Skip to content

Anoma Research Curation Policy for 2024


The curation policy outlined may be updated to reflect the evolving research practices at Anoma. Please refer to this document for the most current guidelines.

Language Requirements

Submissions are accepted exclusively in English to ensure they are accessible to a global audience.

In the spirit of inclusivity and respect, we require all documents to adhere to inclusive language practices. Our commitment is to create an environment where discourse is both progressive and respectful, reflecting the diversity and unity of our community.

Inclusive language acknowledges diversity, conveys respect to all people, is sensitive to differences, and promotes equal opportunities. Content should make no assumptions about the beliefs or commitments of any reader; contain nothing which might imply that one individual is superior to another on the grounds of age, gender, race, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, disability or health condition; and use inclusive language throughout. Authors should ensure that writing is free from bias, stereotypes, slang, reference to dominant culture and/or cultural assumptions. We advise to seek gender neutrality by using plural nouns ("clinicians, patients/clients") as default/wherever possible to avoid using "he, she," or "he/she." We recommend avoiding the use of descriptors that refer to personal attributes such as age, gender, race, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, disability or health condition unless they are relevant and valid. When coding terminology is used, we recommend to avoid offensive or exclusionary terms such as "master", "slave", "blacklist" and "whitelist". We suggest using alternatives that are more appropriate and (self-) explanatory such as "primary", "secondary", "blocklist" and "allowlist". These guidelines are meant as a point of reference to help identify appropriate language but are by no means exhaustive or definitive. (Source:

Formatting Guidelines

See the author instructions for details on the formatting requirements.

Authorship Guidelines

Researchers must adhere to the following authorship criteria when submitting their work:

  • The work is original, free from any plagiarism, and respects third-party intellectual property rights.
  • Third-party content is appropriately identified and acknowledged, with all necessary permissions obtained.
  • There are no conflicting agreements that could affect the publication of the submission, such as confidentiality or restrictions imposed by sponsors or collaborators.

Authors are encouraged to provide comprehensive citations to pertinent literature and to acknowledge the contributions of collaborators. Additionally, linking submissions to your ORCID account is recommended for alignment with academic standards.

Review and Approval Process

To maintain the highest quality of content, submissions undergo a review process:

  • Reviews typically involve up to two reviewers: one selected from the relevant researcher pool and another unrelated to the topic.
  • The editors have the final say on submissions after assessing both the content's quality and the integrity of the review process.
  • If a conflict of interest arises, it is the main editor’s responsibility to appoint an alternative reviewer.

Following approval, contributors will be notified of their inclusion in the community—via email for external submissions or through the #kudos channel on Heliax Slack for internal ones.

Every accepted submission is assigned a DOI and is made available on Zenodo under the Anoma Research Topics community.


Updates to submissions are also possible. Any new update depending on the extent of the changes will go through a new review process. As such, the DOI will be updated to reflect the latest version of the submission.

Submission Process

The following diagram illustrates the review and approval process for internal submissions that uses the Overleaf platform. Note that the timeline is not included in the diagram, as it may vary depending on the submission's complexity and the reviewers' availability, and the internal discussions

    participant author
    participant editor as editor board
    participant reviewer
    activate author
    author->>editor: makes "[email protected]" the owner of project
    activate editor
    note over editor: marks the submitted version as <br> under review (Overleaf's label feature)
    editor->>author: revokes temporary access to the project <br> pending completion of the review process
    deactivate author
    alt review process loop
      note over editor: assigns one or two reviewers depending <br> on the ART's topic and complexity
      editor->>reviewer: grants read-only permission <br> to the project for review
      activate reviewer
      %% note over reviewer: asks for edit permission if desired
      note over author,reviewer: At this stage, only the reviewer and <br> editor team have access to the project
      reviewer->>editor: submits feedback
      editor->>reviewer: revokes access to the project
      deactivate reviewer
      note over editor: reviews the feedback to ensure <br> it is constructive, respectful, and fair
      alt if any conflict is detected
          note over editor,reviewer: appoints alternative reviewer <br> and repeats the review process

    editor->>author: notifies the results during the review process
    alt if changes are requested
        editor->>author: grants edit permission to the project
        activate author
        note over author: makes the necessary revisions <br> answers reviewer's comments.
        author->>editor: submits revised version
        editor->>author: change edit permission to read-only
        deactivate author
        note over editor: if the revision addresses the reviewer's comments <br> up to the editor board's satisfaction, <br> the ART is accepted for publication.

    alt final editing
      note over editor:  submission copy-editing
      %% request approval from the author
      editor->>author: grants edit permission to <br> the project for minor changes
      activate author
      author->>editor: approves the final version
      deactivate author
      editor->>author: revokes access to the project <br> (freeze the project/version)

    editor->>author: notifies the acceptance of the ART for publication <br> within the next working day

    note over editor: fix submission on Zenodo
    note over editor: notifies Anoma Research communications
    note over editor: dispatches the submission to
    deactivate editor

How many rounds of review are required?

The number of review rounds depends on the quality of the submission and the reviewers' feedback. We aim to keep the number of review rounds to a minimum to ensure a timely publication of the submission. Two rounds of review are typically sufficient to ensure the quality of the submission. Each round may have different reviewers. We expect one or two reviewers to be involved in each round of review.


The accountability for each contribution's quality and integrity rests entirely on the authors themselves.

By engaging with Zenodo and the Anoma Research Topics on Zenodo, users agree to Zenodo's Terms of Use.