Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Stateme

The corresponding author assumes responsibility for all correspondence with the journal. When signing the copyright transfer form, the corresponding author is obliged to ensure that all listed authors have provided their consent for the submission and have approved the final version. Once the review process commences, the submitted paper undergoes a screening to identify any potential breaches of standard norms for publishing original research. To this end, all coauthors receive an acknowledgment email and are informed about the submission.

Instances of inappropriate image manipulation, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or data manipulation will be subject to scrutiny by the editorial board. We maintain stringent regulations concerning animal rights, which necessitates that any invasive sampling, animal manipulation, or sacrifice must be accompanied by the requisite permissions and ethical approvals. These permissions must be submitted along with the manuscript, and the permission number and issuing authority should be explicitly cited in the Materials and Methods section.

Any experiments involving animals must demonstrate ethical acceptability and, where applicable, adhere to national guidelines for the ethical use of animals in research. For additional information, please refer to the journal's guidelines for animal research in accordance with our publication ethics and malpractice statement.

Animal rights policies

cientific Reports in Life Sciences (SRLS) upholds stringent ethical standards and guidelines, requiring authors to adhere to best practices. To maintain these ethical standards, SRLS follows the "Ethical Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research" outlined by the Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology. If an author involves animals in their research, they must present the necessary Ethics Committee approvals and permissions. In the "Materials and Methods" section, authors must cite the approval number and date, as well as clearly state the protocol used, complying with internationally-accepted standards. Failure to provide certificates, permissions, and ethical committee approval may result in manuscript rejection.

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

Ethical Guidelines for Human Research

In our commitment to upholding ethical standards in research involving human subjects, we closely adhere to the principles outlined in the "Declaration of Helsinki." This seminal document, developed by the World Medical Association (WMA), serves as a guiding statement of ethical principles for medical research, encompassing investigations on identifiable human materials and data. For more detailed information regarding the Declaration of Helsinki, we encourage you to follow the provided LINK. Additionally, you can access the PDF version of the Declaration of Helsinki by clicking on this LINK.

Authors submitting manuscripts to our journal are required to include a statement confirming that informed consent has been obtained for experiments involving human participants. We emphasize the paramount importance of safeguarding the privacy rights of human participants in all research endeavors. Furthermore, in cases where the use of chemicals, procedures, or equipment presents unusual hazards inherent in their usage, authors must provide clear identification and explanation, accompanied by the necessary legal permissions and ethical certificates.

 Editorial Responsibilities and Independence

In the realm of editorial duties and maintaining the highest standards of integrity, Scientific Reports in Life Sciences (SRLS) enforces a thorough and impartial approach. Here is an overview of our editorial processes:

1. Initial Screening and Assignment: Upon receiving submitted papers, our Editor-in-Chief will diligently select an editor with the most relevant expertise to oversee the review process. The selected editor will be entrusted with the paper, with a particular focus on their field of expertise.
2. Double Screening and Ethical Review: The assigned editor plays a pivotal role in ensuring that submitted manuscripts comply with SRLS standards and ethical requirements. They conduct a double screening, taking into account both the scientific merit of the work and its adherence to ethical guidelines.
3. External Reviewers: The corresponding editor is responsible for assigning the manuscript to external reviewers who possess expertise in the subject matter. These reviewers evaluate the paper based on academic criteria such as novelty, originality, clarity, and relevance to the scope of SRLS.
4. Non-Discrimination Policy: SRLS places a strong emphasis on editorial independence and recommends that our editors act without bias or discrimination on the basis of factors such as authors' race, sexual orientation, gender, ethnic origin, citizenship, religion, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. The Editor-in-Chief bears the responsibility of ensuring and upholding this independence. Any breach of this principle results in the immediate removal of the editor from the journal management board.
5. Confidentiality and Anonymity: Editors are strictly prohibited from disclosing authors' information or data to third parties or individuals outside the journal's editorial board. Furthermore, submitted papers are assigned to external reviewers without revealing author names or affiliation addresses to ensure an unbiased review process. Editors must take steps to ensure that any part of the manuscript, including the acknowledgments, does not divulge information about the authors' identities.

Conflict of Interest (COI) Disclosure

Scientific Reports in Life Sciences (SRLS) places great importance on transparency and ethical integrity, particularly in matters concerning conflicts of interest. Below are our policies related to COI disclosure:

1. Author Disclosures: Authors are expected to reveal any conflicts of interest that may be relevant to the submitted paper. This includes conflicts related to patents, stock ownership, data ownership, institutional rights, financial interests, and any other pertinent issues. Authors should make these disclosures during the submission process. This information should be presented after the acknowledgments section under the heading 'Conflict of Interest.' In cases where there are no conflicts of interest to report, authors should state, 'Authors declare no conflicts of interest.'
2. Acknowledgment of Funding Sources: Authors are also required to acknowledge all funding sources in the acknowledgments section of the manuscript. This ensures transparency regarding financial support for the research.
3. Conflict of Interest Between Editors and Authors: In situations where a potential conflict of interest arises between editors and authors, it is imperative for the involved parties to decline responsibility for handling the assigned paper and promptly inform the Editor-in-Chief. Maintaining transparency in these circumstances is crucial to ensuring an unbiased review process.
4. Editorial Independence: Editors are expected to maintain impartiality and declare their unsuitability for assessing a manuscript if they believe that any aspect related to the authors, such as shared affiliations, collaboration in previous projects, or personal relationships, could influence their judgment of the paper. This practice helps safeguard the integrity of the assessment process.

 

Publication Decision Process

At Scientific Reports in Life Sciences (SRLS), our publication decisions are guided by a comprehensive and thorough process. Here's an overview of how we determine which manuscripts are fit for publication:

Peer-Review Process:

Peer-review process

SRLS employs a double-blind peer-review process, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.

Editors are responsible for assigning submitted papers to external reviewers who have expertise in the field and have published related works.

A minimum of two reviews is required to complete the review process. However, in many instances, SRLS seeks feedback from more than two reviewers to enhance the quality of the manuscript.

Editors will inform the Editor-in-Chief of their decision, which can be one of the following: Acceptance, Acceptance with Minor Changes, Acceptance with Major Changes, or Declined Submission.

The Editor-in-Chief will then communicate this decision, along with the reviewers' comments, to the corresponding author.

Author Responses and Revisions:

The corresponding author is expected to share the editorial decision and reviewers' comments with all co-authors.

The authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript, along with a document labeled 'Response to the Reviewers' Comments,' within the specified timeframe.

Editor's Assessment and Final Decision:

The editor reviews the responses and changes provided by the authors, examining them point by point.

Depending on the revisions, the editor may decide to send the corrected version back to the same reviewers for a final check or involve new reviewers as necessary.

After this thorough review and assessment, the editor makes a final decision on the paper, which can be one of the following: Acceptance, Decline Submission, or Suggesting Further Corrections by the Authors.

Editor-in-Chief's Role:

The Editor-in-Chief assumes the primary responsibility for determining which manuscripts will be published in the journal.

This decision is based on the validation of the research's quality, its significance to researchers and readers, the input from the reviewers, and compliance with legal requirements related to issues like libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

The Editor-in-Chief may consult with other editors or reviewers when making this crucial decision.

This comprehensive process ensures that manuscripts selected for publication in SRLS are of the highest quality and adhere to ethical and academic standards.

Guidelines for Reviewers

At Scientific Reports in Life Sciences (SRLS), our review process is founded on a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential. We greatly value the role of our reviewers in ensuring a rigorous and reliable publication process. Here are some key guidelines for our reviewers:

1. Expertise and Qualification: A thorough and precise review is essential for maintaining the integrity of our publication process and advancing scientific knowledge for the betterment of humanity and the environment. SRLS editors make an effort to match reviewers with the scope of the submitted paper. If, for any reason, a reviewer feels unqualified to assess an assigned paper, we strongly encourage them to decline the review and promptly inform the editor.
2. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers who agree to assess a paper should have no conflicts of interest with the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript in any form, whether in competitive, collaborative, or other relationships.
3. Confidentiality: Reviewers are expected to handle the assigned paper confidentially and not share any information about it with third parties, except for the journal authorities.
4. Non-Delegation: Reviewers are not allowed to delegate their review assignment to another individual, such as a colleague, student, or any other person, without prior permission from the journal's Editor-in-Chief.
5. Originality and Fair Publishing Practices: Before commencing the review, reviewers should verify the originality and novelty of the paper. Any evidence of violations of fair publishing practices, such as plagiarism, substantial similarity to previously published materials, data manipulation, etc., should be immediately reported to the editor or Editor-in-Chief.
6. Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide constructive and scientifically sound feedback. Any criticism should be based on scientific principles and should be substantiated by references to other papers, books, or relevant sources. Personal criticism lacking a scientific basis should be avoided.

Guidelines for Authors

We encourage authors to familiarize themselves with SRLS's writing rules and author guidelines. We provide a manuscript template that aligns with our journal's accepted formats and standards for easy reference.

1. Compliance with Writing Rules: During the initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief, manuscripts that do not adhere to our writing rules and standards will be returned to the authors for resubmission.
2. Scientific and Ethical Principles: Submitted research work should adhere to scientific and ethical principles. It should provide sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the research. Authors should avoid fraudulent, unethical behavior, plagiarism, or any actions that go against best practices and ethical frameworks.
3. Data Accessibility: Authors are expected to provide access to raw data when necessary. In cases where the Editor-in-Chief requests it, authors must upload their raw data as a supplementary file. As SRLS is an open-source journal, this data will be made publicly available. Any restrictions based on legal rights, such as proprietary data, can be discussed with the Editor-in-Chief.
4. Genetic Sequences: For genetic sequences, we strongly encourage authors to upload the sequences to the relevant gene banks and cite the accession number(s). Our journal offers services to assist authors in finding open-source databases to share photos, scans, sequences, and other relevant data.

Originality and plagiarism

SRLS doesn’t tolerate plagiarism/self-plagiarism in any form, so the first immediate action after receiving a paper will be scanning the MS by suitable plagiarism checkers such as http://crosscheck.scitech.info/.  Authors need to ensure that the written text is entirely original, and follows a proper way of citations if they have used the work and/or words of others. Plagiarism is the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Based on a definition presented by Oxford University plagiarism is ‘Plagiarism is presenting work or ideas from another source as your own, with or without consent of the original author, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition, as is the use of material generated wholly or in part through the use of artificial intelligence (save when the use of Artificial Intelligence - AI for assessment has received prior authorisation e.g. as a reasonable adjustment for a student’s disability). Plagiarism can also include re-using your own work without citation. Under the regulations for examinations, intentional or reckless plagiarism is a disciplinary offence’. For more information please refer to the Oxford University webpage as follows:

https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism

Scientific Reports in Life Sciences follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. As such, this journal follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers. As SRLS publish papers on medical-related issues as well, it is highly recommended that medical case reports should be consistence with COPE guidance. For access to the PDF version of COPE guidance, in case the provided link doesnt work, please click on this LINK

Copyright transfer and authorship

By signing the copyright transfer form, authors confirm that the submitted paper is an original work and that it has not already been published in another journal, book or webpage (either as a full text or part of it). Meanwhile, the authors confirm that the submitted paper is not under review at the same time by other publication services. All listed authors should make significant contributions to the research work from conception, design, execution, data acquisition, analysis/interpretation of the data, manuscript drafting or critical revision of the draft. The corresponding author confirms that all authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and they agreed to its submission for publication. Any financial support (including the grant number or other reference number if any) can be mentioned and acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section.

Any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript should be expressed and disclosed along with the paper submission.

Peer Review Process

At SRLS, we place a strong emphasis on rigorous and impartial peer review to ensure the quality of manuscripts published in our journals. Here's an overview of our peer review process:

1. Initial Suitability Check: Upon receiving a manuscript, the Managing Editor performs an initial check to determine its suitability for publication in our journals. If the manuscript passes this stage, the Managing Editor promptly notifies the Editor-in-Chief.
2. Assignment of an Editorial Board Member: The Editor-in-Chief selects one of the editorial board members whose field of expertise aligns closely with the submitted paper's subject matter. This chosen editorial board member will serve as the handling editor for the manuscript.
3. Selection of External Reviewers: The handling editor is responsible for selecting external reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. The review process may proceed as soon as at least two reviewer comments are received. The handling editor may decide to halt the review process upon reaching this threshold.
4. Editorial Decision: After obtaining feedback from the reviewers, the handling editor makes a decision regarding the manuscript. The possible decisions include Decline Submission, Acceptance with Minor Changes, or Acceptance with Major Changes.
5. Communication with the Editor-in-Chief: The handling editor communicates their decision to the Editor-in-Chief, who subsequently contacts the corresponding author to guide them through the next steps.
6. Peer Review Reports: The Editorial Office organizes the peer review process by enlisting the expertise of independent reviewers. At least two review reports are collected for each manuscript. Authors are encouraged to make adequate revisions, and if necessary, a second round of peer review may be conducted before a final decision is reached.
7. Final Decision: The final decision is made by the academic editor, typically the Editor-in-Chief or an Editorial Board Member for a journal, or the Guest Editor of a Special Issue.
8. Editing and Proofreading: Accepted articles undergo copy-editing and English editing to ensure clarity and adherence to language standards.
9. Ethical Concerns: Reviewers are encouraged to promptly report any instances of scientific misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, or unethical behavior related to the manuscript to the handling editor.

Our peer review process is designed to maintain the integrity of the publication process and ensure that articles published in our journals are of the highest quality and adhere to ethical and academic standards.

 

Substantial errors in published papers

After publication, in case of finding any substantial error, or misleading findings, the authors are obligated to notify the journal’s editors/editor-in-chief and cooperate with them to correct the paper or retract the paper as a final solution. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the author’s obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper. Journal editorial board and publisher can remove a paper at any time if they discover plagiarism or fraudulent publication in any time. The same right for any research misconduct or unethical behaviours will be applicable as well.

Copyright and License

As a completely open-access journal,  SRLS applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license to the works we publish (https://creativecommons.org/) which facilitates open access strategy in publication. Under CC BY license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees, for virtually any purpose. Upon proper citation way, anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse published papers. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online, on social media such as Researchgate, Academia, etc.