Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Last updated: May 28, 2024


Extrica is committed to meeting high standards of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process. This Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, outlines the responsibilities concerning publishing ethics for Extrica as the Publisher, as well as for editors, peer reviewers and authors.

Extrica follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on research publication ethics aimed at upholding the highest standards of publishing ethics.

Anyone who believes that articles published by Extrica have not been carried out in line with this Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement should raise their concern with the relevant editor or via email Show Email Address.

Duties of the Publisher

Scholarly records

Extrica is devoted to maintaining and enhancing the accessibility and long-term preservation of academic works after their publication.

Extrica is dedicated to advancing research integrity by deploying AI writing detection systems such as Ithenticate 2.0 that prevent plagiarism, thereby safeguarding the integrity and accuracy of the academic record.

Extrica commits to developing and upholding ethical standards for authors, editors, and reviewers, addressing conflicts of interest, adherence to research ethics, and criteria for authorship. Furthermore, Extrica is committed to dealing with allegations of misconduct rigorously and with transparency, utilizing established processes for resolving such issues, which may include issuing corrections, retractions, or statements of concern, etc.

Extrica is devoted to amending the academic record openly, with clear guidelines for making corrections, retractions, and apologies when errors or instances of confirmed misconduct are identified. Moreover, Extrica guarantees the integrity of the academic record by keeping a transparent and accessible record of amendments to published materials.

Safeguarding Editorial independence

Extrica commits to ensuring that editorial decisions remain uninfluenced by commercial factors, including advertising, reprints, or any form of commercial profit.

Extrica is devoted to preserving editorial independence, ensuring that we do not directly or indirectly affect the editors' decisions. This dedication ensures that submissions are evaluated on their scholarly value without consideration of potential revenue. Thus, Extrica ensures that all content, regardless of its potential to attract advertising or generate sales, receives fair and equal treatment.

Moreover, Extrica takes a definitive stance on the involvement of its representatives in the editorial processes. Extrica ensures that individuals who could have commercial interests, including sales, marketing, or advertising representatives, are completely excluded from editorial decision-making. This separation is vital for maintaining the purity of editorial judgments, ensuring that they are based solely on the intellectual and scholarly value of the content. By implementing such clear boundaries, Extrica fosters an environment where editors feel empowered to make decisions based on the merit of the work, free from any external pressures or incentives.

Support to Editors

Extrica is committed to supporting editors by managing all administrative tasks. This includes areas such as design, formatting, legal issues, marketing, and communications, provided that such communications do not pertain to editorial decision-making. This comprehensive support is aimed at significantly reducing the administrative burden on editors, thereby enabling them to dedicate more time and effort toward enhancing the scientific rigour and quality of their journals.

Importantly, while Extrica provides extensive support for these administrative tasks, it strictly excludes any involvement in editorial decision-making and the peer review process from its support services. This distinction underscores Extrica's commitment to editorial independence, ensuring that the editorial integrity and the scholarly merit of submissions remain the sole criteria for content selection and publication.

By relieving editors of the myriad administrative responsibilities, Extrica facilitates a focused approach to the most vital aspects of scholarly publishing: rigorous peer review, judicious content selection, and the maintenance of high editorial standards. This approach lets editors focus on what they do best: driving scholarly excellence and pushing the boundaries of knowledge, all while resting assured that the behind-the-scenes tasks of their journals are in good hands.

Handling misconduct

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the Editor-in-Chief, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.


Extrica and all other subjects involved in the publishing process must not discriminate on the basis of age, colour, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation in its publishing programs, services and activities.

Duties of Editors

Publication decisions

The Editor-In-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. These decisions shall always prioritize the validity of the articles and their importance to researchers and readers. The Editor-In-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-In-Chief may confer with other editors, or reviewers in making this decision.

Quality over quantity

The editors should adhere to the 'quality over quantity' principle to uphold their journal's integrity. This means that the editors’ choice to publish should focus on the article's quality rather than trying to increase the total number of published articles. High-quality research with significant academic and scientific value should take precedence over a larger quantity of lesser-quality publications. The emphasis should be on promoting articles that are thoroughly researched, well-argued, and make significant contributions to their field.

Such an approach mandates a rigorous peer review process that values depth, originality, and relevance. Editors shall not publish superficial or redundant studies, ensuring that the articles they publish offers meaningful insights, fosters scholarly debate, and advances the boundaries of research.

Peer review

The Editor-In-Chief is responsible for ensuring that the peer review process is conducted fairly, without bias, and in a timely manner. To uphold these standards, research articles should undergo a rigorous peer review process.

Additionally, the Editor-In-Chief should be proactive in managing the peer review process. This involves soliciting additional opinions when necessary. For instance, if the initial reviewer provides ambiguous feedback that does not offer a clear direction on the decision to publish, or if there are specific concerns about the article that need to be addressed, the Editor-In-Chief should seek further evaluations. This may include inviting more reviewers who have the relevant expertise to provide a comprehensive assessment of the article.

The Editor-In-Chief assesses the quality of reviewers' evaluation of the article on a scale from 1 to 5. Reviewers who receive a rating of 1 will not be invited to review additional articles.

Fair play

The editors evaluate the submitted articles for their intellectual and scientific content and contribution to the field, without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. When nominating potential editorial board members, the Editor-In-Chief shall take into account the need for appropriate, inclusive, and diverse representation.


The editors shall not reveal any information about a submitted article, including all submitted materials and communications, to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate, unless there is a mutual agreement to do otherwise.

In exceptional cases, the sharing of information between Editors-In-Chief should only be undertaken when the disclosing Editor-In-Chief feels that such sharing is a necessary part of the Editor-In-Chief’s obligation to prevent and respond to suspected research misconduct following COPE Guidance on the Sharing of Information Amongst Editors-In-Chief Regarding Possible Misconduct.

The editors shall not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted article for their own research without the express written consent of the author. They are also obligated to keep privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review confidential and not use them for personal gain.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

The Editor-In-Chief must proactively declare any potential editorial conflicts of interest to Extrica in writing and update these declarations as and when new conflicts arise. Extrica has the discretion to publish such declarations in the journal.

The editors shall not be involved in decisions about articles that s/he has written him/herself or have been written by family members or colleagues or which relate to products or services in which editors have an interest. Further, any such submission must be subject to all of the journal’s usual procedures, peer review must be handled independently of the relevant author/editor and their research groups, and there should be a clear statement to this effect on any such paper that is published.

Citation Integrity

The editors shall not engage in practices that unfairly increase the journal’s ranking. In particular, they shall not force authors either directly or indirectly to cite publications from their own journal or any other journal unless there is a genuine academic reason for doing so. Furthermore, authors should not feel compelled to reference the editors' own publications, products, or services in their work, unless such citations are relevant and justified within the context of their academic research.

Additionally, editors have the duty to inform the authors and the publisher if they detect any efforts to artificially boost citation metrics, including actions taken by peer reviewers. This vigilance promotes transparency and safeguards the integrity of the review process. By committing to these principles, editors reinforce the ethical standards of academic publishing, fostering a just and trustworthy scholarly environment.

Vigilance over the published record

The Editor-In-Chief shall work to safeguard the integrity of the published record by reviewing and assessing reported or suspected misconduct, in conjunction with Extrica.

Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the article or paper and giving due consideration to the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.

The Editor-In-Chief presented with convincing evidence of misconduct should coordinate with Extrica to arrange the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other correction to the record, as may be relevant.

When dealing with reported or suspected misconduct, the Editor-In-Chief and Extrica shall adhere to the COPE guidelines on Allegations of misconduct, whenever possible.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the article.

In addition to the specific ethics-related duties described below, reviewers are asked generally to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and to observe good reviewing etiquette.


Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in an article or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.


Any articles received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-In-Chief. Reviewers shall not contact the authors directly without permission from the Editor-In-Chief.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted article must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing an article. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

If a reviewer recommends including citations to their own or their associates' publications, these suggestions must be based solely on scientific merit. The reviewer must then provide the Editor-in-Chief with a clear and detailed justification for why these specific citations are scientifically necessary. The Editor-in-Chief has the authority to evaluate this justification and may choose to reject the reviewer's suggestions if they are not convincingly for the advancement of scientific understanding.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. If the article under review mentions any findings, calculations, or arguments that have been published before, the reviewer should ensure that these references are properly cited. A reviewer should also call to the Editor-In-Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the article under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Reporting concerns

The reviewer is obligated to inform the Editor-In-Chief if:

  • the reviewer has suspicions that an article has been authored or assisted by AI tools without the author disclosing this use upon submission;
  • the reviewer has suspicions that the article may be a translated piece from another language rather than an original work;
  • suspicion indicating that significant portions of the text may have been copied from other works without appropriate attribution;
  • concerns regarding ethical issues, such as the misuse of personal data, potential harm to research subjects, or any other practice that could contravene ethical research guidelines;
  • the integrity of the research data is in question, either through the apparent fabrication or falsification of data;
  • conflicts of interest that were not disclosed by the author(s) but are apparent or suspected by the reviewer, potentially influencing the research outcomes or interpretations;
  • the reviewer identifies significant methodological flaws that invalidate the study's conclusions or significantly diminish its value to the field.
Disclosure and conflict of interest

Reviewers should consult the Editor-In-Chief before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential 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 Authors

Authorship and Contributorship

Extrica requires that all individuals listed as authors on submitted work unanimously agree that they meet the authorship criteria as established by their respective disciplinary norms, ensuring that no potential authors who meet these criteria have been omitted from the authorship list.

Extrica expects all listed authors to take responsibility for the integrity of the work and to be accountable for it. In the event of a dispute or change request (including author order or designation) at any stage of the publishing process, we will be guided by the COPE guidance on Authorship and Contributorship in deciding the appropriate action(s). If these changes raise concerns about the broader integrity of the work further investigation may follow.

Authorship should be based on the following principles:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and
  • Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; and/or
  • Final approval of the version to be published; and
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

We encourage authors to list anyone who does not meet the criteria for authorship in an Acknowledgements section in their publication with permission, for example, to recognise the contributions of anyone who provided research or writing assistance.

The corresponding author shall:

  • 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.
  • Handle the revision and re-submission of revised article up to the acceptance of the article;
  • Arrange for payment of an APC (article processing charge)./li>
  • Act on behalf of all co-authors in responding to queries from all sources post-publication, including questions relating to publication ethics, reuse of content, or the availability of data, materials, resources, etc.

Requests to change the corresponding author after submission will be subject to the same scrutiny as any authorship change. This applies to both pre-and post-publication of the article.

We support our members of the editorial board in dealing with any authorship disputes, including escalating or seeking advice on cases with COPE or referring to institutions. COPE also provides extensive resources on authorship and authorship disputes, and we encourage anyone involved in editorial decisions to familiarise themselves with these resources.

Reporting standards

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 article. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

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 and permissions obtained where necessary. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.

Extrica Journals uses Crossref Similarity Check (iThenticate 2.0) 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.

In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a paper that has been published previously, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis or as an electronic preprint.

Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the articles of others must always be given. Authors shall cite publications that have influenced the article and that give the work appropriate context within the larger scholarly record. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, shall not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source.

Data access 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 shall 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.


Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as peer review or grant applications, shall not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their article any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation of the article. All sources of financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article should be disclosed, as should the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. If the funding source(s) had no such involvement then this should be stated.

Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, the author must promptly notify the journal's Editor-in-Chief and the publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or publish an appropriate erratum.

Given that there is suspicion of misconduct, the Editor-In-Chief and Extrica will investigate the situation following COPE guidelines on Allegations of misconduct. If there are still valid concerns, the authors will be contacted by e-mail and will be allowed to explain the situation. Respectfully to the situation, the Editor-In-Chief and Extrica 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.
Image Manipulation

It is unacceptable to enhance, obscure, move, remove, or introduce specific features within an image. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or colour balance are acceptable provided they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original image. Configurations in images for the improvement of clarity are accepted.

However, manipulation of images for purposes other than clarity could be considered scientific ethical abuse. In such cases, the authors will be notified of the concerns raised and will be given an opportunity to respond and provide clarifications. The image may be accepted after receiving satisfactory clarification from the authors. If the authors fail to provide satisfactory clarifications, the article may be rejected. If the article has already been published, the editors may publish a correction or, in more severe cases, retract the paper.

Authors shall comply with any specific policy for graphical images applied by the relevant journal, e.g. providing the original images as supplementary material with the article, or depositing these in a suitable repository.

Research involving humans, biological material, or their data

For all studies involving human subjects, it is imperative to obtain freely given, informed consent from the participants (or their parent or legal guardian for children under 16). A statement confirming this should be included in the article.

If the research involves human transplantation studies, authors are required to include a statement affirming that no tissues or organs were sourced from prisoners. Additionally, the names of the institutions, clinics, or departments through which the tissues or organs were procured must be provided.

The above should be declared and summed up in a statement and included in a section entitled “Declarations” before the reference list.

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors shall clearly identify these in the article.

For human subjects, the author shall ensure that the work described has been carried out in accordance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans. All animal experiments should comply with the ARRIVE guidelines and should be carried out in accordance with the U.K. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and associated guidelines, or EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, or the U.S. Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and, as applicable, the Animal Welfare Act.

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.