Ethical publishing

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The publication ethics and malpractice statement for all journals published by Science Research Publishers adhere to the general guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) at

All SRP journals are  committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in its publications. The editorial board considers the prevention of publication malpractice as a paramount duty. Any form of unethical behavior, including plagiarism, is strictly unacceptable. Authors who submit articles to our journals confirm that the content of their manuscript is entirely original. Furthermore, they affirm that their article has not been previously published, either fully or partially, in any language and is not currently under review for publication elsewhere.

Publication decisions

The decision regarding the publication of articles submitted to our journals is made by the journal's editors. These editors rely on referees' reports and may consult with other editors or reviewers during this process. Their decision-making is also influenced by the journal's policies and is subject to legal obligations related to issues such as libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism that are in force at the time.

 Fair play

The editors of SRP Journals will review all manuscripts solely based on their intellectual content, ensuring no consideration of the authors' age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, country of origin, or political philosophy. Additionally, we have a strict policy against plagiarism.


All manuscripts submitted for peer-review are kept strictly confidential. 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, as appropriate. At no time will editors or reviewers utilize submitted materials without the authors' consent.

Fundamental errors in published works

When a significant error or inaccuracy has been discovered in a published work (with or without the author notifying it), the journal editors will cooperate with the author to retract or correct the paper accordingly. If a correction is deemed appropriate, the editors reserve the right to correct the published material and include a dated erratum.

Dealing with unethical behaviour

When dealing with unethical behaviour, the Editorial Board will rely on the guidelines and recommendations provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Retraction Policy

All SRF journals follows COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author's explicit written consent.

*Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described process. Editors should not reverse decisions on publication unless serious problems are identified.

*Editors should publish guidance to either authors and reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and will refer or link this code.

The following duties outlined for editors, authors, and reviewers developed based on the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.

Human and Animal Rights

A suitable ethical framework must have been followed during the conduct of all studies. Editors may reject the submission and/or get in touch with the author(s)' ethics committee if they have reason to believe that the work has not been done in accordance with relevant ethical standards. Rarely, even after receiving permission from an ethics committee, a paper may still be rejected on ethical grounds if the editor has serious reservations about the study's ethics.

  • A statement in compliance with the animal and human ethics committee should be included in any articles involving clinical or animal research.
  • All clinical studies must be registered, and research should be conducted in a way that avoids unnecessarily harming animals.

Informed consent 

Participants in the SRP Journals have a right to privacy that should not be compromised without their knowledge. Unless the material is necessary for scientific research and the patient (or parent or guardian) provides written informed consent for publication, identifying information, such as names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be released in written descriptions, images, or pedigrees. An identified patient must be shown the article before it can be published in order to receive informed consent for this purpose. If any potentially identifying information may be made available after publication both online and in print, authors should inform these individuals. Patient consent should be written and archived either with the journal, the authors, or both, as dictated by local regulations or laws. Nonessential identifying details should be omitted. Informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt that anonymity can be maintained. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance, and editors should so note, that such alterations do not distort scientific meaning. When informed consent has been obtained, it should be indicated in the published article.

Data sharing policy

SRP Journals are dedicated to a more transparent research environment, accelerating and improving research discovery by enabling the replication and validation of data, methodologies, and reporting standards. We encourage researchers to share their research data, including but not limited to: raw data, processed data, software, algorithms, protocols, methods, and materials, in publications that are published in our journals.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

The 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 or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgment 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.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts 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 editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Authors of work

The paper's authors should be the person who made the greatest contribution to the creation of the work. All those who contributed to the making of the work should be listed in the paper and as co-authors. If there are other contributors who took part in the preparation of making the same work should be listed or admitted as associates.

Before accepting a final version of the paper for publication, the author and all co-authors must approve the final version.

 Changes in Authorship

Privacy change in authorship relates to the addition, deletion, or rearrangement of author names in the accepted version of the paper. An amendment to the data on the authors or co-authors is not possible after acceptance and publication in the online version.

If there is a need to amend the information on the authors, it is necessary to state the following:

  1. The reason for the addition or deletion of the author,
  2. A written confirmation (send it scanned by e-mail) where all the authors agree that the notified operation is a named person is added or removed from the list of authors.
  3. The editor will notify the author that needs to be added or removed from the list and will ask for his consent.

Requirements that are not sent by the respective author (corresponding author) will not be considered.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors are required to submit an original written article. If other work necessary to work properly quote according to the instructions on the citation of work. If you use ideas of other authors require their written consent and using the same.

Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behavior and will be severely punished, and as such is unacceptable. The author or authors are required before reporting to work in the journal checking their work through some of the programs for testing against plagiarism. The Editorial Board reserves the right to verify each work through the test of plagiarism and if the same occurs to notify the author.

 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Disclosure and conflicts of interest can be multiple. If the author or institution where the author has financial assistance in project design or research is needed to adequately cover letter to inform the editorial and the public. Publication in journal person or institution that is financially supported by the making of the work or project is the best way to protect against conflicts of interest.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

If the author detects an error in the published paper is obliged to instantly inform journal editors or publishers and that as soon as possible the same document. The author shall, in the event of an error, to cooperate with the editorial board to remove the same.


The Author(s) warrant that their manuscript is their original work that has not been published before; that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere; and that its publication has been approved by all co-authors, if any, as well as tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities at the institution where the work was carried out. The Author(s) affirm that the article contains no unfounded or unlawful statements and does not violate the rights of others. If copyrighted works are included, the Author(s) bear the responsibility to obtain written permission from the copyright owners. The Corresponding author, as the signing author, warrants that he/she has full power to make this grant on behalf of the Author(s).

 Important Notes:

- Publishers and editors take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred.

- In no case shall a publisher or editors encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

- In the event that a journal’s publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct the publisher or editor will deal with allegations appropriately.

- All journals has guidelines for retracting or correcting articles when needed. For more info see detail on Retraction Polices

- Publishers and editors always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.


Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review 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.


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer 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.


Duties of Publisher

-The publisher undertakes to have an independent editorial decision made.

-Editors are responsible for all the processes that the manuscripts submitted to SRP Journals will go through within this framework, ignoring the economic or political interests; the decision-makers are the editors.

-The publisher bears all the responsibility to take the precautions against scientific abuse, fraud and plagiarism.

-In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

Post-publication discussions and corrections

All SRP journals allow debate on post-publication through letters to the editor or on an external moderated site, such as PubPeer. PubPeer is a website that allows users to discuss and review scientific research after publication. Our journal follows COPE’s guidelines on Post-publication discussions and corrections.

Dealing with unethical behaviour

Anyone may inform the Editor-in-Chief / Editorial Board at any time of suspected unethical behaviour or any type of misconduct by giving the necessary credible information/evidence to start an investigation.

  • Editor-in-Chief makes the decision regarding the initiation of an investigation.
  • During an investigation, any evidence should be treated as confidential and only made available to those strictly involved in the process.
  • The accused will always be given the chance to respond to any charges made against them.
  • If it is judged at the end of the investigation that misconduct has occurred, then it will be classified as either minor or serious.

Minor misconduct (with no influence on the integrity of the paper and the journal, for example, when it comes to misunderstanding or wrong application of publishing standards) will be dealt directly with authors and reviewers without involving any other parties. Outcomes include:

  • Sending a warning letter to authors and/or reviewers.
  • Publishing correction of a paper, e.g. when sources properly quoted in the text are omitted from the reference list.
  • Publishing an erratum, e.g., if the error was made by editorial staff.


In the case of major misconduct, the Editor-in-Chief / Editorial Board may adopt different measures:

  • Publication of a formal announcement or editorial describing the misconduct.
  • Informing the author's/reviewer's affiliating institution officially.
  • The formal, announced retraction of publications from the journal in accordance with the Retraction Policy.
  • A ban on submissions from an individual for a defined period.
  • Referring a case to a professional organization or legal authority for further investigation and action.

The above actions may be taken separately or jointly. If necessary, in the process of resolving the case relevant expert organizations, bodies, or individuals may be consulted.

When dealing with unethical behaviour, the Editorial Board will rely on the guidelines and recommendations provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Plagiarism Policy

The act of "using or closely imitating the language and ideas of another author and representing them as one's own original work" is known as plagiarism. (

All work in the paper should be free of any plagiarism:

Literal Plagiarism.  The copy and paste the text from the Internet, Books, and others papers with or without a few alterations.

Intelligent Plagiarism

Text Manipulation. The lexical and syntactical paraphrasing (or summarising) is the replacement with synonyms/antonyms and short phrases to change the appearance but not the idea of the text.

Translation. Translated plagiarism includes automatic translation and manual translation.

Idea Adoption. Idea Adoption refers to the use of others´ ideas such as results, contributions, findings and conclusions.

The journal adheres to the plagiarism policy and does not exceed the tolerance limit of 19%.

If the editor detects the element of plagiarism in the manuscript, the editor will handle it as follows

0  - 19% Plagiarism: The manuscript will be given an ID and the manuscript is sent to the reviewers.

20 - 25% Plagiarism: The manuscript will not be given an ID and the manuscript is sent back to the author for content revision.

> 25 % Plagiarism: The manuscript will be rejected without review. The authors are advised to revise the manuscript and resubmit the manuscript.

Note that self-plagiarism does not apply to publications based on the author's own previous work in conference proceedings, however, the source must be cited by the author(s).

Retraction policy

Legal limitations of the publisher, copyright holder or author(s), infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or any major misconduct require retraction of an article.

Occasionally a retraction can be used to correct numerous serious errors, which cannot be covered by publishing corrections. A retraction may be published by the Editor-in-Chief / Editorial Board, the author(s), or both parties consensually.

The retraction takes the form of a separate item listed in the contents and labeled as "Retraction". The original article is retained unchanged, except for a watermark on the PDF indicating on each page that it is “retracted”.