Publication Ethics

Advances in BioScience is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in scientific publishing. The journal adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows internationally accepted principles of integrity, transparency, and responsible conduct of research. This Publication Ethics Policy outlines the ethical expectations for authors, reviewers, editors, and all parties involved in the publication process, ensuring the credibility, reliability, and integrity of the scientific record.

Research Integrity

Originality

Authors must submit manuscripts that represent original scholarly work and make a substantial and novel contribution to the scientific literature. Submission to Advances in BioScience implies that the manuscript has not been previously published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Authors must ensure appropriate acknowledgment and citation of all sources that have contributed to the research, including previously published data, methods, theories, or ideas. Any reuse of content must be transparent and properly attributed, in accordance with accepted standards of academic integrity.

Prior dissemination of research content (e.g., conference abstracts, theses, or preprints) does not automatically constitute prior publication, provided such dissemination is fully disclosed and complies with the journal’s policies
.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism, including but not limited to verbatim copying, close paraphrasing, text recycling (self-plagiarism), or the unattributed use of ideas, images, tables, figures, or data, is strictly prohibited. All submissions are screened using plagiarism-detection tools to ensure originality.

Suspected plagiarism will be investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines. If plagiarism is confirmed, the journal may reject the submission, request revisions, issue corrections, retract published articles, or notify the authors’ institutions, depending on the severity of the violation.

Duplicate/Redundant Publication

Duplicate or redundant publication refers to the submission or publication of the same manuscript or article, or substantially similar content, in more than one journal or publication venue without full disclosure, proper citation, or editorial approval. This includes significant overlap in text, data, figures, or analyses with previously published or concurrently submitted work by the same authors.

Forms of Duplicate or Redundant Publication

Duplicate or redundant publication includes, but is not limited to:

  • Simultaneous Submission: Submitting the same or substantially similar manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
  • Duplicate Publication: Republishing an article that has already been published elsewhere, in the same or another language, without proper acknowledgment and editorial permission.
  • Redundant Publication: Publishing an article that substantially overlaps with previously published work by the same authors, without clear citation or justification.
  • Self-Plagiarism: Reusing large portions of one’s own previously published text, data, or figures without citation or disclosure.
  • Salami Slicing: Fragmenting a single research study into multiple publications without scientific justification, resulting in overlapping datasets and minimal new findings.

Author Responsibilities (Duplicate Publication)

Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts are original and not under consideration elsewhere. Any prior, related, or overlapping publications or submissions must be fully disclosed at the time of submission. Authors must clearly cite earlier work and demonstrate how the submitted manuscript provides a distinct and substantial scholarly contribution.

Editorial Assessment (Duplicate Publication)

The journal evaluates all submissions for originality using plagiarism-detection tools and editorial review. In cases of suspected duplicate or redundant publication, the editors will assess the extent of overlap, the novelty of the work, and the transparency of author disclosures, in accordance with established ethical guidelines.

Image and Data Manipulation

Image or Data Manipulation is the alteration or processing of visual or numerical data in scholarly work. This encompasses both legitimate processing techniques—applied to enhance clarity, visibility, or presentation without changing the underlying meaning—and unethical alterations that misrepresent scientific results, obscure authentic findings, or mislead interpretation of research outcomes.

These standards apply to visual, numerical, and statistical data throughout the publication lifecycle—from submission to post-publication assessment, including:

  • Figures, images, and datasets;
  • Tables, graphs, and statistical outputs;
  • Microscopy images, gels, and blots;
  • Clinical and photographic images;
  • Supplementary materials and all associated raw and processed files.

Acceptable Practices

Limited image and data processing is permitted provided it is applied uniformly and does not alter, obscure, or misrepresent the scientific meaning of the original data. Acceptable practices include global adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance applied consistently across the entire image or dataset, and cropping performed solely to improve clarity or highlight relevant regions without omitting essential information. The grouping or assembly of images or panels is acceptable when the arrangement is clearly indicated, boundaries are visible where appropriate, and all components are accurately labeled and described in the figure legend. Authors must retain original, unprocessed data and make it available to the journal upon request.

Prohibited Practices

Any manipulation that compromises data authenticity or accurate representation is strictly prohibited. Prohibited practices include:

  • Cloning, copying, or duplicating features within or across images.
  • Using smudging, blurring, healing brushes, or clone stamps to obscure artifacts or blemishes.
  • Moving, repositioning, removing, or introducing elements, including splicing images without explicit disclosure.
  • Applying inconsistent parameters between control and experimental samples, emphasizing specific regions, or eliminating data points (outliers) without justification.
  • Using selective background subtraction or normalization to suppress or enhance specific features.

Author Responsibilities (Image and Data Integrity)

Authors are responsible for ensuring the integrity of all images and data presented in their manuscripts and published articles. Original, unprocessed data and image files must be securely retained and made available to the journal upon request during peer review or in the event of post-publication assessment or investigation. Any image processing or data manipulation must be disclosed in the manuscript and must not alter, obscure, or misrepresent the original observations. All figures must accurately represent the underlying data without distortion or selective reporting.

Editorial Assessment (Image and Data Screening)

The journal may employ image-screening tools, data review procedures, and expert evaluation to assess the integrity and authenticity of submitted images and datasets. Any concerns or suspected cases of inappropriate image or data manipulation will be examined through established editorial processes and investigated in accordance with recognized ethical guidelines and best practices.

Data Availability

Authors are encouraged to make the data underlying their research publicly available whenever possible and ethically appropriate. Manuscripts must clearly state where and how supporting data can be accessed—such as through public repositories, institutional databases, or upon reasonable request—and should include persistent identifiers (e.g., DOIs) when available. If data cannot be shared, authors must provide a justified explanation (e.g., privacy concerns or ongoing studies). A data availability statement must be included, describing access conditions and providing sufficient methodological detail for replication.

Research Ethics and Compliance

Human Research Ethics

All studies involving human participants, human tissue, or human data must comply with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and must have received prior approval from a duly constituted Institutional Review Board (IRB) or equivalent ethics committee. Manuscripts must include a statement confirming that the research protocol was reviewed and approved, specifying the name of the committee, the approval reference number (if applicable), and the date of approval. If ethical approval or consent was deemed unnecessary, authors must provide a clear justification supported by relevant legislation or institutional policies. Manuscripts lacking an explicit ethical statement will not be considered for publication.

Animal Research Ethics

All research involving animals must comply with internationally accepted ethical standards for animal welfare, such as the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (U.S. National Research Council), the EU Directive 2010/63/EU, the ARRIVE guidelines, or equivalent national regulations. Authors must confirm that the study protocol was reviewed and approved by an appropriate Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or equivalent body. Manuscripts must include the name of the approving committee, the approval code or number (if applicable), and the approval date. Authors must justify the use of animals, describe measures taken to minimize suffering, outline housing and care conditions, and confirm that the minimum number of animals necessary to achieve scientific objectives was used. Manuscripts without a valid ethical statement will not be considered for publication.

Informed Consent

Authors must confirm that informed consent was obtained from all participants before inclusion in the study. Participants should have been fully informed about the study’s purpose, procedures, potential risks and benefits, their right to withdraw at any time, and how confidentiality and privacy were protected. Special consideration must be given to vulnerable populations, such as minors or individuals with cognitive impairments, for whom consent should be obtained from a parent, guardian, or legally authorized representative. If identifying information (e.g., photographs or case details) is included, explicit consent for publication must be obtained and documented. The manuscript must include a statement describing how informed consent was obtained and recorded. If written consent was not possible, authors must justify the alternative procedure used.

Ethical Guidelines for Research

To ensure ethical research practices, Advances in BioScience requires all authors to comply with the following international guidelines:

Ethical Disclosure

Conflict of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could influence the research, its interpretation, the peer-review process, or editorial decisions. Conflicts may arise from financial relationships such as employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership, patents, research funding, or other relevant interests; personal or family relationships; academic competition; or institutional affiliations that may bias judgment.

Authors are required to include a clear Conflict of Interest statement in their manuscript, explicitly declaring all financial and non-financial relationships, including funding sources, employment affiliations, and patent holdings. Authors must explicitly state if no conflicts exist. Reviewers must disclose any personal, financial, academic, or institutional conflicts that may affect their objectivity and must decline to evaluate manuscripts when such relationships could compromise their impartiality. Editors must recuse themselves from handling submissions when conflicts may affect their independence and ensure that any manuscript in which they have a potential conflict of interest is reassigned to an independent, qualified editor.

All disclosed conflicts must be transparently reported to maintain the integrity of the publication process.

Funding Disclosure

Authors must clearly disclose all sources of financial support for their research, including the names of funding organizations, grant numbers, and any role funders played in the study design, data collection, analysis, or publication. If funders had no role in the research, this should be explicitly stated. Sources of funding, along with institutional or organizational support and other non-author contributions, should be appropriately disclosed in the Acknowledgments section.

Permissions and Acknowledgements

Authors must ensure proper acknowledgment of all sources and obtain necessary permissions for any reused materials, including figures, tables, images, and datasets from previously published works. Any third-party content must be properly cited, and copyright permissions must be documented and submitted with the manuscript where required.

Editorial Process

Peer Review Process and Confidentiality

The journal employs a rigorous single-blind peer-review process to ensure high standards of academic quality and integrity.

Initial Screening

Following submission, each manuscript is screened by the editorial office to ensure compliance with submission guidelines, ethical requirements, and journal scope. Plagiarism and similarity checks are conducted at this stage. Manuscripts that are outside the scope of the journal, insufficiently original, of poor scientific quality, or contain poor grammar or English language may be desk-rejected. Authors are usually notified of desk decisions within 7 calendar days of receipt.

Anonymity and Reviewer Selection

In the single-blind model, reviewers remain anonymous to authors, but reviewers are aware of author names and affiliations. Manuscripts that pass initial checks are assigned to a handling editor and typically reviewed by two or more independent experts with recognized expertise. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, experience, prior review performance, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Expert Evaluation

Reviewers assess originality, methodology, data quality, significance of findings, and adherence to ethical and scientific standards. Their reports include specific comments and constructive recommendations to guide the editorial decision.

Editorial Oversight

The handling editor evaluates the reviewers' comments and makes a recommendation. The Editor-in-Chief reviews this recommendation and makes the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Manuscript Decision Categories

Based on reviewer reports, decisions typically fall into one of the following:

  • Accept: Suitable for publication without further changes.
  • Accept with minor revisions: Requires limited changes to improve clarity, presentation, or minor content issues before acceptance.
  • Major revisions required: Requires substantial changes to resolve significant methodological, analytical, or interpretive issues identified by reviewers.
  • Reject: Does not meet the journal’s standards of originality, quality, or scope.

Review Timeline

  • Desk/Initial screening: Typically within 7 calendar days.
  • First full editorial decision (after peer review): Typically within 4–6 weeks of submission.
  • Minor revision resubmission: Recommended within 14 calendar days of decision.
  • Major revision resubmission: Recommended within 21–28 calendar days of decision (extensions may be granted upon request).

Production process

Upon acceptance, accepted manuscripts are copyedited and typeset with care to ensure conformity with the journal’s formatting and style standards.

  • Copyediting: A copyeditor thoroughly reviews your manuscript for grammar, spelling, punctuation, clarity, consistency, and adherence to the journal's style guide.
  • Typesetting: Your accepted manuscript is formatted according to the journal's layout specifications for professional presentation.
  • Proofs: Following copyediting and typesetting, the corresponding author will receive the final PDF proof within 8–12 calendar days of acceptance and should return corrections within 3–5 business days to facilitate timely publication. At this stage, only minor typographical or factual corrections are permitted to preserve the integrity of the peer-reviewed record.

Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, cite, or use content prior to publication. Reviewers and editors are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest before handling a manuscript. 

Article Withdrawal (Pre-Publication)

Manuscript Withdrawal refers to the formal removal of a submitted manuscript from the editorial or publication process prior to its official publication. Withdrawal is distinct from retraction, which applies only to published articles; once published, an article may generally be retracted but not withdrawn.

Stages of Withdrawal

Pre-Acceptance: Authors may request to withdraw their manuscript at any time prior to formal editorial acceptance. This requires a written request submitted to the Editorial Office, signed or confirmed by all co-authors, clearly stating the reason(s) for withdrawal.

Post-Acceptance: Withdrawal of a manuscript after formal acceptance but prior to publication is strongly discouraged. At this stage, significant editorial and production resources have already been invested. Such requests will only be considered under extraordinary circumstances and are subject to the final approval of the Editor-in-Chief.

Permissible Grounds for Withdrawal

Withdrawal is permitted only when a valid scientific or ethical justification exists, such as:

  • Discovery of serious methodological errors that invalidate the study’s findings or conclusions.
  • Ethical violations (e.g., missing Institutional Review Board (IRB)/ethics approval, plagiarism, or consent issues).
  • Duplicate or multiple submissions discovered.
  • Legal or copyright disputes or unresolved authorship conflicts.

Unacceptable Grounds for Withdrawal

The journal reserves the right to reject withdrawal requests deemed unethical or administratively invalid. Unacceptable reasons include, but are not limited to:

  • Dissatisfaction with peer-review comments, editorial decisions, or required revisions.
  • Withdrawal of a manuscript for the purpose of submission to another or higher-impact journal after it has already benefited from the journal’s peer review or editorial processes.
  • Dissatisfaction with the publication timeline or perceived delays in the editorial or production process.
  • Desire to conduct further experiments or incorporate additional data; such additions should be managed through the formal revision process and extension requests.
  • Inability or unwillingness to meet financial obligations, such as Article Processing Charges (APCs), after formal acceptance does not constitute valid grounds for manuscript withdrawal. Authors facing financial difficulties should contact the Editorial Office to discuss payment plans, waiver eligibility, or manuscript relinquishment rather than requesting withdrawal. Accepted manuscripts will remain unpublished until payment is received or alternative arrangements are finalized.

Misconduct and Post-Publication Actions

Policy on Research and Publication Misconduct

Advances in BioScience maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward research and publication misconduct. Allegations involving fabrication, falsification, plagiarism (including text and ideas), data or image manipulation, unethical authorship practices (e.g., ghost, guest, or gift authorship), duplicate submission, or undisclosed conflicts of interest will trigger a formal investigation following COPE best practices.

If misconduct is confirmed after due process, the journal will take appropriate corrective actions, which may include:

  • Retraction of the article with a clear explanatory note
  • Notification of the authors’ institutions and relevant funding agencies
  • Implementation of sanctions against involved individuals (e.g., temporary or permanent submission bans)
  • Publication of corrections, errata, or expressions of concern as necessary

Advances in BioScience is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record and will act decisively to address any confirmed breaches of ethical conduct.

Post-Publication Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

Post-Publication Corrections

Purpose of Corrections: To maintain the accuracy, transparency, and integrity of the scientific record by formally correcting significant errors in published articles.

Scope of Corrections: Corrections apply to errors that affect the clarity, accuracy, or presentation of an article but do not invalidate the overall findings, interpretations, or conclusions.

Types of Corrections

  • Erratum: An erratum is issued when an error is introduced by the journal during editorial handling, typesetting, or production.
  • Corrigendum: A corrigendum is issued when authors identify an error in their published work. All authors must approve the corrigendum prior to publication.

Examples of Correctable Errors: Correctable errors include typographical mistakes, inaccuracies in author names or affiliations, errors in figure or table labeling, minor data inaccuracies, or formatting issues, provided these do not affect the scientific validity or conclusions of the article.

Initiation of Corrections: Corrections may be initiated by authors, editors, reviewers, or readers after publication. All requests must be submitted to the editorial office with clear documentation identifying the error and the proposed correction.

Editorial Review and Approval: All correction requests are assessed by the editorial office to determine the nature, extent, and impact of the error. Authors are consulted to verify accuracy and provide supporting information. Final approval for publication of a correction rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Correction Publication Method: Corrections are published as separate, citable notices and are permanently linked to the original article. The notice clearly identifies and explains the correction and is titled using the original article title prefixed with “Erratum:” or “Corrigendum:”, as appropriate. The original article remains part of the scholarly record and is clearly marked to indicate that a correction has been issued. Corrections are published without charge to authors.

Transparency and Version Control: The original article remains permanently accessible, with a prominent indication that a correction has been published, ensuring transparency of the publication record.

Indexing and Archiving: All correction notices are indexed and archived to ensure visibility and traceability in bibliographic databases.

Distinction from Retractions: Errors that compromise data integrity, ethical compliance, or the validity of conclusions are not addressed through corrections and are handled under the journal’s Retraction or Expression of Concern Policy.

Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern (EOC) is a formal notice issued to alert readers when there are serious, unresolved doubts regarding the integrity or reliability of a published article. It is used when an investigation is underway but has not yet reached a definitive conclusion, serving as a cautionary placeholder in the scholarly record.

Circumstances for Issuance: An EOC may be published when there are credible concerns related to data integrity or reliability, potential research misconduct, ethical approval or consent issues, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or authorship or publication ethics disputes.

Initiation: Concerns may be raised by authors, editors, institutions, reviewers, or readers.

Editorial Assessment: The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the concerns and determines whether issuing an EOC is warranted while investigations are conducted.

Publication and Linking: The EOC is published as a separate, citable notice and is clearly linked to the original article. The notice briefly describes the nature of the concerns without drawing definitive conclusions.

Outcome and Follow-up: Following the completion of an investigation, an EOC may be removed if the concerns are resolved, or it may be replaced by a Correction or superseded by a Retraction, as warranted by the findings.

Retractions

A retraction is a formal notice that withdraws a published article from the scholarly record. It is issued when major errors, unethical practices, or compromised data render the work fundamentally unreliable, necessitating a correction of the scientific record to maintain academic integrity.

Grounds for Retraction

Retraction may be warranted for:

  • Fabrication, falsification, manipulation, or misrepresentation of data.
  • Plagiarism or redundant/duplicate publication.
  • Ethical violations (e.g., human/animal ethics non-compliance).
  • Major methodological or analytical errors invalidating conclusions.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest affecting the integrity of the work.
  • Authorship fraud or disputes resulting in invalid authorship claims.

Initiation: Retractions may be initiated by authors, editors, institutions, or a third party.

Editorial Assessment and Investigation: The Editor-in-Chief evaluates reported concerns and, where necessary, initiates and oversees an investigation in consultation with the authors and relevant institution(s), in accordance with COPE guidelines. An Expression of Concern may be issued at this stage if the investigation is ongoing and unresolved. If the investigation confirms grounds for retraction, the Editor-in-Chief formally issues the retraction decision and implements the necessary publication updates to safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record.

Retraction Notice: Retraction notices are published as distinct, citable records that clearly state the grounds for retraction, identify the initiating party (authors, editors, or the publisher), and ensure a permanent, bidirectional link to the original publication.

Article Status: Retracted articles remain accessible for the scholarly record but are clearly marked as retracted on all versions.

No refunds or APC reimbursements are issued for retractions.

Handling of Ethical Issues

Advances in BioScience takes all ethical concerns related to submitted manuscripts or published articles seriously and is committed to addressing them in a fair, transparent, and confidential manner. Ethical issues may be identified before or after publication and may be raised by authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, readers, or third parties.

All reported concerns—including but not limited to suspected research or publication misconduct, authorship disputes, ethical approval deficiencies, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or data integrity issues—are initially assessed by the Editorial Office and, where appropriate, referred to the Editor-in-Chief for further consideration.

Detailed procedures for investigating allegations and determining responsibility are governed by the journal’s Policy on Research and Publication Misconduct, which strictly follows the guidelines and flowcharts provided by the COPE. Where necessary, the journal may involve the authors’ affiliated institutions or relevant authorities to ensure a thorough and impartial review.

During the assessment process, all parties involved are expected to cooperate fully and respond promptly to requests for information or clarification. The journal will handle all ethical matters with due respect for confidentiality, procedural fairness, and the integrity of the scholarly record. To encourage the reporting of genuine concerns, the journal protects individuals who raise concerns in good faith and investigation notices may be attached to articles under active review.

Depending on the nature and outcome of the review, appropriate post-publication actions—such as corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions—may be taken in accordance with the journal’s established policies.

Right to Appeal

Authors or complainants who believe a decision has been reached unfairly may submit a formal appeal to the Editorial Office within 30 days of the decision. Appeals must provide new evidence or demonstrate a failure of the journal’s stated procedures to be considered for a secondary review.

Publication Ethics Resources

Authors, reviewers, and editors are encouraged to refer to the following resources for more information on publication ethics:

To ensure the integrity of the scientific record, Advances in BioScience requires all authors, reviewers, and editors to adhere strictly to these Ethical Guidelines. Upholding the principles of publication ethics is a collective responsibility shared by all parties throughout the editorial and post-publication processes. By submitting a manuscript, authors explicitly agree to abide by the journal's ethical guidelines and publication policies and to cooperate fully and transparently with any investigation of alleged misconduct or ethical concerns. Confirmed violations of these guidelines may result in appropriate editorial or administrative actions.

For any questions or concerns regarding publication ethics, contact the Editorial Office at editor@sospublication.co.in.