Editorial Policy

SciEPublish journals follow the guidelines of 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.

Research Ethics

Research Involving Human Subjects
All studies involving human subjects must comply 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 have a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained from all human research participants, including for the case details or other personal information/images of patients and any other individuals. Written informed consent 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.

Studies involving vulnerable populations and individuals require additional, specifically considered protections. Vulnerable populations include, but are not limited to, children and minors, persons with impaired decision-making capacity, unconscious or critically ill patients, prisoners and other detained persons, pregnant women, and persons in a dependent relationship with the researchers. Where children and minors are involved as participants, or where their identifying information, images or case details are used, informed consent must be obtained from a parent or legal guardian, unless the minor is competent under the applicable law to consent in their own right, or the research ethics committee has approved a waiver; in either case the basis, the consent or assent obtained and the additional protections applied must be stated in the manuscript. Assent must be sought from the child where the child is able to give it, and the refusal of assent should be respected. Studies using de-identified secondary data, such as public registries or national survey datasets, require neither ethics approval nor consent; authors must state the dataset used and that the data are de-identified or publicly available.

All clinical trials must be registered in a public trial registry before the enrollment of the first participant, in accordance with the ICMJE guidelines. Trial registration records must be available in a primary register of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) or 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 issues will be investigated in accordance with 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 includes a statement that the relevant ethical committee approved the animal experiments and that the entire 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 into account 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 should be provided to either a published paper or a commercial source. If the study includes de novo cell lines that have not been previously published, appropriate approval from an institutional review board or equivalent ethical committee and written informed consent from human subjects should be obtained. Such statements should be listed in 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 the 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 recommends 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 the 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 collection providing access to deposited materials.

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 on a case-by-case basis, 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 article concerned, and/or potential victims.

Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication
Editors enforce a rigorous peer review process together with strict ethical policies and standards to guarantee the addition of 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. Editors take such publishing ethics issues very seriously and are trained to proceed in such cases with a zero-tolerance policy.
 
Authors who want to publish their papers in SciEPublish must abide by the following:

• The author(s) must disclose any possibility of a conflict of interest in the paper prior to submission.
• The authors should declare in the cover letter that there is no academic misconduct in their manuscript.
• Authors should accurately present their research findings and provide an objective discussion of their significance.
• 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).
• Preprints that have not been peer reviewed are acceptable for submissions. 
• 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 as a quotation and the source must be cited. If a study's design, 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 in submissions to avoid plagiarism to the greatest extent possible. If plagiarism is detected during the editorial process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, an investigation will take place and action will be taken in accordance with COPE Guidelines.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools

This section applies to authors, reviewers, editors and editorial staff of all SciEPublish journals, and covers generative AI tools such as large language models and chatbots, as well as other automated tools that produce, transform or screen text, images, data or recommendations. It applies to manuscripts, review reports, editorial correspondence and all stages of the editorial process.

AI tools should not be listed as an author or co-author, nor cited as an author, and should not be cited as a source in place of the original literature.

For Authors
AI tools may be used in the preparation of a manuscript, provided that the authors remain responsible for the scientific content and are able to explain and defend every statement, result and citation in it. Any output produced with such tools should be checked against the underlying data and the original sources before it is used. AI tools should be used under human oversight and control, and all work should be carefully reviewed and edited, as they may generate incorrect or prejudiced output. In any case, the authors are ultimately accountable for the contents of the work.

Where an AI tool is used only to correct grammar, spelling, punctuation and clarity of the authors' own text, to format the manuscript or convert it between file formats, to convert reference styles provided that every reference is checked against the original publication, or to search and read literature for the authors' own understanding without carrying AI-generated text into the manuscript, no declaration is needed.

Authors should declare the use where an AI tool has been used to draft or rewrite text in any section, including the introduction, methods, results, discussion and conclusions; to translate the authors' own draft into the language of the journal; to summarise or synthesise literature that is used in the manuscript; to write, debug or interpret code for data analysis, provided that the output is verified against the original data; to generate or edit figures, tables and captions, or to process images without altering the scientific content and in compliance with the requirements on image integrity above; or to compile and check reference lists, provided that every reference has been verified to exist and to support the statement it is cited for.

Where AI use falls within the categories above, the authors should state upon submission of the paper how the AI tool was used and which tool was used, and how the output was checked. The statement will appear in the published paper. An example:

"Statement of the Use of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the Writing Process
During the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used [NAME TOOL/SERVICE] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article."

AI tools should not be used to generate research data, results or images that are presented as empirical findings, to fabricate, alter or selectively remove data, images or references, or to provide the sole basis for a scientific claim, conclusion or recommendation. Manuscripts, data and other material that are unpublished or confidential and belong to third parties, including manuscripts under review elsewhere, identifiable personal or patient data and material covered by a confidentiality agreement, should not be entered into AI tools. AI tools should not be used to conceal the extent of AI use or to circumvent any requirement of these policies.

For Reviewers
Reviewers should not upload a manuscript, or any part of it, to a generative AI tool. This applies to the manuscript file, figures, supplementary material and any correspondence about the manuscript.

Reviewers should not use generative AI to draft their review reports, and the assessment, the reasoning and the wording of the comments should be their own. Where an AI tool is used to correct the language of a report that has already been drafted, this should be disclosed in the review form, together with the tool and the purpose. The reviewer remains responsible for every comment in the report.

Reviewers should not use AI tools to determine whether the manuscript, or any part of it, was generated by AI. Such checks require the manuscript to be submitted to a third-party service, which breaches the confidentiality of the review process, and the results are not reliable enough to support a judgement. Questions of originality and research integrity are dealt with by the handling editor and the Editorial Office, using the screening described below.

For Editors, editorial staff and automated tools
Editors and editorial staff should not use generative AI to make editorial decisions, to draft decision letters, to write review comments or revision requirements, or to assess the scientific content of a manuscript.

AI tools may be used for preliminary and administrative checks, such as language and formatting checks, confirmation that the files required at submission are complete, and the interpretation of screening outputs. Every substantive judgement should be made by a human editor, who records the decision.

Manuscripts, reviewer identities, review reports and editorial correspondence should not be entered into publicly available AI tools. Internal tools may be used only where the terms on data handling are known and access is controlled.

The journals use automated tools for plagiarism screening, as described above, and may use them for image integrity checks, for the detection of undeclared AI-generated content, for completeness checks at submission, and for the identification of potential reviewers. The output of these tools is treated as a signal rather than a finding, and any flag raised is reviewed by an editor before action is taken. No automated tool accepts, rejects or withdraws a manuscript, and no automated tool decides whether a reviewer is invited.

Where a tool suggests potential reviewers, the suggestions are treated as candidates. The handling editor checks the subject expertise, affiliation and publication record of each candidate, together with any conflict of interest or relationship with the authors, and decides whether the candidate is suitable for the manuscript. Invitations are issued by the editor and are never sent automatically.

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

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

The corresponding author (at 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 are with the co-authors' agreement;
• confirming that all co-authors agree that 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 rearrangement of co-authors, must be approved by every co-author and the editor must be informed 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 a request under reasonable circumstances. The Editorial Office will strictly follow the COPE guidelines (How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers) to address the issue, respect the author's request, and 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 keeping the integrity and transparency of scientific research. Authors are requested to make their experimental materials and research data freely available to readers, either by publishing supporting information as supplementary material in the journal or by depositing datasets in 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 are not able to access 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 objectively and impartially 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 entire 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 confidentiality agreements may bind some authors, 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 conflicts or competing interests. They should be excluded from handling manuscripts and from the peer review and decision-making process when a potential conflict of 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 conflict of interest.
 
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 and retraction guidelines. 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 misconduct that 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.
 
If there is unclear evidence of significant and credible concerns (e.g., major errors, incorrect analysis, or research integrity and publication ethics that affect the main findings), or conclusive evidence cannot be obtained for some time, an Expression of Concern should be considered to alert readers.

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. Publications should be considered for retraction under the following circumstances:

• when significant errors, data/image irregularities, or misrepresentation (such as fraud, identity theft, or fabricated authorship) seriously undermine the reliability of the findings.
• when material is republished without appropriate attribution, permission, or justification, or when used material or data lacks proper authorization.
• when unethical research practices, compromised peer review, or undisclosed conflicts of interest have biased the work's interpretation or the reviewers' recommendations.
• when there is evidence of systematic manipulation of the publication process in one or more journals (e.g., paper mills).

The retraction notice will mention the reasons and basis for the retraction. The retracted article will be marked as retracted online, while a PDF version will remain freely available to readers and will be watermarked as "Retracted Article". The retraction notice should be linked to the retracted article. The author’s institution may be informed.

Digital Preservation

To ensure the permanent availability and preservation of all publications, all published articles will be preserved permanently in Portico: https://www.portico.org/publishers/sciepublish/

Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers are expected to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process for the manuscripts they handle, and they must not disclose that information about those 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 that 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, abide by the same confidentiality rules, and provide the review report with the 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. The editorial office will carefully consider all appeals and, if necessary, refer them to the Editor-in-Chief. Where appropriate, additional advice may be sought from other members of the 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 provide feedback to the complainant. Advice from third-party experts may be taken if necessary.


Updated in November 2026