The Science Publishers is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles based on COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. Authors are obliged to participate in the peer-review process and provide retractions or corrections of mistakes. The corresponding author should ensure that all authors significantly contributed to the research and there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication. The authors must provide funding information and conflict of interest statement.
Editors should take responsibility for the smooth peer review, production and publication process of submitted manuscripts under the journal legal requirements and policies. Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use the unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints (such as multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like) have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Editors should always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for 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. 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. The revisers should point out the relevant published work which is not yet cited.