Scipedia's publication ethics statement

An integral part of Scipedia's mission is to publish journals of the highest quality and with the greatest impact. Journals published in must adhere to the Best Practices Guidelines for Journals Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers of the Committee on Publication Ethics Code of Conduct. In particular, all journals published in must meet the 'Scipedia's publication ethics statement'. Insofar as they are applicable, the criteria, requirements and duties stated in the 'Scipedia's publication ethics statement' should also be met by the conferences published in

General requirements

Editorial board: Journals published in should have editorial boards or other governing bodies whose members are recognized experts in the field. The full names and links to the profiles of the members must be provided on the journal's main page. They can be contacted using Scipedia's internal messaging tool.

The editorial board is, with exceptions that shall be clearly indicated on the journal's main site, the creators, owners and managers of the journal. Scipedia only offers them an innovative hosting platform providing publishing and open access services, as well as different free or paid editorial services.

Instruction for authors: The main page of the journal must include detailed instructions for authors. This shall be available in the INFORMATION panel and must, at least, include information about the manuscript structure and format, a description on the submission and peer review process, the publishing schedule and/or information about the availability of accepted articles, information about the article processing charges (if applicable), and a link to this and/or any specific Publication Ethics Statement.

Name of the journal: The journal name shall be unique and not be one that is easily confused with other journal(s) or that might mislead potential authors and readers about the journal's origin or association with other journals.

Article processing charges: Those journals that require the payment of a fee for manuscript processing and/or publishing materials shall be highlighted in the instructions for authors that should be available in the main page of the journal.

Peer-review process: All of a journal's content should be subjected to peer-review. Peer-review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers' expert in the field. Scipedia's journals can implement single blind peer-review and collaborative (open) peer-review. The type of peer-review implemented in the journal should be clearly described on the journal's instructions for authors.

Copyright and Access: Open Access (OA) refers to online research outputs that are free of all restrictions on access and free of many restrictions on use. Scipedia embraces OA as a means to fulfill its mission. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the journal main page, all the published content in will be licensed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license. This information is always shown in the INFORMATION panel of the main page of the journal.

Archiving: offers a free and unlimited time basic hosting plan for journals, which guarantees the preservation and access to the journal content in the event a journal is no longer active.

Duties of authors

Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate and complete account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The research report and the data collected should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information to permit others to reproduce the experimental observations.

Originality and plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is not acceptable. Authors should not engage in plagiarism - verbatim or near-verbatim copying, or very close paraphrasing, of text or results from another's work. Authors should not engage in self-plagiarism - unacceptably close replication of the author's own previously published text or results without acknowledgement of the source. Material quoted verbatim from the author's previously published work must be placed in quotation marks.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: It is improper for an author to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal of primary publication, unless it is a resubmission of a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication. It is generally permissible to submit a manuscript for a full paper expanding on a previously published brief preliminary account (a "communication" or "letter") of the same work. However, at the time of submission, the editor should be made aware of the earlier communication, and the preliminary communication should be cited in the manuscript.

Acknowledgement of sources Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate, and should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Authors should appropriately recognize the contributions of technical staff and data professionals. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an "Acknowledgments" section.

Hazards and human or animal subjects: Any unusual hazards inherent in the chemicals, equipment, or procedures used in an investigation should be clearly identified in a manuscript reporting the work. Authors should inform the editor if a manuscript could be considered to report research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably expected to provide knowledge, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied by others to pose a threat to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, or material.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal's editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Duties of the Editor

Publication decisions: The sole responsibility for acceptance, rejection or request for modifications of a manuscript rests with the editor. Responsible and prudent exercise of this duty normally requires that the editor seek advice from reviewers, chosen for their expertise and good judgment, as to the quality and reliability of manuscripts submitted for publication. However, manuscripts may be rejected without external review if considered by the editors to be inappropriate for the journal. Such rejections may be based on the failure of the manuscript to fit the scope of the journal, to be of current or sufficiently broad interest, to provide adequate depth of content, to be written in acceptable English, or other reasons. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Review of Manuscripts: Each editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated for originality. Then, the manuscript is forwarded to the selected reviewers who will make a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript.

An author may request that the editor not use certain reviewers in consideration of a manuscript. However, the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers, if the editor feels their opinions are important in the fair consideration of a manuscript.

Fair play: The editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political affiliation or belief of the authors.

Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the authors.

Ethical guidelines: The editor shall ensure that all research material published conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.

Duties of reviewers

Promptness and suitability: A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process as soon as possible. A reviewer should act promptly, submitting a report in a timely manner. Alternatively, the reviewer might notify the editor of probable delays and propose a revised review date.

Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases authorized by the editor, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought.

Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Unsupported assertions by reviewers (or by authors in rebuttal) should be avoided. The review of a submitted manuscript may sometimes justify criticism from a reviewer. However, in no case is personal criticism of the author considered to be appropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.