Statement on Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice
This statement is based on COPE’s Code of Conduct an internationally accepted Best Practice Guideline for Journal Editors that explains the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article for journals, i.e.:
and the publisher.
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. In order to publish high-quality scientific resources, public trust in findings, and credit for people's ideas, the ethical standards for publication are followed:
Duties of Authors
Authors' byline should precisely indicate those involved in the research, including the authors, who conducted the research and those who wrote the manuscript. Please note that following our publication policy, neither guest or honorary writer nor ghost (hidden) author is allowed. Manuscript submission is accompanied by authors’ agreement on their involvement in three phases of designing the study as well as analyzing and interpreting the data, writing the manuscript, and approving the final version of the manuscript. By submitting the declaration form, the authors have agreed that the corresponding author is the one who can make final decisions on the manuscript submission and any related changes to the manuscript. The following points need to be considered by the authors:
-Reporting Standards, Accurate Data, Sufficient Detail and References
-Data Access and Retention: providing the raw data to the editor if needed Falsification and Fabrication
-Authorship of the Paper: The significant contributors should be listed as co-authors. Other contributors can be acknowledged. The corresponding author is solely responsible for communicating with the journal editors and with managing communication between coauthors. Before submission, the corresponding author ensures that all authors are included in the author list, its order has been agreed by co-authors, and that all authors are aware that the paper was submitted.
-Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
-Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All sources of financial support for the project or any substantive conflict of interest that might be interpreted to influence the results of the paper should be disclosed.
-Promptly Notifying the Fundamental Errors in Published Works.
*** Authorship and AI tools
Authors should note that any chatbots, such as ChatGPT do not meet ICMJE authorship. Therefore, all authors who participate in the manuscript should meet the authorship criterion, meaning that chatbots cannot be considered authors.
When using chatbots, authors are required to transparently mention the chatbot used (name, version, model, source) and method of application in the paper they are submitting (query structure, syntax), which is in line with ICMJE recommendation of acknowledging writing assistance.
Authors should take responsibility for the text produced by a chatbot in their paper. This includes the accuracy of the produced content, the absence of plagiarism, and the appropriate attribution of all sources. Authors are expected to mark the text produced by the chatbot.
Duties of Editors
The chief role of an editor is to enhance the scholarship atmosphere in the field of research related the scope of the journal. Editors are responsible for the content of the journal and ensure that the submitted manuscripts are in line with the aim, scope and related policies of the journal. The editors in any journal work closely with the journal’s publishing staff, reviewers, and even authors to promote the journal. The are expected to encourage new authors to publish their articles and promote a sense of expertise among the researchers, which could lead to setting up a panel of expert reviewers. Since editors, specifically editors-in-chief, are in charge of selecting the Editorial Board, they offer their feedback to the reviewers and check the relevance and the quality of the constructive comments provided to the researchers. Editors of a journal deliver regular reports on the journal’s performance and suggest constructive strategies for the development and important income sources of journal.
The following procedures are directly observed by the editor-in-chief:
-Article Publication Decision: Possible decisions based on the single-blind peer-review are: accept as is, require revision, or reject.
-Honesty and Fair Play: Editors will not give any consideration on authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political context, movements and rituals.
-Confidentiality: They must not disclose any information about submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and the publisher.
-Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished materials are not allowed in submitted manuscript without the express written consent of the author.
-Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations
Duties of Reviewers
When a reviewer is invited to pree review a manuscript, s/he is expected to act in accordance with COPE instructions. The reviewer should read the instructions for reviewers provided by the journal, consider the previously defined criteria of the journal, provide feedback on the papers, and make a major contribution to the outcome. However, it should be noted that the journal editor is responsible for the final decision on the manuscript publication. Reviewers can improve the journal quality by providing rigorous comments, identifying invalid research, and preventing ethical breaches. The journal reviewers could foster a strong relationship with their peers and the affiliated journals in the field to pave their way to join the Editorial Board. The above-mentioned responsibilities are summarized below:
-Single Blind Peer Review and Contribution to Editorial Decision
-Punctuality and Promptness
-Standards of Objectivity: Reviewers express their comments and views clearly with supporting arguments and reviews.
-Acknowledgment of Source: Reviewer particularly focuses on substantial similarity or overlap between the submitted manuscript and other published resources.
-Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should not accept to review a manuscript if a conflict of interest exists. In case of an undisclosed conflict of interest by the authors, the action will be taken according to COPE's regulations.
If the journal becomes suspicious during the peer review process, it will act in accordance with COPE guidelines. The potential manipulation of the peer review process is recognized by following the guideline provided by COPE.
***The use of AI in the peer-review process
Although some journals use generative AI to identify potential peer reviewers for manuscripts, editors should be responsible for choosing reviewers and actively supervise this process. While AI can aid in suggesting reviewers and streamlining the process, entirely replacing human editorial judgment with AI is not allowed. Many editors already use software to suggest reviewers and check for conflicts of interest, but having a human editor behind decisions is valuable, providing a sense of responsibility for the journal's content.
Editors and reviewers should not exclusively rely on generative AI to review the submitted papers. If AI tools are used, transparency with authors is essential, and AI-generated content should not be the sole basis for reviewer recommendations or editorial decisions. This caution is vital to preserve the role of editors in fostering meaningful scholarly discussions. While generative AI can aid in various aspects of paper evaluation, the complete substitution of humans in the review process should not occur, as retaining human evaluation is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the review process.
For studies involving human participants, RBES follows the policies of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). For such studies, authors are responsible for providing details of ethical approval for the research in the manuscript, including but not limited to the name of the approving committee (e.g., Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Board) and the name of the institution at which approval was granted. These details, as well as the approval date and reference number, must be provided in the structured disclosures section at the end of the manuscript as well as in the body of the manuscript. Even if the activity was declared to be exempt from human subject review, that exemption and the method by which it was determined must be reported.
Authors who do not have access to a formal ethical approval process must provide information in the manuscript about the treatment of human participants. The following should be addressed:
-how risks to human participants were minimized,
-why the risks were reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits,
-how the selection of participants was equitable,
-whether adequate procedures were in place to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of participants,
-the plan used to monitor the data and safety of the subjects,
-how informed consent was sought and documented,
-if applicable, what safeguards were used to protect vulnerable populations, and
-other relevant information.
It is the responsibility of the author(s) to ensure that studies have been conducted in accordance with the latest version of the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Please note that the RBES editor-in-chief may decide to reject the manuscripts that avoid following the animal care guidelines.
Duties of the Publisher
We are committed to ensuring that commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, The journal publisher will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors. Finally, we are working closely with other publishers and industry associations to set standards for best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions--and are prepared to provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.
- Peer review process: RBES is a single-blind peer-reviewed journal publication concerned with all fields of biotechnology and environmental science. This process, as well as any policies related to the journal’s peer review procedures, is clearly described on the journal’s website (https://rbes.rovedar.com/index.php/RBES/Peer-Review-Process).
- Governing Body: RBES has a solid editorial board whose members are recognized experts in the subject areas included within the journal’s scope. The full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors are provided on the journal’s website (https://rbes.rovedar.com/index.php/RBES/EditorialBoard).
- Contact information: RBES provides the contact information for the editorial office (https://rbes.rovedar.com/index.php/RBES/about/contact).
- Author fees/Access: RBES is fully open access. Full text of published articles is available for everyone who can access the Journal website free of cost. Besides, the authors should pay the article publication fee (https://rbes.rovedar.com/index.php/RBES/Author-Guidelines).
- Identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct: Following the COPE guideline, the Editor-in-Chief takes reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. See more details (https://rovedar.com/research-misconduct-policy/).
- Website: RBES website (https://rbes.rovedar.com/) states that care has been taken to ensure high ethical and professional standards.
- Name of journal: Research in Biotechnology and Environmental Science (RBES) has a unique name and not one that is easily confused with other journals.
- Conflicts of interest: Authors are required to disclose any conflict of interest while submitting their articles to RBES through ICMJE Uniform Disclosure Form for Potential Conflicts of Interest.
- Publishing schedule: RBES publishes the accepted manuscripts quarterly, which is clearly indicated on the journal homepage (https://rbes.rovedar.com/).
- Archiving: A journal’s plan for electronic backup and preservation of access to the journal content is clearly indicated (https://rbes.rovedar.com/index.php/RBES/About-Journal).
Appeals and Complaints
Appealing Editorial Decision
Submissions may be rejected without external review with a very general statement of the rejection decision. Generally, these decisions are not qualified for a formal appeal.
However, authors who believe that their submission was rejected due to a misunderstanding or the decision was not in accordance with journal policy and procedures, may appeal the decision by sending the editor a comprehensive detailed response to the issues raised in the rejection letter (and not to justify the interest, novelty, or suitability of the manuscript for the journal).
The editor-in-chief (EiC) and editors will consider the appeal without giving any guarantee to accept the manuscript and thereafter if the Editor’s decision following the editorial criteria is rejection of the article, it will be deemed final.
In case of any dissatisfaction with the way editors have handled the authors' appeal, they may refer complaints to the email of firstname.lastname@example.org
Appealing Corrective Action taken Post Publication
In case a published article is the subject of a complaint, the editor will decide on the retraction of the published article, other corrective actions, or notices on the published article. The decision will be in line with the guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including COPE’s retraction guidelines, and in consultation with the publisher.
The publisher reserve the right to take corrective actions to maintain a transparent and accurate academic record.
General Concerns and Making a Complaint
Complaints related to content, procedures, or policies of RBES publication or our editorial staff, may provide an opportunity and will definitely help us to improve the standard of our services. Anybody wishing to raise a concern or make a complaint about any aspect of publication in the RBES journal may email email@example.com. The editors will respond quickly, courteously, and constructively to any complaint according to the following procedure.
• In the case that the initial response is felt to be insufficient, the complainant can request to escalate their complaint to a more senior member of the team.
• If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints may be escalated to the journal's EiC, for a final decision.
• If a complainant remains unhappy after what EiC considers a definitive reply, the complainant may complain to an external party with a relevant oversight.
Complaints sent to the publisher will usually be referred to the EiC of the journal of choice.
Handling Complaints and Appeals
The following principles and processes will be considered:
• Speed: All complaints will be formally acknowledged within two working days and processed as quickly as possible. We will then lead the investigation following COPE guidelines to make sure that the correct procedures have been followed or the author’s concerns have been addressed fairly and without prejudice by reviewing the paper’s peer review history and any correspondence between the author, editor, and reviewers. We may also contact the parties involved to obtain further information where necessary and in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) . Some complaints may be complex and take time to resolve fairly (for example, allowing a reasonable time for multiple parties to respond). So, we will try to resolve issues as swiftly as possible within two weeks. The final decision will be acknowledged to the author in writing.
• Fairness: We will try to treat all parties involved in a complaint fairly and avoid bias either in the process or outcome. We will avoid conflicts of interest.
• Confidentiality: We will only disclose information necessary to resolve a complaint in accordance with GDP regulations.
• Clarity: We will seek to be clear in all our communication, and consider the needs of those we are communicating with. In the interest of allowing due process to take place, and investigations to proceed without prejudice, we respectfully request that anyone raising a concern or complaint allow the process to conclude before publicly commenting on the case.