one from a set of comparable methods? Are the results clearly but concisely described? Do they relate to the topic outlined in the introduction? Do they follow a logical sequence? Does the discussion place the paper in scientific context and go a step beyond the current scientific knowledge on the basis of the results? Are competing hypotheses or theories reasonably related to each other and properly discussed? Do conclusions seem reasonable?  Is previous research adequately incorporated into the paper? Are references complete, necessary and accurate? Is there any sign that substantial parts of the paper were copies of other works?
  • 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.
  • Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. 
  • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  • Reviewers should also call 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.

Responsibility of Editors

  • Editors in Pensoft’s journals carry the main responsibility for the scientific quality of the published papers and base their decisions solely on the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
  • The Subject Editor takes the final decision on a manuscript’s acceptance or rejection and his/her name is listed as "Academic Editor" in the header of each article.
  • The Subject Editors are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to focus on its scientific quality, as well as the overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. 
  • Editors are expected to spot small errors in orthography or stylistic during the editing process and correct them.
  • Editors should always consider the needs of the Authors and the Readers when attempting to improve the publication. 
  • Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record. 
  • Editors should preserve the anonymity of Reviewers, unless the latter decide to disclose their identities. 
  • Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines. 
  • Editors should act if they suspect misconduct and make all reasonable attempts to obtain a resolution to the problem. 
  • Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
  • Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between Authors, Reviewers and Board Members.
  • Editors are allowed to publish a limited proportion of papers per year co-authored by them, after considering some extra precautions to avoid an impression of impropriety, endogeny, conflicts of interest and ensure that the editorial decision-making process is transparent and fair.
  • Editors-in-Chief, managing editors and handling editors are not allowed to handle manuscripts co-authored by them.

Neutrality to geopolitical disputes


The strict policy of Pensoft and its journals is to stay neutral to any political or territorial dispute. Authors should depoliticize their studies by avoiding provoking remarks, disputable geopolitical statements and controversial map designations; disputable territories should be referred to as well-recognised and non-controversial geographical areas. Тhe journal reserves the right to mark such areas at least as disputable at or after publication, to publish editor's notes, or to reject/retract the paper.

Authors' affiliations

Pensoft does not take decisions regarding the actual affiliations of institutions. Authors are advised to provide their affiliation as indicated on the official internet site of their institution.


Editorial decisions should not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. Decisions to edit and publish should not be determined by the policies of governments or other agencies outside of the journal itself.

Human and animal rights

The ethical standards in medical and pharmacological studies are based on the Helsinki declaration (1964, amended in 1975, 1983, 1989, 1996, 2000 and 2013) of the World Medical Association and the Publication Ethics Policies for Medical Journals of the World Association of Medical Journals (WAME).

Authors of studies including experiments on humans or human tissues should declare in their cover letter a compliance with the ethical standards of the respective institutional or regional committee on human experimentation and attach committee’s statement and informed consent; for those researchers who do not have access to formal ethics review committees, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki should be followed and declared in the cover letter. Patients’ names, initials, or hospital numbers should not be used, not in the text nor in any illustrative material, tables of databases, unless the author presents a written permission from each patient to use his or her personal data. Photos or videos of patients should be taken after a warning and agreement of the patient or of a legal authority acting on his or her behalf.

Animal experiments require full compliance with local, national, ethical, and regulatory principles, and local licensing arrangements and respective statements of compliance (or approvals of institutional ethical committees where such exists) should be included in the article text.

Informed consent

Individual participants in studies have the right to decide what happens to the identifiable personal data gathered, to what they have said during a study or an interview, as well as to any photograph that was taken. Hence it is important that all participants gave their informed consent in writing prior to inclusion in the study. Identifying details (names, dates of birth, identity numbers and other information) of the participants that were studied should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the participant (or parent or guardian if the participant is incapable) gave written informed consent for publication. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve in some cases, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic profiles, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning.

The following statement should be included in the article text in one of the following ways:

  • "Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study."
  • "Informed consent was obtained from all individuals for whom identifying information is included in this article." (In case some patients’ data have been published in the article or supplementary materials to it).

Gender issues

We encourage the use of gender-neutral language, such as 'chairperson' instead of 'chairman' or 'chairwomen', as well as 'they' instead of 'she/he' and 'their' instead of  'him/her' (or consider restructuring the sentence).

Conflict of interest

During the editorial process, the following relationships between editors and authors are considered conflicts of interest: Colleagues currently working in the same research group or department, recent co-authors, and doctoral students for which the editor served as committee chair. During the submission process, the authors are kindly advised to identify possible conflicts of interest with the journal editors. After manuscripts are assigned to the handling editor, individual editors are required to inform the managing editor of any possible conflicts of interest with the authors. Journal submissions are also assigned to referees to minimize conflicts of interest. After manuscripts are assigned for review, referees are asked to inform the editor of any conflicts that may exist.

Appeals and open debate

We encourage academic debate and constructive criticism. Authors are always invited to respond to any editorial correspondence before publication. Authors are not allowed to neglect unfavorable comments about their work and choose not to respond to criticisms. 

No Reviewer’s comment or published correspondence may contain a personal attack on any of the Authors. Criticism of the work is encouraged. Editors should edit (or reject) personal or offensive statements. Authors should submit their appeal on editorial decisions to the Editorial Office, addressed to the Editor-in-Chief or to the Managing Editor. Authors are discouraged from directly contacting Editorial Board Members and Editors with appeals.

Editors will mediate all discussions between Authors and Reviewers during the peer review process prior to publication. If agreement cannot be reached, Editors may consider inviting additional reviewers if appropriate. 

The Editor-in-Chief will mediate all discussions between Authors and Subject Editors.

The journals encourage publication of open opinions, forum papers, corrigenda, critical comments on a published paper and Author’s response to criticism.


Research misconduct may include: (a)  manipulating research materials, equipment or processes; (b) changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the article; c) plagiarism. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. If misconduct is suspected, journal Editors will act in accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines.

Plagiarism and duplicate publication policy
A special case of misconduct is plagiarism, which is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit. Plagiarism is considered theft of intellectual property and manuscripts submitted to this journal which contain substantial unattributed textual copying from other papers will be immediately rejected. Editors are advised to check manuscripts for plagiarism via the iThenticate service by clicking on the "ïThenticate report" button. Journal providing a peer review in languages other than English (for example, Russian) may use other plagiarism checking services (for example, Antiplagiat). 
Instances, when authors re-use large parts of their publications without providing a clear reference to the original source, are considered duplication of work. Slightly changed published works submitted in multiple journals is not acceptable practice either. In cases of plagiarism in an already published paper or duplicate publication, an announcement will be made on the journal publication page and a procedure of retraction will be triggered.

Responses to possible misconduct

All allegations of misconduct must be referred to the Editor-In-Chief. Upon the thorough examination, the Editor-In-Chief and deputy editors should conclude if the case concerns a possibility of misconduct. All allegations should be kept confidential and references to the matter in writing should be kept anonymous, whenever possible.

Should a comment on potential misconduct be submitted by the Reviewers or Editors, an explanation will be sought from the Authors. If it is satisfactory and the issue is the result of either a mistake or misunderstanding, the matter can be easily resolved. If not, the manuscript will be rejected or retracted and the Editors may impose a ban on that individual's publication in the journals for a certain period of time. In cases of published plagiarism or dual publication, an announcement will be made in both journals explaining the situation.

When allegations concern authors, the peer review and publication process for their submission will be halted until completion of the aforementioned process. The investigation will be carried out even if the authors withdraw the manuscript, and implementation of the responses below will be considered.

When allegations concern reviewers or editors, they will be replaced in the review process during the ongoing investigation of the matter. Editors or reviewers who are found to have engaged in scientific misconduct should be removed from further association with the journal, and this fact reported to their institution.

Retraction policies

Article retraction

According to the COPE Retraction Guidelines followed by this Journal, an article can be retracted because of the following reasons:

  • Unreliable findings based on clear evidence of a misconduct (e.g. fraudulent use of the data) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).
  • Redundant publication, e.g., findings that have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification.
  • Plagiarism or other kind of unethical research.

Retraction procedure

  • Retraction should happen after a careful consideration by the Journal editors of allegations coming from the editors, authors, or readers.
  • The HTML version of the retracted article is removed (except for the article metadata) and on its place a retraction note is issued.
  • The PDF of the retracted article is left on the website but clearly watermarked with the note "Retracted" on each page.
  • In some rare cases (e.g., for legal reasons or health risk) the retracted article can be replaced with a new corrected version containing apparent link to the retracted original version and a retraction note with a history of the document.

Expression of concern

In other cases, the Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern, if evidence is available for:

  • Inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors.
  • Unreliable findings that are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case.
  • A belief that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive.
  • An investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.

Errata and Corrigenda

Pensoft journals largely follow the ICMJE guidelines for corrections and errata.


Admissible and insignificant errors in a published article that do not affect the article content or scientific integrity (e.g. typographic errors, broken links, wrong page numbers in the article headers etc.) can be corrected through publishing of an erratum. This happens through replacing the original PDF with the corrected one together with a correction notice on the Erratum Tab of the HTML version of the paper, detailing the errors and the changes implemented in the original PDF. The original PDF will be marked with a correction note and an indication to the corrected version of the erratum article. The original PDF will also be archived and made accessible via a link in the same Erratum Tab.

Authors are also encouraged to post comments and indicate typographical errors on their articles to the Comments tab of the HTML version of the article.


Corrigenda should be published in cases when significant errors are discovered in a published article. Usually, such errors affect the scientific integrity of the paper and could vary in scale. Reasons for publishing corrigenda may include changes in authorship, unintentional mistakes in published research findings and protocols, errors in labelling of tables and figures or others. In taxonomic journals, corrigenda are often needed in cases where the errors affect nomenclatural acts. Corrigenda are published as a separate publication and bear their own DOI. Examples of published corrigenda are available here.

The decision for issuing errata or corrigenda is with the editors after discussion with the authors.

COPE Compliance

This journal endorses the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and will pursue cases of suspected research and publication misconduct (e.g. falsification, unethical experimentation, plagiarism, inappropriate image manipulation, redundant publication). For further information about COPE please see the website for COPE at http://www.publicationethics.org and journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

Terms of Use

This document describes the Terms of Use of the services provided by the ARPHA Conference Abstracts platform, hereinafter referred to as "the Platform" or "this Platform". All Users agree to these Terms of Use when signing up to this Platform. Signed Platform Users will be hereinafter referred to as "User" or "Users".

The publication services to the Platform are provided by Pensoft Publishers Ltd., through its publishing platform ARPHA, hereinafter referred to as "the Provider".

The Provider reserves the right to update the Terms of Use occasionally. Users will be notified via posting on the site and/or by email. If using the services of the Platform after such notice, the User will be deemed to have accepted the proposed modifications. If the User disagrees with the modifications, he/she should stop using the Platform services. Users are advised to periodically check the Terms of Use for updates or revisions. Violation of any of the terms will result in the termination of the User's account. The Provider is not responsible for any content posted by the User in the Platform.

Account Terms

  1. For registration in this Platform or any of the services or tools hosted on it, Users must provide their full legal name, a valid email address, postal address, affiliation (if any),  and any other information requested.
  2. Accounts created via this Platform automatically sign in the User to the ARPHA Platform.
  3. Users are responsible for maintaining the security of their account and password. The Platform cannot and will not be liable for any loss or damage from failure to comply with this security obligation.
  4. Users are solely responsible for the content posted via the Platform services (including, but not limited to data, text, files, information, usernames, images, graphics, photos, profiles, audio and video clips, sounds, applications, links and other content) and all activities that occur under their account.
  5. Users may not use the service for any illegal or unauthorised purpose. Users must not, in the use of the service, violate any laws within their jurisdiction (including but not limited to copyright or trademark laws).
  6. Users can change or pseudonomyse their personal data, or deactivate their accounts at any time through the functionality available in the User’s personal profile. Deactivation or pseudonomysation will not affect the appearance of personal data in association with an already published work of which the User is author, co-author, editor, or reviewer.
  7. Users can report to the Platform uses of their personal data, that they might consider not corresponding to the current Terms of Use.
  8. The User’s personal data is processed by the Platform on the legal basis corresponding to Article 6, paragraph 1, letters a, b, c and f. of the General Data Protection Regulation (hereinafter referred to as GDPR) and will be used for the purpose of Platform’s services in accordance with the present Terms and Use, as well as in those cases expressly stated by the legislation.
  9. User’s consent to use the information the Platform has collected about the User corresponds to Article 6(1)(a) of the GDPR.
  10. The ‘legitimate interest’ of the Platform to engage with the User and enable him/her to participate in Platform’s activities and use Platform's services correspond to Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR.

Services and Prices

The Provider reserves the right to modify or discontinue, temporarily or permanently, the services provided by the Platform. Plans and prices are subject to change upon 30 days notice from the Provider. Such notice may be provided at any time by posting the changes to the relevant service website.


The Authors retain full ownership to their content published in the Platform. We claim no intellectual property rights over the material provided by any User in this Platform. However, by setting pages to be viewed publicly (Open Access), the User agrees to allow others to view and download the relevant content. In addition, Open Access articles might be used by the Provider, or any other third party, for data mining purposes.

The Provider reserves the rights in its sole discretion to refuse or remove any content that is available via the Website.

Copyrighted Materials

Unless stated otherwise, the Platform website may contain some copyrighted material (for example, logos and other proprietary information, including, without limitation, text, software, photos, video, graphics, music and sound - "Copyrighted Material"). The User may not copy, modify, alter, publish, transmit, distribute, display, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works or, in any way, exploit any of the Copyrighted Material, in whole or in part, without written permission from the copyright owner. Users will be solely liable for any damage resulting from any infringement of copyrights, proprietary rights or any other harm resulting from such a submission.

Exceptions from this rule are e-chapters or e-articles published under Open Access (see below), which are normally published under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (CC-BY), or Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (CC-BY), or Creative Commons Public Domain license (CC0).

Open Access Materials

This Platform is a supporter of open science. Open access to content is clearly marked, with text and/or the open access logo, on all materials published under this model. Unless otherwise stated, open access content is published in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (CC-BY). This particular licence allows the copying, displaying and distribution of the content at no charge, provided that the author and source are credited.

Privacy Statement

  1. Users agree to submit their personal data to this Platform, hosted on the ARPHA Platform provided by Pensoft.
  2. The Platform collects personal information from Users (e.g., name, postal and email addresses, affiliation) only for the purpose of its services.
  3. All personal data will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of the website and will not be made available for any other purpose or to third parties.
  4. In the case of co-authorship of a work published through the Platform services, each of the co-authors states that they agree that their personal data be collected, stored and used by the Platform.
  5. In the case of co-authorship, each of the co-authors agrees that their personal data publicly available in the form of a co-authorship of a published work, can be distributed to external indexing services and aggregators for the purpose of the widest possible distribution of the work they co-author.
  6. When one of the co-authors is not registered in the Platform, it is presumed that the corresponding author who is registered has requested and obtained his/her consent that his/her personal data will be collected, stored and used by the Platform.
  7. The registered co-author undertakes to provide an e-mail address of the unregistered author, to whom the Platform will send a message in order to give the unregistered co-author’s explicit consent for the processing of his/her personal data by the Platform.
  8. The Platform is not responsible if the provided e-mail of the unregistered co-author is inaccurate or invalid. In such cases, it is assumed that the processing of the personal data of the unregistered co-author is done on a legal basis and with a given consent.
  9. The Platform undertakes to collect, store and use the provided personal data of third parties (including but not limited to unregistered co-authors) solely for the purposes of the website, as well as in those cases expressly stated by the legislation.
  10. Users can receive emails from Platform and its hosting platform ARPHA, provided by Pensoft, about activities they have given their consent for. Examples of such activities are:
    • Email notifications to authors, reviewers and editors who are engaged with authoring, reviewing or editing a manuscript submitted to the Platform.
    • Email alerts sent via email subscription service, which can happen only if the User has willingly subscribed for such a service. Unsubscription from the service can happen through a one-click link provided in each email alert notification.
    • Information emails on important changes in the system or in its Terms of Use which are sent via Mailchimp are provided with "Unsubscribe" function.
  11. Registered users can be invited to provide a peer review on manuscripts submitted to the Platform. In such cases, the users can decline the review invitation through a link available on the Platform’s website.
  12. Each provided peer review can be registered with external services (such as Web of Science Reviewer Recognition Service, formerly Publons). The reviewer will be notified if such registration is going to occur and can decline the registration process.
  13. In case the Platform starts using personal data for purposes other than those specified in the Terms of Use, the Platform undertakes to immediately inform the person and request his/her consent.
  14. If the person does not give his/her consent to the processing of his or her personal data pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the Platform shall cease the processing of the personal data for the purposes for which there is no consent, unless there is another legal basis for the processing.
  15. Users can change/correct their personal data anytime via the functionality available in the User’s profile. Users can request the Platform to correct their personal data if the data is inaccurate or outdated and the Platform is obliged to correct the inaccurate or outdated personal data in a timely manner.
  16. Users may request the Platform to restrict the use of their personal data insofar as this limitation is not contrary to the law or the Terms of Use.
  17. Users may request their personal data to be deleted (the right to be forgotten) by the Platform, provided that the deletion does not conflict with the law or the Terms of Use.
  18. The User has the right to be informed:
    • whether his or her personal data have been processed;
    • for which purposes the Platform processes the personal data;
    • the ways in which his/her personal data are processed;
    • the types of personal data that Platform processes.
  19. The user undertakes not to interfere with and impede the Platform’s activities in the exercise of the provided rights.
  20. In case of non-fulfillment under the previous paragraph, the Platform reserves the right to delete the user's profile.

Disclaimer of Warranty and Limitation of Liability

Neither Pensoft and its affiliates nor any of their respective employees, agents, third party content providers or licensors warrant that the Platform service will be uninterrupted or error-free; nor do they give any warranty as to the results that may be obtained from use of the Platform, or as to the accuracy or reliability of any information, service or merchandise provided through Platform.

Legal, medical, and health-related information located, identified or obtained through the use of the Service, is provided for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for qualified advice from a professional.

In no event will the Provider, or any person or entity involved in creating, producing or distributing Platform or the contents included therein, be liable in contract, in tort (including for its own negligence) or under any other legal theory (including strict liability) for any damages, including, but without limitation to, direct, indirect, incidental, special, punitive, consequential or similar damages, including, but without limitation to, lost profits or revenues, loss of use or similar economic loss, arising from the use of or inability to use the Platform. The User hereby acknowledges that the provisions of this section will apply to all use of the content on Platform. Applicable law may not allow the limitation or exclusion of liability or incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation or exclusion may not apply to the User. In no event will Pensoft’s total liability to the User for all damages, losses or causes of action, whether in contract, tort (including own negligence) or under any other legal theory (including strict liability), exceed the amount paid by the User, if any, for accessing Platform.

Third Party Content

The Provider is solely a distributor (and not a publisher) of SOME of the content supplied by third parties and Users of the Platform. Any opinions, advice, statements, services, offers, or other information or content expressed or made available by third parties, including information providers and Users, are those of the respective author(s) or distributor(s) and not of the Provider.

Cookies Policy


a) Session cookies

We use cookies on our website. Cookies are small text files or other storage technologies stored on your computer by your browser. These cookies process certain specific information about you, such as your browser, location data, or IP address.  

This processing makes our website more user-friendly, efficient, and secure, allowing us, for example, to allow the "Remember me" function.

The legal basis for such processing is Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. b) GDPR, insofar as these cookies are used to collect data to initiate or process contractual relationships.

If the processing does not serve to initiate or process a contract, our legitimate interest lies in improving the functionality of our website. The legal basis is then Art. 6 Para. 1 lit. f) GDPR.

When you close your browser, these session cookies are deleted.

b) Disabling cookies

You can refuse the use of cookies by changing the settings on your browser. Likewise, you can use the browser to delete cookies that have already been stored. However, the steps and measures required vary, depending on the browser you use. If you have any questions, please use the help function or consult the documentation for your browser or contact its maker for support. Browser settings cannot prevent so-called flash cookies from being set. Instead, you will need to change the setting of your Flash player. The steps and measures required for this also depend on the Flash player you are using. If you have any questions, please use the help function or consult the documentation for your Flash player or contact its maker for support.

If you prevent or restrict the installation of cookies, not all of the functions on our site may be fully usable.

Unique Features

ACA demonstrates several innovations in both the technological and social aspects of the academic publishing practices. These are some of the features that make the journal unique in its field:

  • The journal is published on ARPHA, the first online collaborative platform and workflow ever to support the full lifecycle of a manuscript, from writing through submission, peer-review, publication and dissemination.

  • Most structural elements of the published article – text, tables, figures, etc. are treated and stored as data.

  • The online, collaborative, manuscript-authoring ARPHA Writing Tool provides a large set of pre-defined, but flexible, article templates covering most important types of research outcomes. Within ARPHA, authors may work collaboratively on a manuscript and invite external contributors, such as mentors, potential reviewers, linguistic and copy editors, colleagues, who may correct and comment on the text before submission.

  • A rich set of functionalities of the ARPHA Writing Tool allows for search and import of literature and data references, cross-referencing of in-text citations of literature, tables, images and supplementary material. The tool has an automated technical validation step which will save your time by checking your manuscript for consistency.

  • Аll reviews on a manuscript are consolidated into a single online file which makes the process of editing straightforward, easy and comfortable. The journal allows also a post-publication review.

  • After the end of the conference, the presentations, Video recordings and posters can be uploaded and visualized at the respective abstract pages.

How It Works

Conference organisers are welcome to propose their conference-branded abstracts collection by filling in this form. The proposal needs to contain a title, description, conference details, list of guest editors, tentative number of conference papers and deadline for submissions.

Once the abstracts collection is approved by ARPHA Conference Abstracts (ACA) and open for submission, the conference organisers should invite conference participants to submit their contributions via ARPHA Platform, which supports manuscripts from submission to peer review, editing, publication, archiving and dissemination.

Alternatively, if the abstracts have already undergone peer review, the conference organisers need to provide a peer review statement. In such a case, please contact ACA’s Editorial office at aca@pensoft.net

All editorial responsibility about the abstracts lies with the conference organisers and the (sub-)collection’s guest editors.

The list below provides a detailed description of the process:

  1. A conference organiser submits a proposal for a conference-branded proceedings to ACA by filling in the form and sending it to ACA’s Editorial office (aca@pensoft.net).
  2. The proposal is evaluated by the ACA editorial office, in order to verify its compliance with the platform’s standards and policies.
  3. ACA prepares an agreement to be signed by the conference organiser, in order to specify the services and the associated costs. 
  4. ACA team sets up a webpage with the assistance of the conference organiser. 
  5. The conference organiser invites conference participants to submit their abstracts via the ACA website, which will redirect them to ARPHA Writing Tool (AWT).
  6. The co-authors use the collaborative online environment to work together on their contribution. While drafting the abstract, the authors assign it to a specific (sub-)collection, so that the respective guest editor is notified and can take action once the abstract is submitted for technical review in ARPHA. 
  7. At this technical review stage, the guest editor evaluates the submission against formal checklist criteria (i.e. technical consistency, language, ethical issues, correspondence to the criteria for publication). The editors of ACA can re-iterate the technical evaluation rounds several times until the manuscript reaches an acceptable level of quality to be submitted to ACA. The collection editor either accepts or rejects the submission of the abstract to the specified collection.
  8. The editorial process is also carried within AWT, in order to facilitate revisions and communication amongst authors and editors. The corresponding author and guest editors are notified by email at every stage of the process, in order to inform them about the next necessary action. Find more detailed information in the Author Guidelines and Guidelines for Guest Editors sections below.
  9. The submitting author is notified that the abstract has passed the evaluation and they can proceed to submission to ACA

Note: All abstracts are published upon acceptance by the collection editor, in the latest version submitted by the authors (upon acceptance), and after payment of the article processing charges. This means that no further corrections are allowed after the abstract is submitted to ACA.

  1. Once accepted for publication, ACA takes care of the production and publication of the abstracts. All co-authors are notified by email when their abstract is published.
  2. Prior to the publication of the abstracts collection, an invoice is sent to the conference organiser. The payment is expected before the publication of the papers.
  3. After the abstracts collection is published, ACA disseminates, indexes and archives all abstracts. Each abstract is registered at Crossref and assigned with its own DOI.
  4. After the conference, the authors are welcome to add video recordings of their conference talks or graphic files of poster presentations, which shall be visualised on the abstract’s webpage. 

Author Guidelines

Manuscripts intended for submission to ACA, should be written in the collaborative online ARPHA Writing Tool (AWT). You can find useful stepwise instructions on how to use the writing tool’s features in AWT’s Tips & Tricks.
  1. Log in or register at ACA’s website. Note that you might need to whitelist or otherwise train your email system to recognise email notifications from @pensoft.net, in order to avoid subsequent notifications being mistakenly directed to your Spam folder.
  2. (a) Start a new submission or (b) continue working on yours, by:
  • Clicking the "Start new Abstract" button. Clicking this button takes you to the ARPHA Writing Tool and creates a new Untitled abstract with some of the author metadata you used to create your account. These can be easily updated, if needed. Alternatively, you may start a new abstract from ARPHA Writing Tool, but you will need to specify the journal (ACA) and the manuscript type (conference abstract). (a)
  • Logging in to ARPHA Writing Tool directly. You will see the titles of "My recent manuscripts." Click on your manuscript title, or click on "See More" to go to your dashboard, where you will find all manuscripts on which you are listed as an author, their status, and revision history. If you accidentally create more than one abstract, you need to delete the duplicate item from here. (b)
  1. Click "Collections" on the top navigation bar of your manuscript and select the collection to which you are submitting your abstract. This step is crucial, as your abstract cannot be directed to the proper editors without this designation. Note that both authors and editors now have the ability to change the collection designation, but only when they have control of the manuscript (i.e. no one else is working on the manuscript at this time).
  2. Fill in your abstract’s metadata from the list at the left by hovering over a category, and then clicking on the pencil icon. Make sure you have filled all the mandatory fields. Note that the submitting author and affiliation are taken from the profile of the logged-in user. Make sure that at least one author is designated as the corresponding author.
  3. Add co-authors by clicking the icon beside "Authors" in the left-side navigation panel. Make sure you have added affiliations for all co-authors. When adding co-authors, please specify what rights each one of them will have, i.e. either to only comment, or to comment and edit. It is the responsibility of the submitting author to clarify the user rights with all co-authors. The corresponding author and the ordering of authors can be changed from the same menu (use up/down arrows to the right of names). The corresponding author must be available to communicate about the abstract until final acceptance for publication.
  4. Likewise, add a presenting author who is the person who will be delivering the presentation at the conference.
  5. While authoring the abstracts, authors should be aware that:
  • The abstracts must be written in English and must address the conference. There might be a word or character number limitation, depending on the respective requirements set by the conference organisers for the particular collection. The "Validate" button will display the number of characters with spaces, automatically counting all sections, including not only the body of the abstract, but also the references, the tables’ and figures’ captions, if any. 
  • Embedding links (URLs) to institutions and concepts is possible and highly encouraged, as this will help readers to appreciate more fully the topic you are presenting. 
  • If you wish to include references, create the reference list first before linking it to your text. 
  • It is highly discouraged to request changes to an abstract that has already been approved for submission. Please make sure to proofread it carefully before submitting it to ACA.
  • You may add references (included in word count), figures, and tables by clicking on the appropriate icon. You may also upload supplementary materials associated with the abstract. None of these are mandatory.
  1. Once ready with your manuscript, click "Validate". This will ensure that mandatory fields are filled in, you have not exceeded the character limit, and the abstract is assigned to a collection. Be sure to finish this step, even if you and your co-authors and collaborators are not finished writing or reviewing your submission. This will ensure that mandatory fields are filled in, you have not exceeded the character limit, and the abstract is assigned to a collection.
  2. When you are ready to submit your abstract, click "Submit for Technical Review." This will send the manuscript to the organisers of your session, who will review it for relevance. You will receive an auto-generated confirmation email (do not send email responses to this address) and the status of the manuscript will say "In pre-submission review". You may see the work of various technical editors suggesting changes to be made or making comments on your abstract, but you will only be able to view, NOT edit your submission while it is "In pre-submission review". Wait until you receive official notice that feedback has been requested, do not ask technical editors to make changes.
  3. The technical editors may accept or reject your submission, or may send feedback requesting changes, or suggest moving your submission to a different collection. Note that if a submission is returned to you for changes, its status will return to Draft within your dashboard on AWT. Only authors will have access to the abstract until you are making changes, and redo the steps for validation and resubmission, after resolving all issues. Note that editors can view resolved issues, so if you have feedback (e.g., you do not agree with a suggested change or want to provide feedback to the editors), please add it there as a comment / response. Your manuscript may require more than one cycle of revision, so please address communications promptly. Please use track changes to make it easier for editors to see where you have made changes to the abstract. Accept or reject suggestions by editors using track changes.
  4. Once the abstract is approved, the "Submit to the journal" button becomes visible for the submitting author. Before clicking on it, double check that the name of the person making the presentation at the conference is correct (preferably also listed as an author). Click the "Validate" button first to make sure there are no lingering issues. You will not be able to submit the abstract if any issues are outstanding. If the validation is successful, you will only be shown the number of characters in your abstract. Any last changes need to be made now, before you click "Submit". When you are ready to submit your abstract for publication, click the "Submit to the journal".
  5. You need to complete the checklist of submission steps.
  • The first item in the checklist regards the licence and copyright of your abstract. The default is CC BY with copyright attributed to the authors. However, if any author is a U.S. or Canadian government employee, you must specify CC0.  Any other issues should be referred to the ACA Help Desk (aca@pensoft.net). 
  • The final step asks you to assign categories to your submission; complete this step if it is applicable.
  1. When the submission process is finalised, the abstract goes directly to production for publication, a DOI is assigned, and the abstract cannot be revised further (without difficulty). 
  2. If, after your manuscript has been approved, you fail to complete all of the steps, you may see it tagged as "Incomplete Submission," even though an ID has been assigned to it in ACA. Because this now has an ACA- identifier, you must access actions to complete the submission (or delete it) via the ACA dashboard, rather than the AWT one.

If, at any time, you need further assistance, consult with AWT’s Tips & Tricks. In case you fail to find an answer to your question, send an email to the journal’s technical staff via the system. Click "Helpdesk" on the top navigation bar to open a new window with an email form for you to fill in.

Guidelines for Guest Editors

You are highly recommended to begin by familiarising yourself with the Author Guidelines above, which will greatly help you understand the workflow, and what is expected of you. 

  1. You should begin to edit and work with the authors within the ARPHA Writing Tool (AWT) as soon as their contribution is submitted to ARPHA for technical review, for which the platform will automatically notify all collection editors, granting them access to an editable version of the abstract.
  2. Make sure that the submitting author has included all relevant metadata. In particular, affiliations and email addresses for all authors should be present.
  3. When an abstract is submitted to a sub-collection that you are handling, you and the co-organisers you designated as technical editors, will receive an email with a link to the abstract. You will all be able to access it, but only one person can have it open for editing at any given time. The others will access a read-only version. Please do NOT leave the document open if you are not actively working on it. If you are working with a group of co-organisers, decide among yourselves how you will deal with abstracts as they come in and agree on a turn-around time for communicating with authors.
  4. You should be able to see all abstracts that have been submitted to your collection in ARPHA’s ‘Collection editor’ view in your dashboard on AWT. On the right hand side in the dashboard you can see the status of the abstract and the subcollection (i.e. "Part of" [collection]) to which it was submitted. Some of you can be co-organisers of more than one collection. Here is a short explanation of the document statuses:
  • Draft: It has not yet been submitted by the authors OR it has been returned to the authors for revision (via "Send Feedback"). Editors will have read-only access at this time.
  • In pre-submission review: It is now the responsibility of you and your co-organisers to oversee the review of the abstract, and decide to either Approve, Send feedback, or Reject. We urge you NOT to Approve abstracts until the end of the review process for the conference, but you may use the Flag option to indicate intention to approve. If the abstract is not appropriate or does not fit in your sub-collection, please consider not rendering a decision, but notifying the main collection editors of your decision. 
  • Approved for submission: As editors, you will no longer have access to this abstract, once you have approved it (reason why we are asking you not to hit the Approve button at this time). Once the button is pushed, it will be up to the authors to finish the abstract submission process. Please check this section for the solution of a problem that authors report when getting the error: Incomplete Submission.
  • In layout: The submitting author has completed the final submission process, an ID number for the submission has been assigned, and the abstract is awaiting publication.
  1. If the abstract is not a good fit for your sub-collection, but you think it might be appropriate for a different one, please contact the main collection editors with your suggestion and they will be able to have it reassigned.
  2. When reviewing, we strongly recommend that you make suggested wording changes in the document using the track changes feature. In case of questions or other issues, you might want to rather select the text and use the add comments option. You can also email the authors if you require clarification before finishing your review (this will not relinquish the abstract from your control and authors will not be able to make changes).
  3. If you are ready with your comments and suggestions at this stage, you can return the manuscript back to the authors, so that they can make their revisions. Do this by clicking "Send Feedback", which will bring up a questionnaire with default answers in the affirmative to which you may make changes. Click "Save and Proceed."
  4. An email form to the authors will pop up for you to personalise as appropriate. We would suggest that you encourage authors to accept changes they agree with, but keep Track Changes on, so that you can easily see other changes they make to the document. Note that you will NOT get a copy of this correspondence, because it will include author-specific links provided by the system.
  5. The Submission ->  Send Feedback iteration can be repeated as many times as necessary, but please keep in mind the due dates set for the conference.
  6. When ready to accept the submission, before approving an abstract, please use the Validate button to clear up any issues. Although you can approve a manuscript with issues, authors will have to resolve them before they can complete the submission process. When you click "Approve", it will bring up a preset email with a free text field that you can use to add your notes and send to the authors for their consideration when issuing the final version for publication.

Additional Tips for Editors

Most frequent non-compliances in manuscripts

Most often, necessary corrections are: 

  • Author affiliations are missing or spelled inconsistently (i.e. multiple authors are affiliated with the same institution, but it has been spelled differently, so the platform lists it as multiple entities)
  • Non-active or missing links (URLs)
  • Incorrect citing of the references (reference cited in text does not match reference from list) 
  • Typos and wording issues.

Email delivery failures

Note that emails originating from pensoft.net containing your communications with authors are often interpreted by overzealous email filters as potential spam. If authors seem unresponsive, consider contacting them via your personal email. 
As your own email filters may behave similarly, please whitelist or otherwise train your email system to recognise these communications. In case you still fail to receive email notifications for abstracts submitted to your (sub-)collection, it could be because you have multiple registrations in the ARPHA system associated with different email addresses. If the issue persists, please contact the ACA help desk (aca@pensoft.net).

Correspondence traceability

When you use the ARPHA mailing infrastructure, it sends out individual emails to each of the recipients, so, in effect, no one else knows who has gotten your email (and you do not get a copy either). This can lead to some duplication of effort for some tasks. Be aware of this feature and consider whether another platform may be more appropriate for some communications where you expect feedback. Possible solution would be that you leave comments for each action that you expect on the author’s behalf. The AWT keeps track of the comments, and saves the history of the resolved comments, which is convenient for both authors and editors.

Missing manuscripts due to inactivity

Note that the ARPHA platform may send out automatic reminders to authors in the case of prolonged inactivity and after three such ignored notifications will automatically archive those manuscripts (i.e. remove the abstract from the user dashboard). Either you or the author will need to notify Pensoft to retrieve the abstract. Please make sure all communications include an article identifier (ID#) in the subject line and the author name in the text of the message.


What is a (sub-)collection? What is a (sub-)collection editor?

With ARPHA Conference Abstracts, abstracts are published within a conference-branded collection, meant to organise the contributions made at the event. Within the collection, it is recommended to organise the abstracts into different sub-collections, based on symposia, topic or workshop. In this case, different conveners may be appointed to handle their respective sub-collections as guest editors for the particular sub-collections.

For multiple instalments of the same conference, contributions will be organised in separate collections. If your conference is held regularly, you might want to consider creating your own abstracts academic outlet (see example from Biodiversity Information Standards (TDWG) and their BISS Journal).

My abstract has been approved and validated but I don't see a "Submit to the journal" button?

You may not be the designated Submitting author. To check this, open the Authors metadata (top left choice) to Manage Authors and make sure that despite the fact that you may be "Corresponding Author", the option to "Make submitting author" cannot be selected from next to your name. If it is available, click on the button to make yourself the submitting author, save the changes, and see if you now can submit the abstract to the journal. You may need to log out of ARPHA and/or your browser to apply the changes. If the issue persists, please contact the help desk. Please make sure that this is coordinated with the author who has previously been designated as the Submitting author in order to avoid further confusion.

I use more than one email for my work. How do I choose one?

In the ARPHA editorial platform, you should use only one email account that you check regularly and you do not mind providing it publicly (once the abstract is published, it will appear in its webpage). This way all tasks appointed to the user will be accumulated under a single account and you will not have to log in and out and access several dashboards for a single journal. The editorial platform allows users to have different roles within the same journal and also in other journals hosted by Pensoft. The system does not allow adding more than one email per account and is not set to enable sending a copy of the same notification to an alternative email of the same user.  If you have been asked to merge two or more accounts into a single one, Pensoft will need to choose one of the emails as primary. This is also used to send alerts and newsletters from Pensoft journals, if you are a subscriber.

Regardless of email, if you are an author and need to credit a particular institution for the work you are presenting, you can modify your affiliation in the author metadata for each abstract or manuscript submitted.

How do I know the status of my abstract?

Sign in to ARPHA. Your abstract(s) are listed under the My Manuscripts tab (text will be grey) on your dashboard. On the right of each manuscript, you can see its status. 

Note that only one person can work on an abstract at a time. If you are not actively working on a manuscript, please close the window to give others a chance to contribute.
Draft = authors have editing rights; editors access it as read-only; authors must submit the abstract for technical evaluation for the abstract to be available for editorial assessment.

In pre-submission review = authors access it as read-only; technical editors are able to make changes to the abstract and add comments. Authors may see these updates but will not be able to make changes until editors release the abstract back to the authors using the Send Feedback button. Pressing the Send Feedback button returns the abstract to Draft mode so that authors may respond.

Once your abstract has been Approved, and the submitting author submits it to ACA, it will go through various stages (including In Layout) to be Published. If you fail to complete the final publication checklist, your abstract may be marked as "Incomplete Submission." You will get three automated warnings to remedy this before the system automatically archives/deletes your submission.

Abstracts will not be published immediately, but notification of acceptance will be sent to authors for use in reporting their work.

What if I don’t see my abstract anywhere?

It is possible that you have more than one ARPHA account associated with different emails. Please consolidate them if this is the case.

Another possibility is that the ARPHA platform has automatically archived your abstract due to prolonged inactivity (does so after three ignored email warnings). You will need to notify Pensoft to retrieve such an abstract. Please make sure all communications include an article identifier (ID#) in the subject line. When it is returned, it will be in Draft mode and you will need to validate and resubmit it for technical evaluation. Editors will not be able to work on or accept a manuscript in Draft status.

Where will I find published abstracts?

See published abstract collections on the ACA website. Sign up for email notifications of newly published content from ACA after signing in (see ARPHA Manual).

Publication Charges

All abstracts are published with DOIs in HTML, JATS XML and PDF to facilitate distribution and visibility.

The publication charges are as follows:

  • EURO 50 per abstract (1-100 abstracts)
  • EURO 45 per abstract (101-200 abstracts)
  • EURO 40 per abstract (>201 abstracts) 

Sponsorship and discount options are available upon request at: aca@pensoft.net.

Please note that the above prices do not include VAT (Value Added Tax). VAT is applicable only for VAT non-registered customers based within the European Union. To avoid charging VAT, the EU companies or persons should provide their VAT registration numbers validated with the EU taxation database (https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/vies/).

Science Communication

Our journal and the PR team at Pensoft invites authors to contribute to the communication and promotion of their published research, thereby increasing the visibility, outreach and impact of their work. 

Authors are welcome to notify us whenever their institution is working on a promotional campaign about their work published in our journal. We are always happy to reshare and/or repost (where appropriate). 

You can contact our PR team at dissemination@pensoft.net to discuss the communication and promotion of your research.

Tailored PR Campaign

(Paid service*)

We encourage authors, who feel that their work is of particular interest to the wider audience, to email us with a press release draft** (see template and guidelines), outlining the key findings from the study and their public impact. Then, the PR team will work with them to finalise the announcement that will be:

  • Issued on the global science news service Eurekalert!
  • Sent out to our media contacts from the world’s top-tier news outlets
  • Posted on ARPHA’s or Pensoft’s blog
  • Shared on social media via suitable ARPHA-managed accounts

Following the distribution of the press announcement, our team will be tracking the publicity across news media, blogs and social networks, in order to report back to the author(s), and reshare any prominent media content.

Request our Tailored PR campaign service by selecting it while completing your submission form and you will be contacted once your manuscript is accepted for publication. Alternatively, contact our PR team (dissemination@pensoft.net), preferably upon the acceptance of your manuscript.

* The Tailored PR campaign is an extra service charged at EUR 150. However, we would consider discounts and even full waivers for studies of particular interest for the society.

**Please note that our PR team reserves the right to edit your press release at their discretion. No press announcements will be issued until we receive the author’s final approval to do so. The service is only available for studies published within the past 3 months.

Guest Blog Post

(Free service)

Authors are strongly encouraged to promote their work and its impact on society to the audience beyond their immediate public of fellow scientists by means of storytelling in plain language. Ideally, such guest blog posts will be:

  • Written from the author’s own point of view, using conversational tone;
  • Written in fluent English;
  • Presenting some curious background information, in order to place the discovery in context;
  • Including attractive non-copyright imagery.

Request our Guest blog post service by contacting the PR department (dissemination@pensoft.net), regardless of the status of your submission, as there are no time constraints for guest blog post publication. Particularly encouraged are follow-up contributions telling the story of, for example, a research paper that has led to an important policy to be set in place; or an article that has met remarkable attention or reactions in the public sphere.

Following the necessary final touches to the guest blog post by the PR team, the contribution will be:

  • Posted on ARPHA’s or Pensoft’s blog
  • Shared on social media via multiple and relevant ARPHA-managed accounts

Please note that the PR team reserves the right to refuse publication of a guest blog post on the occasion that it is provided in poor English, uses considerable amount of jargon or does not abide by basic ethical standards. Our PR team reserves the right to request changes to the text related to formatting or language. No blog posts will be issued until we receive the author’s final approval to do so.

Find past guest blog posts on Pensoft’s blog here

Video Podcasts

(Free service)

To efficiently increase the outreach of their research, authors are suggested to prepare a video contribution (i.e. elevator video pitch, video abstract or topical video), where they present their work to an audience beyond their immediate public of fellow scientists by means of visual storytelling.

To do so, they are expected to send us a short (up to 02’00’’) video clip, presenting their study in a nutshell, in order to spark the viewer’s further interest in their findings and work, as well as the research topic as a whole. Ideally, such contribution will be:

  • filmed in high quality, preferably with .mp4 file extension with the H.264 video codec;
  • directed from the author’s own point of view, using conversational tone and minimal jargon;
  • presented in fluent English or featuring English subtitles;
  • accompanied by a transcript in English;
  • accompanied by a short text introduction for the purposes of a blog post.

Request our Guest video contribution service by contacting the PR department (dissemination@pensoft.net), regardless of the status of your submission, since there are no time constraints for guest blog post publication.

Following the necessary final touches to the guest blog post, the contribution will be:

  • Shared on Pensoft’s YouTube channel;
  • Posted on ARPHA’s or Pensoft’s blog;
  • Shared on social media via multiple and relevant ARPHA-managed accounts. 

Please note that the PR team reserves the right to refuse distribution of a guest contribution on the occasion that it is provided in poor English, uses considerable amount of jargon or does not abide by basic ethical standards.

Journal Info


Journal Name ARPHA Conference Abstracts
Journal URL https://aca.pensoft.net/
ISSN (online) 2603-3925
ISSN (print) -
Content Provider ARPHA
Publisher Pensoft Publishers
Journal Owner Pensoft Publishers
Owner URL https://pensoft.net
Start Year 2018
Review Type single-blind
Publication Frequency Irregular
APC Accepted manuscripts are subject to APC (for more details see here)
License Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0)


This website uses cookies in order to improve your web experience. Read our Cookies Policy