About the Journal
The Evolving Scholar is an open access platform for multidisciplinary, community-driven and open peer-reviewed publications. The Evolving Scholar (ThES) is the result of the collaboration between TU Delft OPEN publishing and ORVIUM - a CERN spin-off in accelerating scientific publishing. ThES is managed by members of the team of TU Delft OPEN, staff of the TU Delft Library and Orvium. The Project Team does not make editorial decisions but can intervene in case of misconduct and conflict.
The content of ThES falls under the expertise and responsibility of the scientific community.
Mission and Scope
The Evolving Scholar (ThES) is an experimental and dynamic environment for TU Delft researchers interested in all aspects of science, technology and applications. ThES is committed to publish multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary content of high quality from all scientific disciplines represented at the TU Delft from aerospace engineering and computer science, to policy and design.
ThES welcomes new forms of research and educational outputs (such as registered reports, videos, research data articles, interactive articles) and traditional publications such as research article, review article and conference paper. Check the author guidelines for more information.
All publications in ThES published by TU Delft OPEN Publishing follow the open peer-review process describes under Review Policy
ThES is committed to recognise work and give credits to all involved – to authors, reviewers and moderators - in a transparent and fair manner.
The scientific community oversees and controls the collaborative and interactive review and publication processes. The community, composed of the scientific community (moderators and reviewers) and the wider community (citizens and non-scientific experts),participates freely in the review processes of the research output.
The Community is expected to follow the code of conduct defined by the TU Delft.
ThES is a collaborative platform hence we welcome feedback and new features. Please send your suggestions to email@example.com
To interact with the platform, please login. We encourage our researchers to login using an ORCID ID (personal or via your institutional account).
1.The role of a Moderator
Moderators check submissions to ensure adherence to our guidelines and scope. Submissions that do not adhere to our guidelines or are not within scope will be withdrawn or sent back to the authors.
The moderator validates that the submission has passed screening.
Upon completion of the peer review process (review status Completed), the moderator approves the final publication.
The moderator intervenes if no agreements between reviewers and authors are reached (reviewer status Waiting Resolution). If no consensus is found, the manuscript is either withdrawn or remains online with the label 'Closed'.
Moderators have the possibility to invite and assign reviewers to review a research output.
To become a moderator for ThES please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
2. The role of a reviewer
Reviewers can receive a notification on demand when a new submission matches their expertise. However, it is up to the reviewer to decide to review or not.
Reviewers have the possibility to set their preferences to suit their needs and availability including suggesting reviewers.
The peer review report can be uploaded as an independent document (pdf, docx, rtf) within the system. The reviewer can also decide to use the provided template.
The reviewer will address the following points:
|General Introduction & Recommendations||
|Abstract & Introduction||Do the Research Highlights, Introduction and Abstract clearly identify the need and relevance for this research?
|Methodology||Does the Methodology target the main question(s) appropriately?
|Data||Do the data observe the FAIR principles?
|Results||Are the Results clearly and logically presented, and are they justified by the data presented? Are the figures clear and fully described?
|Conclusions|| Do the Conclusions justifiably respond to main questions the author(s) posed? Do the Conclusions go too far or not far enough based on the results?
|Formulation||Is the manuscript’s story cohesive and tightly reasoned throughout? If not, where does it deviate from the central argument?
|Writing||How are the grammar and spelling in the manuscript?
|Others|| Other itsy-bitsy suggestions.
3. The wider community
The wider community (citizens and non-scientific experts) is encouraged to post comments during the entire review process. However, the authors decide whether they take these comments into consideration or not.
Rewards and Recognition
ThES platform will implement soon a reward & recognition system for its users. Its guidelines will be published when the system will be in place.
ThES strongly supports that manuscripts include data registration in a recognised research data repository and will support data citation- please visit this page for more information.
All submissions will undergo a similarity check, the results of which will be shared with the scientific community. In case of suspected plagiarism, the authors will have 2 weeks to provide an explanation.
Reproducing a part of a published content or images is allowed if the original source and authors are respectively referred to and are given proper credit.
Open Access Policy
The Evolving Scholar is licensed under one of the following Creative Commons licenses:
- CC BY 4.0 licence. The license means that anyone is free to share (to copy, distribute, and transmit the work), to remix (to adapt the work)
- CC BY-ND 4.0 license. This license lets others reuse the work for any purpose, including commercially; however, it cannot be shared with others in adapted form, and credit must be provided to you.
- CCO license. No rights reserved
Note that publishing under CC-BY-NC/SA is allowed under exceptional conditions. For enquiries contact us at email@example.com
The Evolving Scholar grants you the right to publish the metadata of the series, its issues and articles under the terms of the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0).
ThES follows the COPE ethical guidelines for peer reviewers and the fair data principles. The community adheres to the COPE Core Practices and the principles of transparency as described in the Declaration on transparent editorial policies for academic journals
Code of conduct
TU Delft OPEN follows the TU Delft Code of Conduct which includes scientific and academic integrity and good research practices. We expect all users of the community-driven platform and all authors and reviewers to adhere to the above code of conduct. Failing to follow the code will result in sanctions after transparent investigations. Misconduct are handled by the Research Integrity Committee
TU Delft follows the Ethics adopted by authors, editors, and publishers. These guidelines are developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The opinions expressed in our published content are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the views opinions of TU Delft OPEN Publishing.
The responsibility of the content provided is exclusively of the author(s) concerned. TU Delft OPEN Publishing, The Evolving Scholar, the scientific community (moderators and reviewers) are not responsible for errors in the contents or any consequences arising from the use of information contained in it.
The opinions expressed in the publications of The Evolving Scholar do not necessarily represent the views of TU Delft OPEN publishing and the moderators.
We follow and open access publishing principle, in which author(s) are the sole owners of the copyright of the content published, for any omissions, copyright violation author(s) of the concerned article are only responsible. Our responsibility is limited only to removal of the concerned article from the journal once the query is raised.