Journal editors are solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant societies and organizations.
Journal editors (Associate Editors or Editor in Chief) have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article. They should not change their decision after submitting a decision nor overturn the ones of previous editors (especially after rejecting or accepting) unless they have a serious reason.
Journal editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain. Therefore, they are responsible for the contents, overall quality of the publication, and the integrity of the academic record. Moreover, they should guarantee the quality of the accepted papers and publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
Peer review and Confidentiality
Journal editors must keep the peer-review process confidential; information or correspondence about a manuscript should not be shared with anyone outside of the peer-review process.
Journal editors should make all reasonable efforts to process submitted manuscripts in an efficient and timely manner. They should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication and prevent any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.
Journal editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers (in half-blind peer review journals).
The editor shall ensure that the peer-review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and where necessary the editor should seek additional opinions.
The editor shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and shall follow best practices in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. The editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.
Journal editors should give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted for publication and should judge each on its merits (i.e. the papers' importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to publication's scope), regardless of the race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
Journal editors should ensure that the editorial policies of the journal encourage transparency, complete and honest reporting, and the collaboration between peer reviewers and authors to have a clear understanding of what is expected of them.
The editor shall use the journal’s standard electronic submission system for all journal communications and avoid personal contacts.
Journal editors must not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. In particular, the journal editors shall not require that references included any journal’s articles except for genuine scholarly reasons.
Journal editors should not force authors to cite the articles, products, or services in which the editor has an interest.
Vigilance over the Published Record
Journal editors must have a clear picture of a research's funding sources and ensure that all research materials and methods they publish conform to acceptable ethical guidelines.
Journal editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
Journal editors must work to safeguard the integrity of the published record by reviewing and assessing reported or suspected misconduct (research, publication, reviewer, and editorial), in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript 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 shall further make appropriate use of the publisher’s systems for the detection of misconduct, such as plagiarism.
All authors must warrant that their article is their own original work, which does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any other person or entity, and cannot be construed as plagiarizing any other published work, including their own previously published work.
Authorship of the Paper
The corresponding author must ensure all named co-authors consent to publication and to being named as a co-author. All persons who have made significant scientific or literary contributions to the work reported should be named as co-authors.
Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the paper (e.g. language editing or medical writing), they should be recognized in the acknowledgments section.
Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Only in exceptional circumstances will the Editor consider (at their discretion) the addition, deletion, or rearrangement of authors after the manuscript has been submitted and the author must clearly flag any such request to the Editor.
All authors must agree with any such addition, removal, or rearrangement. Authors take collective responsibility for the work. Each individual author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
An institution must be quoted as the author's affiliation if the institution has made a necessary and material contribution to or provided a basis for the author's contribution to the manuscript. Employment, current educational activity, and supervisory responsibility can be considered justification for crediting an institution as the author's affiliation.
All authors who contributed must be aware of the final version of the manuscript before submission. Page proofs for accepted manuscripts are sent via e-mail to the corresponding author. It is the corresponding author's responsibility to consult with co-authors regarding the proofs.
The originality of the Paper
Authors should not submit previously published work, nor work which is based in substance on previously published work, either in part or whole. Authors must not submit a manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously.
Accuracy of the presented data and analyses
Authors of original research reports should present an accurate account of their performed project as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Original data should be represented accurately in the paper (either in the main body of the manuscript or as a supplementary section) with sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Authors must appropriately cite all relevant publications. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author's work unless fully cited, and with the permission of that third party.
Plagiarism in its many forms-from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others- constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.
The “Nova Biologica Reperta” accepts all terms and conditions of COPE about plagiarism and in case, any attempt of evident plagiarism countermeasures by flowcharts and workflows determined in COPE.
Republishing is considered a case of plagiarism and the “Nova Biologica Reperta” journal strongly recommends authors avoid submitting papers or variations of papers on studies that have already been published elsewhere in English or any local language.
Hazards and Human, Animal and Plant Subjects.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
Authors must certify that the inclusion of endangered Animal or Plant species in their study is in compliance with regional and international conservation policies. Sampling specimens from protected areas should be legally permitted by relevant authorities and the legal license should be mentioned in the manuscript.
It is not acceptable to enhance, obscure, move, remove, or introduce a specific feature within an image. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Manipulating images for improved clarity is accepted, but manipulation for other purposes could be seen as scientific ethical abuse and will be dealt with accordingly. Photographs with identifiable human subjects are excepted as follows.
Photographs with Identifiable Human Subjects
In photographs, sonograms, CT scans, etc., the physical identification of a human subject should be masked whenever possible, unless written permission to use the photograph which is directly obtained from the subject or his/her legal guardian prepared and presented to the journal. The permission note should be clearly stated in the manuscript in the proper place (either in the figure legend or the main body of the text).
Drugs, Devices, and ready to use materials
The generic names, trademarks, models, and manufacturers' data(name, city, and country of origin) of drugs, devices, and ready-to-use materials should be mentioned in the material and methods section.
Use only standard abbreviations which are internationally and/or nationally recognized and spell out all abbreviations at first use in the text followed by the abbreviation in parentheses. In the case of overall similarity between the abbreviated titles of two or more institutions, new abbreviations should be designated to differentiate the mentioned institutions adequately.
Role of Funding Sources
Authors must acknowledge funding sources by identifying who provided financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the manuscript and to briefly describe the role (if any) of the funding sponsor in study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, writing the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The role of funding sources should be noted both in the acknowledgment section of the manuscript and in the covering letter. If the funding source had no such involvement, the authors should so state.
Authors must declare their individual contributions to the manuscript in the covering letter. All authors must have materially participated in the research and/or the manuscript preparation. Roles for each author should be described.
Conflict of Interest
Authors must declare any potential conflict of interest – be it professional or financial – which could be held to arise with respect to the article both in the main body of the manuscript and in the covering letter Conflict of interest is defined as any financial or personal relationships with individuals or organizations, occurring within three (3) years of beginning the submitted work, which could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to have influenced the submitted research manuscript. Potential conflicts of interest would include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications, registrations, and grants.
Authors must provide Acknowledgments which will be published in a separate section along with the manuscript to certify the roles of non-author contributors such as investors, financial providers, and advisors. If there are no Acknowledgments, there should be no heading or acknowledgment statement.
Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. 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.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making appropriate editorial decisions and helps the author(s) to improve the manuscript through editorial communications.
Reviewers should declare any potential conflict of interest prior to agreeing to review a manuscript.
Reviewers should make all reasonable efforts to submit their report and recommendation in a timely manner (within 3 weeks), informing the editor if this is not possible.
Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer review report.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must keep the peer review process confidential; any pieces of the manuscript content should not be shared with anyone outside of the peer-review process. Reviewers must not contact the authors directly without permission from the editor.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript 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.
Alertness to Ethical Issues
A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and should bring these to the attention of the editor.
Reviewers should inform the journal editors about any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or submitted manuscripts of which they are aware. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
Reviewers should ensure that the research material and methods comply with acceptable ethical guidelines.
Reviewers must avoid making statements in their report which might be construed as impugning any person's reputation.
Standards of Objectivity & Competing Interests.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers should give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted for publication and should judge each on its merits (i.e. the papers' importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to publication's scope).
Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing a paper. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).
published papers by the journal of plant research are licensed under CC BY 4.0
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
The journal allows the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions.