Publication Ethics is an important part of the scientific publishing process. In order to maintain the highest standards of publication, Science Publication has implemented extensive guidelines highlighting the responsibilities of editors, reviewers and authors. These guidelines are based on the Guidelines on Good Publication Practice developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Following, we have outlined a few important guidelines that are required to be followed throughout the publication process.
We are committed to uphold these values in each process of publication. If you would like to share any concerns about our policies or would like to enquire about the publication history of any manuscript, you can contact our in house Publication Ethics Team at [email protected]
Peer Review Process
Science Publications has been publishing several open access journals for nearly two decades. We have implemented and designed various review procedures before setting up our current Peer Review process. Our current model allows editors to focus directly on research quality, gives authors faster evaluation times while leaving all the tedious administrative tasks to our in-house editorial coordinators. This way, we can ensure that our editors are not overburdened and stretched to their limits during the evaluation process, and instead can provide in-depth analysis to authors highlighting any concerns related to their research. To find out more about our Peer Review process click here.
We have developed extensive guidelines for Editors, Reviewers and Authors to ensure that they meet our standards throughout various steps of the publication process. It is crucial for all members to thoroughly read and follow the guidelines to ensure that there are no issues in publication.
Complaints and Concerns
Although, Science Publications tries to ensure the highest standards are met throughout the publication process, there can be instances where editors, reviewers and/or authors need to share their concerns. If you have any questions regarding our policies or should like to bring to attention any instance of misconduct, be sure to contact us at [email protected]
We take all complaints seriously and would require the complainant to remain in contact. We will initiate an investigation into the allegation and gather all evidence for the case. Our Ethics Team will coordinate with all parties involved to make sure that the complaint is properly addressed and a conclusion is reached in accordance with the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). If the complaint raises valid concerns, the journal will implement sanctions on authors according to severity of the breach.
Science Publications might find it compulsory in some cases to rectify certain pieces of literature. In which cases, Science Publications will abide by the COPE Retraction Guidelines.
An Erratum, or correction of an article, should be issued if:
- A small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error)
- The author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included)
Manuscripts should be retracted if:
- Journal Editors have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
- The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
- It constitutes plagiarism
- It reports unethical research
Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if:
- They receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors
- There is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case
- They believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive
- An investigation is underway but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time