Editorial Policy

SCIEPublish journals follow the guidelines of the COPE's Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing to ensure the accurate, timely, fair, and ethical publication of scientific articles.
 
Editorial Independence

We are committed to editorial independence and strive in all cases to prevent this principle from being compromised through conflicts of interest, fear, or any other corporate, business, financial, or political influence. We do not discriminate against authors, editors, or reviewers based on personal characteristics or identity.
 
Editors who make final decisions on articles must have no financial, personal, or professional involvement with the manuscript under consideration. Otherwise, they should withdraw from handling the article. Editors will make decisions based on the importance of the work, not its potential effect on the Journal’s commercial success.
 
Editors who submit their own work to SCIEPublish journals are not allowed to be involved in the handling of their articles and do not have access to the record; another editor is always given responsibility for the peer review and decision-making process to avoid conflicts of interest.
 
Editorial Office staff do not interfere with editorial decisions to ensure editorial independence.
 
Publication Ethics

Misconduct
SCIEPublish upholds a zero-tolerance policy for misconduct across all our journals and all papers published, and will take appropriate action to uphold ethical standards. Allegations of misconduct should be sent to the editorial office of the journal for further professional investigations.

To handle all allegations of potential misconduct, all SCIEPublish journals take those issues seriously and deal with them case-by-case based on the Allegations of misconduct guidelines of COPE. According to these guidelines, either misconduct identified by the editorial office of the journal or reported by readers, The Editor-in-Chief together with the journal staff will investigate the matter. Based on the investigation, the journal may reject or withdraw the manuscript or issue an erratum, or retract the paper. The investigation may also result in the editorial office of the journal contacting the author(s)’ funding institutions for the concerning article, and/or potential victims.

Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication
The Editors enforce a rigorous peer-review process together with strict ethical policies and standards to guarantee to add high-quality scientific works to the field of scholarly publication. Unfortunately, cases of plagiarism, data falsification, image manipulation, inappropriate authorship credit, and the like, do arise. The Editors take such publishing ethics issues very seriously and are trained to proceed in such cases with zero tolerance policy.
 
Authors who want to publish their papers in SCIEPublish must abide to the following:

• The author(s) must disclose any possibility of a conflict of interest in the paper prior to submission.
• The authors should declare that there is no academic misconduct in their manuscript in the cover letter.
• Authors should accurately present their research findings as well as an objective discussion of the significance of their findings.
• Data and methods used in the research need to be presented in sufficient detail in the manuscript so that other researchers can replicate the work.
• Authors may be requested to provide the raw data relevant to the paper for editorial review.
• Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is unacceptable.
• Exact translations of previously published work are not tolerated (for example, an English translation of a paper that is already published in another language will not be accepted).
• If you include already published figures or images, please get the necessary permission from the copyright holder to publish under the CC-BY 4.0 license.
• Plagiarism, data fabrication and image manipulation are not acceptable.

Plagiarism, data fabrication and image manipulation are unacceptable:

• Plagiarism involves the inclusion of large sections of unaltered or minimally altered text from an existing source without appropriate and unambiguous attribution, and/or an attempt to misattribute original authorship regarding ideas or results, and copying text, images, or data from another source, even from your own publications, without giving credit to the source. If plagiarism is detected during the peer-review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, we may publish a Correction or retract the paper.
• As for reusing the text that is copied from another source, it must be marked quotation and the source must be cited. If a study's design or the manuscript's structure or language has been inspired by previous studies, these studies must be cited explicitly.
• Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results so that the findings are not accurately represented in the research record.
• Image files must not be manipulated or adjusted in any way that could lead to misinterpretation of the information provided by the original image. Irregular manipulation includes: introduction, enhancement, moving, or removing features from the original image; grouping of images that should be presented separately, or modifying the contrast, brightness, or color balance to obscure, eliminate, or enhance some information. If irregular image manipulation is identified and confirmed during the editorial process, we will reject the manuscript. If it is identified and confirmed after publication, we may publish a Retraction or retract the paper.

SCIEPublish reserves the right to contact the authors' institution(s) to investigate possible research or publication misconduct if the editors find conclusive evidence of misconduct before or after publication.
 
SCIEPublish undergoes screening for plagiarism using the Similarity Check provided by CrossRef, which is the most trusted plagiarism checker. It is used to detect instances of overlapping and similar text of submissions to avoid plagiarism to the greatest extent possible. If plagiarism is detected during editorial process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, an investigation will take place and action taken in accordance with COPE Guidelines.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools
Where authors use AI tools in the writing process, those tools should only be used to improve readability and ensure that the language is no errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation and tone, but not to generate new ideas and/or creation. Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of tools and a statement will appear in the published work. In any cases, the authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work.

AI tools should not be listed as an author or co-author, nor cited as an author. AI tools should be used under human oversight and control, and all work should be reviewed and edited carefully, as they may generate incorrect or prejudiced output.

SCIEPublish will monitor this development and will adjust or update this policy when appropriate.

Research Ethics

Research Involving Human Subjects
All studies involving human subjects must be in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. Authors must ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the ethics committee(s) have approved the research (including the name and reference number of the committee). Authors must also contain a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained from all human research participants, involving the case details or other personal information/images of patients and any other individuals. Written informed consents must be retained by the author and copies of the consents or evidence that such consents have been obtained must be provided. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be respected.

All clinic trials must be registered in a public trial registry before enrollment of the first participant. Trial registration records must be available in a primary register of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), in ClinicalTrials.gov. The trial number of the primary trial must be clearly listed in the methods section of the manuscript. Authors reporting phase II and phase III randomized controlled trials should refer to the CONSORT Statement for recommendations to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trial findings. Reports that do not conform to the CONSORT guidelines may need to be revised before formal review.

Manuscripts with suspected ethical problems will be investigated according to COPE Guidelines.
 
Research Involving Animals
All experimental research on animals must comply with relevant institutional, national, or international guidelines and regulations. The corresponding author must ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that the experiments on animals have been approved by the relevant ethical committee and that the whole research process complies with ethical guidelines.
 
If the study is granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, the name of the ethics committee granting the exemption and the reason(s) for the exemption should be detailed. Editors will take account of animal welfare issues and reserve the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research.
 
Research Involving Cell Lines
Authors must indicate the origin of any cell lines they used so that the research can be replicated. For established cell lines, the provenance should be stated and references must also be given to either a published paper or to a commercial source. If the study includes de novo cell lines unpublished previously, appropriate approval from an institutional review board or equivalent ethical committee, and written informed consent from human origin, should be obtained. Such statements should be listed on the “Ethics Statement” section in the manuscript.
 
Further information is available from the International Cell Line Authentication Committee (ICLAC). SCIEPublish recommends that authors may refer to the NCBI database for misidentification and contamination of human cell lines.
 
Research Involving Plants
All experimental research on plants (either cultivated or wild), including collection of plant material, must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines. Field studies should be conducted in accordance with local legislation, and the manuscript should include a statement identifying the appropriate permissions and/or licenses. SCIEPublish recommend that authors comply with the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
 
For each submitted manuscript, supporting genetic information and origin must be provided for plants that were used. For research manuscripts involving rare and non-model plants (other than, e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Nicotiana benthamiana, Oriza sativa, or many other typical model plants), voucher specimens must be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collections providing access to deposited materials.
 
Authorship

Authorship should only be granted to those who have made substantial contributions to a published study that meet the four requirements outlined below:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
• Final approval of the version to be submitted;
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

All those who meet these criteria should be identified as co-authors. Co-authors must specify their contributions in the section “Authors Contributions” of their manuscripts. Contributors who do not meet all four criteria (like being only involved in the acquisition of funding, general supervision of a research group, general administrative support, writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, proofreading, etc.) should be acknowledged in the section “Acknowledgements” in the manuscript rather than being listed as co-authors. 

If a large multiple-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be co-authors before the work starts and confirm co-authors before submission. All researchers in the group named as co-authors must meet all four criteria for authorship.

The corresponding author (as least one member), usually a senior and experienced member of the submitted group or team), is responsible for:

• communication with editors about submission, peer review, revision, proofreading, etc.;
• ensuring all data and contents of the manuscript with co-authors' agreement;
• confirming all co-authors to agree all matters comply with the policies of the journal;
• being available for any post-publication queries.

SCIEPublish encourages all co-authors to provide ORCID IDs to improve transparency and unambiguous attribution of scholarly contributions.

In accordance with COPE guidance, AI and AI-assisted technologies/tools should not be listed as an author of a paper.
 
Changes to Authorship
Changes to the authorship, such as the addition, deletion, or sequence re-arrangement of co-authors, must be approved by every co-author and inform the editor of the change and co-authors' approval. After acceptance of a manuscript, those above changes to authorship are not permitted.
 
Author name changes
If an author requests to change their name after publication, the Editorial Office will consider such requirements under reasonable circumstances. The Editorial Office will strictly follow the COPE guidelines (How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers) to handle it and respect the author's request, but at the same time ensure that the published articles have transparent and reliable records.
 
Deceased authors
For cases in which a co-author dies during the writing, submission, or peer-review process, and the co-authors feel it is appropriate to include the author, co-authors should obtain approval from a (legal) representative which could be a direct relative.

Acknowledgements

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an Acknowledgements section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, or a department chair who provided only general support.
 
Availability of Data and Materials

Reproducibility is integral to keep the integrity and transparency of scientific research. Authors are requested to make the free availability of their experimental materials and research data to readers, either by publishing the supportive information as supplementary information in the journal or by depositing datasets into publicly available data repositories before publication. The information should be stated in the manuscript as 'Data Availability Statement' indicating where the experimental materials and research data of their study can be found. If certain data cannot be shared, authors should explicitly mention this and provide the reason accordingly.

After publication, if readers who are not available to data or materials to understand/reproduce the findings of the paper, they should contact the Editorial Office of the journal. In cases where the complaint cannot be solved, the journal may refer the matter to the authors' funding institution and/or publish a formal statement of correction, attached online to the publication, stating that readers have been unable to obtain necessary materials to replicate the findings.
 
Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest (also known as competing interest) is defined as anything that might affect or be perceived to interfere with the objectivity and integrity of authors' research, whether through financial and/or non-financial interests. SCIEPublish Journals are committed to publishing scientific information as objective and impartial as possible. The policy is to request that authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff declare any associations of all financial or competing interests during the whole publication process to maintain publication transparency.
 
Financial conflicts of interest include (but are not limited to) funding, employment, and personal financial interests. Authors are requested to disclose all sources of funding of the study that may gain or lose through this publication, and also disclose the funder's role in the conception, design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, and preparation of the manuscript. Recent (while engaged in the research project), present or anticipated employment by any organization that may gain or lose financially through this publication. Authors also should have a disclosure statement with the original submission of their work if the study is associated with personal interests including stocks, shares, consultancies, and other forms of remuneration that may gain or lose financially through the publication; Patents or patent applications whose value may be affected by the publication.
 
Non-financial conflicts of interest usually refer to personal or professional associations with individuals and/or organizations. It includes (but is not limited to): unpaid membership in a government or non-governmental organization; unpaid advisory position in a commercial organization; unpaid membership in an advocacy or lobbying organization; writing or consulting for an educational company; and acting as an expert witness. We encourage authors to declare any unpaid roles or associations that may affect the publication process.
 
Authors
SCIEPublish journals require authors to declare any financial and/or non-financial conflicts of interest at the end of their manuscript and confirm this point when submitting their manuscript through the submission system. If no conflicts of interest exist, authors should state "The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper." If some authors may be bound by confidentiality agreements, they should state "The authors declare that they are bound by confidentiality agreements that prevent them from disclosing their competing interests in this work." The statement of each manuscript is fully open to reviewers during the peer review process, as well as fully open to readers after publication.
 
The corresponding author is responsible for providing the statement on behalf of all co-authors.
 
Reviewers
Reviewers are requested to declare any related interests with authors, financial or otherwise, which are perceived as interfering with the objectivity of the peer-review process. We encourage reviewers to inform the Editorial Office of any potential or uncertain interests when they are invited to review, so that the Editorial Office can double check and decide whether the reviewer should be excluded or not.
 
Authors may recommend excluded reviewers with clear reasons when they are submitting a manuscript. The Editorial Office will consider these recommendations when the peer review process of the manuscript starts.
 
Editorial Board Members and Guest Editors
All editors including editors-in-chief, editorial board members, and guest editors in SCIEPublish journals are requested to declare any conflict or competing interests. They should be excluded from handling manuscripts, as well as excluded from the peer-review and decision-making process, in situations where a potential interest exists. If an editor is one of the co-authors on the submitted manuscript, another editor will be assigned to handle it to avoid any interests.
 
Editorial staff
Editorial staff are requested to declare any potential interests associated with papers they handled to SCIE Publishing Limited. Otherwise, it is a disciplinary offense.
 
Corrections and Retractions

SCIEPublish journals will publish corrections, retractions, and other post-publication updates based on the guide for post-publication discussions and corrections. If authors find a significant error or inaccuracy in their published article, they should contact the specific journal's Editorial Office, and should work together with the Editorial Office (and, where appropriate, the institute) to correct the error. In cases of any serious errors or scientific misconducts as to warrant retraction, the authors are requested to retract the paper and publish a retraction statement.
 
If an investigation into an issue with a published paper is likely to take a considerable time, or a case is particularly serious, SCIEPublish Journals may add a Publisher’s Note explaining the issues to the reader while the matter is being resolved. The Correspondence and Response articles will also be considered for publication if a paper warrants further discussion.
 
Corrections
If there is a significant error or inaccuracy that appears in a published article that affects scientific integrity or author reputation but does not affect the overall results and conclusions of the article, a correction may be published to correct this(these) important error(s). Depending on the severity of the error(s), it may result in actions including, but not limited to:

• An erratum/correction may be placed with the article.
• An editor’s note or editorial expression of concern may be placed with the article. 

Retractions
If a serious error or scientific misconduct appears in a published article that invalidates the results and conclusions of the article, as well as violation of publication or research ethics, retraction of the article may occur. Retraction notice will mention the reasons and basis for the retraction. The original article is marked as retracted, but a PDF version remains available to readers which will be watermarked as “Retracted Article". The retraction notice is bi-directionally linked to the original published paper. The author’s institution may be informed.
 
Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers are expected to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process of manuscripts they handled, and they must not disclose that information about manuscripts to anyone. They should not use knowledge of the work before its publication to further their own interests. Reviewers are also confidential and anonymous to authors and readers, to ensure reviewers' information and comments will not be disclosed. To maintain this confidentiality, reviewers must not use AI tools to check or upload manuscripts.
 
If a reviewer wishes to co-review an article with colleagues or members of their lab/group, the reviewer must consult with the editor and abide by the same rules of confidentiality, and provide the review report with names of colleagues or members to the journal.
 
Appeals and complaints

Appeal against Decisions
Authors may appeal against decisions by contacting the editorial office if they strongly believe there have been errors or misunderstandings on the part of the editor or reviewers. All appeals will be carefully considered by the editorial office and, if necessary, Editor-in-Chief. Where appropriate, additional advice may be sought from other members of Editorial Board. Therefore, decisions on appeals may take longer and are final.

Complaint about Processes
Complaints or concerns about processes (e.g., delays or technical issues) should be raised in the first instance with the editorial office of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief will work with the journal staff (where appropriate) to investigate the matter. The complainant will be given appropriate feedback.

Complaint about Publication Ethics
Ethical issues (e.g., researcher, author, editor, or reviewer conduct) are handled in consultation with the guidelines published by COPE. Queries or concerns should be raised in the first instance with the editorial office of the journal. The in-house editor will work with the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor to thoroughly investigate the matter and provides feedback to the complainant. Advice from third-party experts may be taken if necessary.