Publication Ethics Statement

The Editors of Bioactivities issue a set of publication ethics as guidelines for authors engaged in the publication of scientific research to comply with COPE Core Practices and establishes a high-quality standard of ethics for journal publication.

1. Allegations of Misconduct

The purpose of this policy is to prevent any misconduct related to research conducted for the journals and to suggest the fundamental principles and structural procedures in relation to research integrity deliberation required to ensure research ethics. 

The range of misconduct policy

Research misconduct suggested in this policy pertains to fraud and refers to data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and improper authorship. 

1. "Fabrication" refers to any activity involving the creation of false information about non-existing data or findings.
2. "Falsification" refers to the artificial manipulation of the research materials/equipment/process or random modification/deletion of data resulting in distorted research contents or research results.
3. "Plagiarism" refers to acts of pirating others’ ideas, research contents, and research results without justifiable approvals or quotations.
4. "Improper authorship" refers to cases where the person who has contributed to research contents or research results is scientifically and technically unqualified as an author or where someone who has not contributed to the research contents or research results scientifically and technically but has been listed as an author merely to express gratitude or courtesy
5. Intentional acts to disturb a fraud investigation about themselves or others or acts which can be harmful to informants
6. Unfair evaluation regarding research of others or disclosure or pirating of research ideas or research results acquired during the evaluation process.
7. Severely aberrant acts that cannot be accepted in the community of the field of science and technology.

How does the journal address misconduct

Editors and publishers have an ethical obligation to:

1. Support the quality and ethics of the review process (pre-publication: weed out; prevent)
2. Ensure the correctness of the published literature (post-publication: correct; communicate)
3. Educate (prevent)

Editors/journals have an ethical obligation to respond and to address ethical allegations that may arise about published papers or papers in review. Systems and procedures are in place for investigating and addressing situations of misconduct, including cooperation with investigations from institutions or funding bodies.

Possible sanction

When the evidence of misconduct is confirmed the following procedures are to be applied:

1. Prior to publication (during review): The manuscript can be withdrawn from review
2. Post-publication (literature correction) The journal may publish a Retraction, Note of Editorial Concern, Errata/Correction with the author or all authors’ signature or editorial of an appropriate statement about the situation. The paper can be “marked” in the literature
3. Editors determine whether retract or correct after considering whether the case is fraud or an honest mistake. They consider the intent and then the extent to which the data is incorrect/misleading
4. The author may be banned from submitting to the journal.
5. Editors may, in some cases, provide information for other editors/publishers.
6. Editors may publish an editorial in the journal to discuss the issue generally and raise awareness of the issue.

2. Authorship and Contributorship

Authors are expected to comply with the following ethical guidelines. Any infringement may lead to a retraction of the article or even ban the author from journal publication.

1. The author’s main obligation is to deliver accurate and complete details of the research performed. The research data should contain sufficient information on the related subject.
2. Authors should ensure the originality of their work and that neither fraud nor fabrication is involved in their manuscript.
3. Authors should guarantee that the article has not been published previously or is not being evaluated for publication elsewhere.
4. Authors should ensure that their works do not contain any unlawful statements and/or any comment that may violate the law.
5. Authors are aware of and abide by the misconduct policy.

Authors listed on an article must meet all of the following criteria.

1. Made a significant contribution to the work reported, whether that’s in the conception, study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation, or in all these areas.
2. Have drafted or written, or substantially revised or critically reviewed the article.
3. Have agreed on the journal to which the article will be submitted.
4. Reviewed and agreed on all versions of the article before submission, during revision, the final version accepted for publication, and any significant changes introduced at the proofing stage.
5. Agree to take responsibility and be accountable for the contents of the article and to share responsibility to resolve any questions raised about the accuracy or integrity of the published work.

3. Editorship

1. Editors should provide a fair judgment and consideration to all manuscripts based on its quality with no regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
2. Editors are responsible to consider all the submitted manuscripts in a reasonable time frame.
3. Editors, with their expertise and fair judgment, are responsible to accept or reject the manuscripts. They are to build good communication with authors in regard to the manuscript’s publication. The final decision will be accompanied by the reviewer’s comment
4. Editors shall make sure no private information of authors is included in the manuscript sent to reviewers
5. Editors should ensure the confidentiality of the submitted manuscript and not disclose any information about the manuscript under consideration to other parties
6. Editors are to respect the author’s request to not use certain reviewers – with a well-reasoned objection - to consider their manuscript. However, editors can decide to use one or more of these reviewers if their professional input is considered to be important for the manuscript’s publication
7. Editors are to comply with COPE practices when considering a manuscript for publication.

4. Complaints and Appeals

The below procedure applies to appeals to editorial decisions, complaints about failure of processes such as long delays in handling papers and complaints about publication ethics. The complaint should in first instance be handled by the Editor in Chief responsible for the journal and/or the Editor who handled the paper. If they are the subject of the complaint please approach the publisher contact.  

Complaint about scientific content, e.g. an appeal against rejection
The Editor in Chief or Handling Editor considers the authors’ argument, the reviewer reports and decides whether (1) The decision to reject should stand (2) Another independent opinion is required, and (3) The appeal should be considered.
The complainant is informed of the decision with an explanation if appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final and new submissions take priority over appeals.

Complaint about processes, e.g. time taken to review 
The Editor in Chief together with the Handling Editor (where appropriate) and/or publisher contact (where appropriate) will investigate the matter. The complainant will be given appropriate feedback. Feedback is provided to relevant stakeholders to improve processes and procedures.

Complaint about publication ethics, e.g., researcher's author's, or reviewer's conduct
The Editor in Chief or Handling Editor follows guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics. The Editor in Chief or Handling Editor may ask the publisher for advice on difficult or complicated cases. The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor decides on a course of action and provides feedback to the complainant. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, he or she can submit the complaint to the Committee on Publication Ethics. 

5. Conflict of Interest Policy

Authors, Editors and Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following guidelines in compliance with COPE practices.

1. Authors should clearly inform their source of financial support -institution, private, and/or corporate- for their research
2. In case the author and editor of Bioactivities have a relationship which may lead to an unfair evaluation, another editor will be appointed instead.
3. Reviewers should be aware of any appearance of conflict of interest when receiving a manuscript for evaluation and are required to promptly return the manuscript to the editor, informing the conflict of interest issue.

6. Data and Reproducibility

Data availability and reporting guidelines are available in the Author Guidelines section.

7. Research Ethics

All submitted articles and exchanges of information involving authors and editors in Bioactivities will be treated as confidential. Communications related to the publication process should not be disclosed on any website without prior consent from the editors.

The names and email addresses entered on this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be shared with any other parties or used for other purposes.

Research Involving Human Subjects

All research involving humans (individuals, samples, or data) must comply with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical approval must be obtained from the local institutional review board (IRB) or an equivalent ethics committee prior to the commencement of the study. Manuscripts must include a statement confirming ethical approval, providing the name of the ethics committee and reference or permit numbers where applicable.

For non-interventional studies (e.g., surveys) where ethical approval is not required due to national laws or where an exemption has been granted by an ethics committee, this must be clearly stated in the manuscript, along with a full explanation. The name of the ethics committee granting the exemption should also be included. Researchers uncertain about the need for ethical approval should consult the relevant department before conducting their study.

Non-stigmatizing and non-discriminatory language must be used when describing participant groups categorized by race, ethnicity, age, disease, disability, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. Manuscripts should include explanations for such categorizations, including definitions and any requirements imposed by funding agencies or ethics boards.

For studies involving vulnerable populations, additional review by the editorial office will be conducted. Authors may be required to provide supporting documentation, such as blank consent forms or records of discussions with ethics boards or other authorities. Any categorization of participants must be scientifically justified and clearly stated in the manuscript.

Studies on human organ transplantation are subject to all ethical standards for human research. Authors must disclose the institutions, clinics, or departments where organs or tissues were sourced. Manuscripts reporting data obtained through unethical practices—such as illegal trade, executed prisoners, or other violations—will not be accepted. Articles critically examining such practices may be considered at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief, provided a prior written appeal is submitted to the editorial office. For additional guidance, this policy aligns with the glossary maintained by the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/patients/glossary/).

Research Involving the Use of Animals

The editorial team requires that any research involving animals demonstrates significant potential benefits in relation to the harm caused to the animals. Procedures must be conducted with sensitivity and in a manner unlikely to cause offense to the majority of readers. Researchers must ensure their work adheres to the widely accepted principles of the "3Rs":

1. Replace animals with alternative methods wherever feasible.
2. Minimize the number of animals used without compromising the integrity of the results.
3. Optimize experimental conditions and procedures to minimize pain, distress, or harm to animals.

Authors must provide detailed information on housing, husbandry, and pain management procedures in their manuscripts.

For further guidance, authors should refer to resources such as the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures, the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, or the European Animal Research Association.

If national regulations require it, studies involving vertebrates or higher invertebrates must receive prior approval from an appropriate ethics committee. The manuscript should include the project identification code, approval date, and the name of the ethics committee or institutional review board in the “Institutional Review Board Statement” section. Research procedures must comply with national and institutional regulations, and a statement confirming compliance with relevant legislation must be included.

Clinical studies involving animals and interventions beyond routine care require oversight from an ethics committee, following the guidelines of the American Veterinary Medical Association. For studies involving client-owned animals, informed consent from the owners must be obtained and documented in the manuscript. Owners should be fully informed of any risks, and researchers must ensure that the animals receive a high standard of veterinary care whenever possible.

If ethical approval is not mandated by national laws, authors must provide documentation of exemption from an ethics committee, if available. The manuscript should clearly explain why ethical approval was not required, and the name of the ethics committee granting the exemption should be stated.

In cases where an animal ethics committee is unavailable, the ethics of the study will be assessed by the journal’s editors and reviewers. Authors must justify the ethical considerations of their work, following a utilitarian framework similar to that used by ethics committees. This justification may still be required even if ethical approval has been obtained.

Authors are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all ethical statements provided in the manuscript.

Research Involving Cell Lines

For studies involving cell lines, authors must ensure that the cell lines used in their research are clearly identified and provide details on their source, including the name of the repository or supplier and any associated catalog numbers. Authors should confirm that the cell lines were authenticated, and if applicable, provide information on the methods of authentication, including testing for contamination (e.g., mycoplasma testing) and cross-contamination with other cell lines.

If the cell lines used are derived from human or animal tissues, authors must state whether the cell lines were obtained in compliance with relevant ethical guidelines and regulations. This includes ensuring that informed consent was obtained from donors, where applicable, and that appropriate ethical approval was granted. Details regarding the institution, ethics committee, approval date, and reference number should be included in the manuscript.

For established and widely used cell lines, authors should include references to the original publications describing the development and characterization of the cell lines. If the cell lines are novel, authors must provide detailed information about their generation and characterization to allow reproducibility and validation by other researchers.

Researchers must ensure that all experiments involving cell lines comply with national and international ethical standards and best practices, such as those outlined by the International Cell Line Authentication Committee (ICLAC).

Research Involving Plants

Experimental research involving plants (cultivated or wild), including the collection of plant materials, must adhere to institutional, national, and international guidelines. Authors are strongly encouraged to comply with the principles outlined in theConvention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and theConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

All submitted manuscripts must provide information regarding the genetic origin and source of the plant materials used. For studies involving rare or non-model plants (excluding common models such as Solanum lycopersicum, Zea mays, Triticum aestivum, and other widely recognized model species), voucher specimens should be deposited in an accessible herbarium or museum. These vouchers may be requested by future investigators for verification of plant identity, particularly in the event of future taxonomic revisions. Voucher details should include information on the population sampled, collection site (GPS coordinates), date of collection, and the part(s) of the plant used in the study, where applicable.

For research involving rare, threatened, or endangered species, deposition of voucher specimens may be waived. In such cases, authors must provide an explanation in the cover letter, detailing the reasons for the waiver and confirming compliance with ethical and conservation guidelines.

The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that fail to meet these requirements or lack appropriate documentation.

8. Intellectual Properties

Disclaimer

The viewpoint of articles published in Bioactivities are solely the authors’ and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board of the publisher

Copyright

The author is responsible for acquiring permission(s) to reproduce any copyrighted figures, tables, data, or text that are being used in the submitted paper. Authors should note that text quotations of more than 250 words from a published or copyrighted work will require a grant of permission from the original publisher to reprint. The written permission letter(s) must be submitted together with the manuscript.

Publishing

This journal uses Open Journal System which is a journal management and publishing software developed, supported, and distributed by the Public Knowledge Project (PKP).

9. Journal Management

This Journal is available online and can be accessed for free

Publication in this journal is through Article Processing Charge scheme and all published papers are available online through open access.

10. Peer Review Process

All papers will be critically examined by anonymous reviewer/s, selected for their competencies in the subject area of the paper. Acceptance of the paper will depend upon its scientific merit and suitability for the Bioactivities. A paper may be accepted in its original form, subject to revision, or rejection.

The reviewers' (and editors’) suggestions will be conveyed to the author, who will then have an opportunity to revise the paper. Please see detailed information about our Peer Review Process.

11. Plagiarism

Bioactivities maintains a strict policy against plagiarism and adheres to the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Plagiarism includes copying text, data, or ideas without proper citation, reusing significant portions of previous work without acknowledgment, or presenting fabricated data. Self-plagiarism, or reusing one's own work without proper citation, is also prohibited.

All submitted manuscripts will be checked for plagiarism using plagiarism detection tools. If any plagiarism is detected, the manuscript will be rejected, and the authors will be contacted for clarification. In cases where plagiarism is identified after publication, the article may be retracted, and the author’s institution may be notified if necessary.

To prevent plagiarism, authors are encouraged to properly cite all sources, paraphrase effectively, and ensure their work is original. We recommend using plagiarism detection tools before submitting and adhering to the COPE Code of Conduct and Core Practices. Serious cases of plagiarism may result in a ban from submitting future work to Bioactivities.

12. Publication Practices

Bioactivities is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and follows the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We expect authors, reviewers, and editors to maintain transparency, honesty, and integrity throughout the publication process. All parties involved in the publishing process must adhere to the COPE Code of Conduct and Core Practices.

Author Responsibilities

Authors must ensure that their manuscripts are original, properly cited, and free from plagiarism. They must confirm that all co-authors have contributed to the manuscript, and they must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Authors should also obtain necessary ethical approvals for studies involving humans, animals, or sensitive materials. Any errors identified post-submission or post-publication must be promptly addressed.

Reviewer and Editor Responsibilities

Reviewers must assess manuscripts objectively, without bias, and maintain confidentiality. They should declare any conflicts of interest and refrain from reviewing manuscripts where they have personal or professional connections with the authors. Editors are responsible for making unbiased decisions based on the quality and originality of the work and ensuring that ethical standards are maintained. Editors should also handle complaints and appeals fairly and transparently, in line with COPE guidelines.

Bioactivities is dedicated to upholding these ethical standards, ensuring research integrity, and fostering a transparent and fair publishing environment. Any violations of these practices may result in the rejection of manuscripts, retraction of published articles, or other appropriate actions.

13. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA)

Bioactivities is committed to promoting Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) in all aspects of our publication process. We aim to create a fair and inclusive environment where all voices, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, or other identities, are respected and valued. We align with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure that our editorial and review processes are free from discrimination and bias.

Commitment to Equal Opportunity

We strive to ensure that every manuscript, regardless of the background of the author(s), is treated with fairness and respect during the submission, review, and publication processes. Authors, reviewers, and editors are encouraged to promote inclusive practices, ensuring that diverse perspectives are represented. Manuscripts should avoid discriminatory language and be respectful of all communities and identities.

Inclusive Editorial Practices

We encourage diversity in our editorial and review board members, recognizing that varied perspectives enhance the quality and richness of the research we publish. We will make reasonable accommodations to ensure accessibility for authors, reviewers, and readers with disabilities. We also support efforts to elevate underrepresented voices in the academic community, including through targeted outreach and opportunities for early-career researchers.

Bioactivities is committed to advancing DEIA principles in scholarly publishing, ensuring that our journal fosters an inclusive and supportive environment for all contributors and readers.

14. Post Publication - Discussion and Correction

The Bioactivities follows the guidance from COPE in regard to ethical concerns for published articles. Complaints and Appeal Editor in Chief email at bioactivities@pandawainstitute.com or admin@pandawainstitute.com is available for contact should the authors have an objection or disagreement pertaining to the publication process in Bioactivities. Every complaint will be acknowledged and handled to resolve the issue accordingly. In addition, articles may be retracted due to both scientific and/or ethical reasons, which can be requested by the author(s) or by the Editor. Articles that are found to be seriously flawed or violated ethical guidance from COPE will be retracted in order to correct the scientific record. The retracted article will be noticed on the journal's website alongside information regarding the reason for the retraction.