Papers should only be submitted for consideration once consent is given by all contributing authors. All submitting papers should be carefully checked that all those whose work contributed to the paper are acknowledged as contributing authors. This concerns all those who made a substantial contribution to the concept or design of the work. When a large, multicentre group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript.

Peer review

Humana.Mente operates an editorial peer review process in which the reviewer’s name is withheld from the author and, the author’s name from the reviewer. The reviewer may at their own discretion opt to reveal their name to the author in their review but our standard policy practice is for both identities to remain concealed. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two referees. All manuscripts are reviewed as rapidly as possible, and an editorial decision is generally reached within 4-8 weeks of submission. Reviewers are experts in their fields and should be able to provide an objective assessment of the manuscript.
If it is essential for authors to refer to their own work, we expect this to be done in the third person; thus, avoiding any self-identifying statements. For instance, an author whose name is Galileo Galilei would refer to previously published work along the following lines: `It was earlier discussed in Galilei (1609) . Full bibliographical information about these works would then be provided in the list of references at the end of the manuscript.

Ethical Resposibility of Authors

This journal is deeply committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record. Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and ultimately the entire scientific endeavour. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation can be achieved by following the rules of good scientific practice, which include:
- The manuscript submitted to HM should not been submitted also to other journals for simultaneous consideration;
- The manuscript submitted to HM should not been published previously (partly or in full), unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work;
- Data quoted in the article should not been fabricated or manipulated;
- Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given, quotation marks should be used for verbatim quotations, and permissions shludl be secured for material that is copyrighted;
- The consent to submit and publish should be received explicitly from all co-authors;
- Upon request authors should be prepared to send additional documentation in order to verify the validity of the results.


If there is a suspicion of misconduct by one or more authors, Humana.Mente will carry out an investigation. If, after investigation, the allegation seems to raise valid concerns, the author(s) will be contacted and given an opportunity to address the issue. If misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt, this may result in the  implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:
- If the article is still under review, it may be rejected without concluding the review process;
- If the article has already been published, depending on the nature and severity of the misconduct, either an erratum will be placed with the article or in severe cases complete retraction of the article will occur.


Humana.Mente takes issues of copyright infringement, plagiarism, or other breaches of best practice in publication very seriously. We seek to protect the rights of our authors and we always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published articles.  Where an article  is found to have plagiarised other work or included third-party copyright material without permission or with insufficient acknowledgement, or where the authorship of the article is contested, we reserve the right to take action including, but not limited to: publishing an erratum or corrigendum (correction); retracting the article; taking up the matter with the head of department or dean of the author's institution and/or relevant academic bodies or societies; or taking appropriate legal action.