1. Author Responsibilities and Ethics
Authorship of a Article
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the article, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of interest arise when issues outside research could affect the evaluation of the work in terms of neutrality or objectivity. This can happen at any stage of research, including experimentation, article preparation, and publication.
Potential conflicts of interest are obliged to be declared. Undeclared conflicts of interests may incur sanctions. If conflicts of interest are revealed at the later stage, then submissions may be rejected, published articles may need to be retracted, or have a corrigendum published.
If there's an explicit declaration of potential conflicts of interest, then the outcome is formed regarding objective decisions about the work and its review process.
Possible fields of conflicts of interest: financial, affiliations, intellectual property, personal, ideologic, and academic.
Authors: Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their article any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation of the article. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
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.
Extrica uses Crossref Similarity Check (iThenticate) and our own software to detect submissions that overlap with published and submitted articles.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not, in general, publish articles describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same article to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Data access, use, and retention
Authors could be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the paper for editorial review. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least ten years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release. Also, authors should ensure that they have permission for the use of software, questionnaires/(web) surveys, and scales in their studies.
Acknowledgment of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
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's Editor-in-Chief or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.
Authors reporting results 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 article. 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.
All communication between the Journal and authors is confidential, which includes correspondence with direct representatives from the Journal such as Editors-in-Chief and/or Handling Editors and reviewers unless explicit consent has been provided to share the information.
Retractions and Corrections
The journals and/or Publisher will investigate following COPE guidelines given that there is suspicion of misbehavior or alleged fraud. If there's still valid concerns, the authors will be contacted by e-mail and will be given an opportunity to explain the situation. Respectfully to the situation, the journals and/or Publisher will follow these implementations:
- If the article is still in the process of under consideration, it may be rejected.
- If the article is already published online.
- An erratum/correction may be issued with the article.
- An Editor's note may be published with the article.
- Or, in the most extreme case, retraction of the article may occur.
Appeals and Complaints
Any appeals or complaints should be handled by the Editor-in-Chief(s) and/or the Editor who did handle the article.
Complaint about scientific information
The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor considers the authors' arguments, the reviewer reports and makes a decision whether:
- The decision to reject should be valid;
- Another independent opinion is needed;
- The appeal should be taken into account;
The complainant is informed of the decision made with an explanation if appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final.
Complaint about processes
The Editor-in-Chief, together with the Handling Editor, will investigate the situation. The complainant will be provided feedback to his inquiry.
Complaint about ethics of publication
The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor follows COPE guidelines, decides on the course of actions, and provides feedback for the complainant.
2. Availability of Data
Scientific integrity is strengthened when sharing research information, and the inclusion of a data availability statement (DAS) ensures how data can be made available to third-party researchers.
Mandatory data availability statements consolidate information on the availability of data associated with the article, whether data are in repositories, available on request, included with supplementary information or figure source data files.
This policy requires all Extrica journals to adopt a research data policy which requires data availability statements. This policy does not introduce any data sharing mandates but simply aims to make the availability of the data transparent.
3. Ethics and Biosecurity
All individual rights should be followed. For example, in studies, there's a right to choose what happens with personal data collected, to what individuals have mentioned during a study or interview, as well as to any pictures that were taken. This is significantly important in terms of sensitive people (for instance, patients, minors, refugees, etc.) or the use of pictures in vulnerable contexts. Authors will need to ensure written consent before being allowed to include such images.
Information such as birth date, names, identity numbers, biometrical characteristics, and similar details of the participants that were studied should not be published unless the information is essential for scholarly purposes and the participant provided written consent for publishing. Under some circumstances, consent is not needed to provide when information is anonymized.
Exceptions when consent is not needed to provide for such type of information:
- X-rays, laparoscopic images, brain scans, ultrasound images, pathology slides unless there is a concern about the identification of information, in which case, authors should obtain consent.
- Reusing of images: If images are being copied from previous publications, the Publisher will take into consideration that the publication obtained the relevant information to consent. Authors should provide the relevant attribution for copied images.
Consent and already available data and/or biologic material
No matter if material is collected from alive or dead patients, they (family or guardian if the deceased has not made a pre-mortem decision) must have provided priorly written consent. The full aspects of confidentiality as well as any wishes requirements from the deceased should be taken into account.
Privacy, confidentiality, and data protection
When biological material is donated for or data is generated as part of a research project, authors should take into account, as part of the informed consent process, that the participants are made aware what kind of (personal) data will be processed, how it will be used and for what aim. If data is acquired via biobank/biorepository, Authors should apply a broad consent which allows research participants to consent to a broad range of uses of their samples and data, which is regarded by research ethics committees as specific enough to be considered informed. However, Authors should always read the specific biorepository/biobank policies in order to make sure that this is the right case.
Consent to participate
For all the studies where human subjects are involved freely-given, informed consent of participation in the research must be obtained from participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 16), and a statement to this effect should be present in the article.
If human transplantation studies are described, the Authors must include a statement declaring that no tissues/organs were obtained from prisoners and must also name the institution(s)/clinic(s)/Department(s) via which tissues/organs were obtained.
Consent to publish
The above should be declared and summed up in a statement and included in a section entitled “Declarations” before the reference list. Other declarations include Funding, Ethics approval, Conflicts of interest, Data and/or Code availability, and Authors' contribution statements.
Sex and gender reporting
Authors should use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (shaped by social and cultural circumstances) respectfully in order to avoid confusion of both terms. Article titles and/or abstracts should clarify what sex(es) the study applies to. Authors should also provide information in the background, whether sex and/or gender differences may be expected; report how sex and/or gender were accounted for in the design of the study; provide disaggregated data by sex and/or gender, where appropriate; and discuss respective results. If a sex and/or gender analysis was not performed, the rationale should be given in the Discussion part.
Research involving humans, biological material, or their data
When reporting a study that involved the participation of human(s), biological material, or their data, authors are obliged to include a statement that clarifies that the study was approved by appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee and also acknowledge that the study was performed accordingly to the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Research involving human embryos, stem cells, and gametes
Articles that involve experiments used of human embryos and gametes, human embryonic stem cells and related materials, and clinical applications of stem cells must provide confirmation that all experiments were done in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.
The article should have an ethics statement identifying the institutional and/or national research ethics committee (including the title of the ethics committee) approving the experiments and describing any relevant information. Authors should confirm that informed consent was obtained from all recipients and/or donors of cells or tissues. Conditions of donation of materials for research, such as human embryos or gametes, should be clearly described. Copies of approval and consent documents could be asked by the Journal.
In deciding whether to publish papers describing modifications of the human germline, the Journal is guided by safety considerations, compliance with applicable regulations, as well as the status of the societal debate on the implications of such modifications for future generations. In case of concerns regarding a particular type of study, the authors may seek advice from the Editor of the Journal.
Research involving animals, their biological material, or their data
Animals' well-being used for research, education, and testing must be respected by all means. Detailed information should be provided on the ethical treatment of animals in the process of article submission(s). Arrive Guidelines 2.0 checklist should be used when submitting articles if animal research was a part of the investigation.
Researchers from countries not having any legal animal requirements or guidelines should refer to these websites for guidance and help: The Basel Declaration, Association for the study of Animal Behaviour and International Association of Veterinary Editors' Consensus Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics
Biosafety and Biosecurity
It is expected that research submitted to any Extrica journal is carried out in compliance with relevant institutional biosafety and biosecurity protocols and any national or international recommendations relevant to the research field.
4. Editorial Process
Immediately after submission, the journal's Editor in Chief will perform an initial check of the article in order to assess:
- Overall suitability of the article to the Journal;
- Article adherence to high-quality research and ethical standards;
- Possible conflicts of interests.
The Editor-in-Chief can decide to continue with the peer-review process, reject a article, or request revisions before peer-review.
Extrica uses Crossref Similarity Check (iThenticate) and our own software to detect submissions that overlap with published and submitted articles.
All articles will be assigned to at least two qualified reviewers through the 7 steps described below. Decisions will be made as rapidly as possible, and the journal strives to return reviewers' comments to authors within 6-12 weeks.
On receiving an article, the Editorial office will pre-screen your article in 1 week. The Editor in charge of the article will check whether the article is valid, does fall into the scope of the Journal, the presentation language is fluent, and the contribution to state of the art is clear.
Following is a formal review process accomplished by external anonymous reviewers. Please note that the final decision on the acceptance/rejection of your article is upon the Editor-in-Chief or one of the Associate Editors.
- Article Submission – A article code is assigned to every submission - authors are urged to use this code for any further communication regarding this article. The article is assigned to one of the Associated Editors (members of the Editorial Board of the Journal).
- Pre-reviewing (Editorial Office) – Initial Screening of the Article - the article can be rejected or forwarded to the peer review process at this stage. A Reject decision can be immediately reached if the anti-plagiarism software does show a non-satisfactory score (over 5 %).
- Peer Review - External Anonymous Reviewers are assigned (if the article is not rejected up to this point).
- Reviewer's reports are collected by the Editorial Office of the Journal. The Associated Editor is either rejecting the article - or requesting a revision from the authors based on the Reviewers' comments (Minor, Major Revision requests or the Reject recommendation).
- Authors return their revised article to the Editorial Office. The Associated Editor is taking a decision - Accept, the Second Round of Revision, or Reject - the decision is communicated to the Authors. The process is iterated to the point No. 2 if an additional revision is requested by the reviewers.
- Authors are allowed to perform two rounds of revisions. If Reviewers are not convinced by the arguments of authors after the second round of revisions – the article is automatically rejected. In case the two assigned reviewers do have conflicting recommendations, a judge reviser (usually selected from the members of the Editorial Board of the Journal) is invited to give a final recommendation.
- The final decision is communicated to the Authors.
In cases where only minor or major revisions are recommended, Extrica will contact the corresponding author and will offer to revise the article. Additional reviewers or further review reports may be requested in case of conflicting review reports.
Revised versions of articles may or may not be sent to reviewers. By default, reviewers who request major revisions or recommend rejection will be sent the revised article. All reviewers can access the most recent version of the article via Extrica Manage.
A maximum of two rounds of major revision per article is normally provided.
Acceptance decisions on articles can be taken by the Editor in Chief after peer-review once a minimum of two review reports have been received.
The Editor In Chief can select from the following options: Accept in current form, accept with minor revisions, reject and decline resubmission, or reject but encourage resubmission.
Authors may appeal a rejection or any other decision taken by Extrica by sending an e-mail to Show Email Address Author appeals will be investigated and immediate confirmation of the reception of the appeal will be given to the author during three working days.
Extrica in-house teams perform production on all articles, including typesetting, and language editing.
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Please follow the link to the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
Conditions of Acceptance
Each article submitted to Extrica will be accepted or rejected according to the originality, contribution to state of the art in the field, the fitness to the scope of the Journal, quality of content, and presentation of the submitted article.