Editorial Policies
Our comprehensive editorial policies ensure the highest standards of scientific integrity, ethical conduct, and publication quality. These guidelines apply to all submissions and publications in DeScience journal.
Research Ethics
- • Ethical Approval Requirements
- • Human Subjects Research
- • Animal Research Guidelines
- • Data Protection & Privacy
- • Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Authorship & Attribution
- • Authorship Criteria
- • Contributor Roles (CRediT)
- • Corresponding Author Responsibilities
- • Changes to Authorship
- • Ghost & Guest Authorship
Publication Standards
- • Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
- • Data Availability Requirements
- • Reproducibility Standards
- • Statistical Reporting
- • Figure & Image Standards
Peer Review
- • Review Process Overview
- • Reviewer Selection Criteria
- • Review Timeline Standards
- • Confidentiality Requirements
- • Editorial Decision Guidelines
Research Ethics
Ethical Approval
All research involving human subjects, animals, or sensitive data must receive appropriate ethical approval before submission. Authors must provide:
- • Ethics committee approval number and institution
- • Statement of compliance with ethical standards
- • Evidence of informed consent procedures
- • Details of any ethical considerations
Conflict of Interest
All authors must disclose any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could be perceived as influencing their research:
- • Financial support and funding sources
- • Employment and consulting relationships
- • Stock ownership and patents
- • Personal relationships with subjects or organizations
Authorship & Attribution
Authorship Criteria
Requirements for Authorship
To qualify for authorship, individuals must meet ALL of the following criteria:
- Substantial contributions to conception or design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation
- Drafting or critically revising the manuscript for important intellectual content
- Final approval of the version to be published
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work
CRediT Taxonomy
We encourage the use of CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) to specify author contributions:
- • Conceptualization
- • Data curation
- • Formal analysis
- • Investigation
- • Methodology
- • Writing - original draft
- • Writing - review & editing
Peer Review Process
Review Process Overview
Initial Screening
Editorial team reviews for scope, quality, and technical requirements
Peer Review
Minimum two expert reviewers evaluate scientific merit and methodology
Editorial Decision
Editor makes final decision based on reviews and journal standards
Reviewer Responsibilities
- • Provide timely, constructive feedback
- • Maintain confidentiality of manuscript content
- • Declare conflicts of interest
- • Evaluate based on scientific merit only
- • Suggest improvements for clarity and quality
Review Criteria
- • Scientific validity and rigor
- • Originality and significance
- • Clarity of presentation
- • Adequacy of data and analysis
- • Ethical compliance
Publication Standards
Data Availability
To promote transparency and reproducibility, we require authors to make their research data available according to the following guidelines:
- • Data supporting conclusions must be made publicly available
- • Use of established data repositories is encouraged
- • Data availability statement required in all manuscripts
- • Code and software should be made available when possible
- • Restrictions must be clearly justified
Image and Figure Standards
All figures and images must meet high quality standards and ethical requirements:
- • High resolution (minimum 300 DPI for print)
- • Appropriate file formats (TIFF, PNG, or high-quality JPEG)
- • No inappropriate image manipulation
- • Clear legends and labeling
- • Permission required for copyrighted images
Research Misconduct Policy
Zero Tolerance Approach
DeScience has zero tolerance for research misconduct. We actively investigate allegations and take appropriate action to maintain the integrity of scientific literature.
Plagiarism
- • All submissions screened
- • Strict similarity thresholds
- • Immediate rejection for violations
- • Author education provided
Data Falsification
- • Rigorous peer review
- • Post-publication monitoring
- • Investigation procedures
- • Retraction when necessary
Duplicate Publication
- • Cross-database checking
- • Author declarations required
- • Clear guidelines provided
- • Sanctions for violations
Policy Updates & Implementation
Our editorial policies are regularly reviewed and updated to reflect best practices in scientific publishing and evolving standards in research ethics.
- • Policies reviewed annually by editorial board
- • Updates communicated to all stakeholders
- • Implementation timeline clearly specified
- • Training provided to editorial staff and reviewers
- • Feedback welcomed from the research community
Last updated: January 2024 | Next review: January 2025
Questions About Our Policies?
Our editorial team is available to clarify any aspects of our policies and provide guidance on compliance requirements.
Contact Editorial Office