Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Stateme

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Corresponding author responsibilities
The corresponding author is the primary contact for the journal during submission, peer review, and production. This author is responsible for:

  • Communicating with the journal on behalf of all co‑authors.

  • Confirming that every listed author has approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission.

  • Ensuring that the work is original, properly cited, and not under consideration elsewhere.

  • Checking that no part of the manuscript has been copied from other sources and that all journal policies and author guidelines have been followed.

Use of artificial intelligence tools is limited to language and technical editing (for example, correcting grammar and spelling). Using AI to write or substantially generate the content, analysis, or conclusions of a manuscript is considered unethical and may be treated as a form of plagiarism. The corresponding author is responsible for preventing and disclosing any misconduct, including plagiarism, image manipulation, self‑plagiarism, excessive self‑citation, data fabrication, or data falsification. Any evidence of misconduct, whether detected before or after publication, will be investigated by the editorial board and may lead to rejection, correction, or retraction.

Animal research and welfare
Animal welfare is a core ethical requirement for Scientific Reports in Life Sciences (SRLS). Manuscripts involving animals will not be considered if invasive sampling has been conducted without prior approval from relevant ethics committees or regulatory bodies.

  • Authors must obtain appropriate permissions from institutional or national ethics committees and other responsible authorities before starting the research.

  • Copies of these approvals should be submitted with the manuscript, and the name of the approving body and the approval or permit number must be clearly reported in the Materials and Methods section.

  • All animal experiments must demonstrate ethical acceptability and, where applicable, follow national or institutional guidelines for the humane use of animals in research.

For additional information, authors should consult the journal’s guidelines for animal research, which form part of this publication ethics and malpractice statement. Scientific Reports in Life Sciences (SRLS) upholds strict ethical standards and expects authors to follow best practices. SRLS follows the “Ethical Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research” represented by the Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology. Failure to provide appropriate certificates, permits, and ethics approvals may result in rejection of the manuscript.

In addition, SRLS endorses the “Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments” (ARRIVE) guidelines developed by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), alongside the aforementioned guidelines of the Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology.

Ethical guidelines for human research
For studies involving human participants or identifiable human data, SRLS adheres to the “Declaration of Helsinki” of the World Medical Association (WMA), which sets ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects, including human materials and data. Detailed information is available at this LINK, and a PDF version can be accessed via this LINK.

Authors must include a statement in the manuscript confirming that informed consent was obtained from all human participants (or their legal guardians, where applicable) and that the study was approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The privacy and confidentiality of participants must be protected at all times. Where chemicals, procedures, or equipment involve unusual risks, authors must clearly identify these hazards and provide the necessary legal permissions and ethical approvals.

Editorial responsibilities and independence
Scientific Reports in Life Sciences (SRLS) is committed to transparent and independent editorial decision‑making.

Initial screening and assignment
Upon submission, the Editor‑in‑Chief or a designated editor conducts an initial screening to assess the suitability of the manuscript with respect to the journal’s scope, basic scientific quality, and adherence to ethical and author guidelines. If suitable, the manuscript is assigned to an editor with relevant subject expertise, who oversees the peer‑review process.

Ethical and scientific assessment
The handling editor evaluates whether the manuscript meets SRLS standards for scientific rigor and ethical compliance. Manuscripts that clearly do not meet these standards may be rejected at this stage or returned to the authors for substantial revision before review.

External peer reviewers
The handling editor selects external reviewers with appropriate expertise. Reviewers assess the manuscript in terms of originality, methodological soundness, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope. The editor seeks reports from at least two reviewers; in some cases, more reviewers may be invited to strengthen the evaluation. If invited reviewers do not respond within the specified time, the editor may invite additional reviewers until sufficient reports are received.

Non‑discrimination and fairness
SRLS applies a strict non‑discrimination policy. Editorial decisions are not influenced by authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, citizenship, political views, or institutional affiliation. To support impartiality, the journal uses a double‑blind peer‑review system, where reviewers do not know the identities or affiliations of the authors. The Editor‑in‑Chief is responsible for safeguarding editorial independence and addressing any breaches of this principle.

Confidentiality
Editors must treat all manuscripts and correspondence as confidential. Manuscripts and associated information may not be shared outside the editorial and peer‑review process without explicit permission. Reviewer identities are kept confidential, and author identities are concealed during review. Editors must ensure that no part of the submission (including acknowledgments) reveals author identity in a way that compromises double‑blind review.

Conflict of interest (COI) disclosure

Authors
Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing the results or interpretation of their work. These may include financial interests (e.g., funding, stock ownership, patents), personal or professional relationships, or institutional interests. Conflicts of interest should be declared at submission and described under a “Conflict of Interest” heading following the acknowledgments. If there are no conflicts, authors should state: “The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

Funding
All sources of financial support, including grant numbers or project codes, must be acknowledged in the manuscript’s acknowledgments section.

Editors and reviewers
Editors and reviewers must decline handling or reviewing a manuscript if they have a conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions, such as recent collaboration, shared affiliation, personal relationships, or direct competitive interests. In such cases, they should promptly inform the Editor‑in‑Chief so that the manuscript can be reassigned.

Publication decision process and peer review

Overview of peer review
SRLS uses a double‑blind peer‑review process in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. The steps are:

  • Initial suitability check by the Editor‑in‑Chief or Managing Editor.

  • Assignment to a handling editor from the editorial board.

  • Selection of independent external reviewers with relevant expertise.

  • Collection of at least two detailed review reports.

  • Editorial recommendation (e.g., acceptance, revision, or rejection).

  • Final decision by the Editor‑in‑Chief or delegated academic editor, based on reviewer comments, the authors’ responses, and the overall quality and integrity of the work.

Author revisions and responses
Following peer review, the decision (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject) and anonymized reviewer comments are sent to the corresponding author. For revisions, authors should submit a revised manuscript along with a point‑by‑point “Response to Reviewers” document within the specified timeframe. The handling editor may send the revised manuscript back to the original reviewers or to new reviewers if necessary.

Final editorial decision
The Editor‑in‑Chief (or a delegated academic editor) makes the final decision on acceptance or rejection, considering the reviewers’ recommendations, the authors’ responses, and legal or ethical issues (such as defamation, copyright, and plagiarism).

Reviewer responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely reviews.

  • Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.

  • Refrain from using any information obtained through the review process for personal advantage.

  • Notify the editor if they identify plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, or other ethical concerns.

  • Decline review requests when they lack sufficient expertise or have conflicts of interest.

SRLS follows the COPE ethical guidelines for peer‑review processes, which can be accessed in full at this address.

Guidelines for authors
Authors are encouraged to consult the SRLS writing rules and author guidelines before submission.

  • Manuscripts that do not follow the journal’s formatting and structural requirements may be returned for correction prior to review.

  • Research must be conducted and reported according to accepted scientific and ethical standards, with sufficient detail and references to allow replication.

  • Authors should avoid all forms of fraudulent or unethical behavior, including plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, and inappropriate authorship practices.

Data availability
Authors may be asked to provide underlying data, and in such cases, should be prepared to share it as supplementary material or through appropriate repositories, subject to legal and ethical constraints. As an open‑access journal, SRLS encourages transparent and accessible data sharing. Restrictions due to confidentiality or proprietary rights should be discussed with the Editor‑in‑Chief.

Genetic sequences and other datasets
For genetic sequences and similar datasets, authors are strongly encouraged to deposit data in recognized public repositories and cite the accession numbers in the manuscript. The journal can assist authors in identifying suitable open‑access databases.

Originality and plagiarism
SRLS has zero tolerance for plagiarism and self‑plagiarism. All submissions are checked using plagiarism‑detection software such as iThenticate. Authors must ensure that the text is original and that all sources are appropriately cited.

For a detailed definition of plagiarism, authors are referred to the Oxford University plagiarism guidance, available at:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism.

Scientific Reports in Life Sciences follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines
https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12.

The journal adheres to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.8) and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers. For medical case reports, SRLS recommends that authors follow COPE guidance
https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.6.

To access COPE’s “PRINCIPLES OF TRANSPARENCY AND BEST PRACTICE IN SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING,” please use this link.

Copyright transfer and authorship
By signing the copyright transfer form, authors confirm that:

  • The manuscript is original and has not been published previously in any form (including in another journal, book, or online platform).

  • The manuscript is not under review elsewhere.

  • All listed authors have made a meaningful contribution to the study (e.g., conception and design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or critical revision of the manuscript).

  • All authors have read and approved the final version and agree to its submission.

Authors should acknowledge all sources of financial support in the acknowledgments section and disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence the work or its interpretation.

Substantial errors in published papers
If authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they must promptly notify the journal and cooperate in correcting or retracting the article. If the editorial team or publisher becomes aware of serious issues (such as major errors, plagiarism, or fraud), the journal may initiate an investigation and, where appropriate, issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions. The editorial board and publisher reserve the right to remove or correct published content that is found to involve research misconduct or unethical behavior.

Copyright and license
SRLS is a fully open‑access journal and applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license to all published works (https://creativecommons.org/). Under this license, others may copy, distribute, adapt, and reuse the material for almost any purpose, provided that the original work is properly cited. Authors are encouraged to share their published articles openly, including on academic and social platforms such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu, as long as they acknowledge SRLS as the original source.