Policies Ethics

At Spectrum Nexus Publishing (SNP), we are committed to promoting integrity, transparency, and responsibility in academic publishing. Our ethical policies align with the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and we strive to ensure these standards are upheld by all stakeholders—authors, editors, reviewers, and staff.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors submitting to SNP journals are expected to:

Ensure Originality: Manuscripts must be original, properly cite others’ work, and avoid plagiarism or duplicate submission.
Declare Contributions: All listed authors must have made substantial contributions to the research. Contributions must be declared following the CRediT taxonomy.
Identify Corresponding Author: A single corresponding author must take responsibility for communication and ensuring all authors approve the submission and revisions.
Disclose Conflicts of Interest: Any financial or personal relationships that could influence the work must be declared.
Follow Data Ethics: Authors should adhere to standards of data availability, reproducibility, and proper data citation.
Secure Ethical Approvals: Research involving humans or animals must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee.
Report Errors: Authors must notify the editor if they discover a significant error in their published article.

Author Name Changes After Publication

SNP respects authors’ rights to change their names after publication (e.g., due to gender transition, marriage, divorce, or other reasons). We offer a discreet correction process that updates the author’s name in our records, online article versions (HTML/PDF), and metadata without issuing a public correction notice, unless the author requests one.

Deceased Authors

In cases where an author has passed away before publication:

Tr name will be retained in the author list if they made a substantive contribution.
A notay be added (e.g., "Deceased") upon request of co-authors or family.
Consent f next of kin is encouraged if ethical or legal issues are involved.

Manuscript Withdrawal

Authors may request to withdraw a manuscript before acceptance. Withdrawals after peer review must include justification and will be evaluated by the editorial office. Accepted or published articles can only be withdrawn in cases of ethical violations, with editorial approval. SNP reserves the right to publish a retraction or withdrawal notice if necessary.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

with Integrity: Evaluate submissions objectively, fairly, and promptly.
Mata Confidentiality: All manuscript materials and communications must remain confidential.
Decle Colicts of Interest: Reviewers must recuse themselves from cases where they have personal or professional conflicts.
Avoid suse: formation from peer review must not be used for personal gain.
Report Ccerns: A suspicion of plagiarism, unethical behavior, or misconduct should be reported to the editor.

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

Editors at SNP must:

Make Independent Decisions: Accept or reject manuscripts based solely on scholarly merit and ethical compliance.
Ensure a Fair Process: Implement unbiased peer review and editorial procedures.
Prevent and Address Misconduct: Suspected plagiarism, manipulation, or ethical violations will be investigated and acted upon following COPE guidelines.
Support Transparency: Provide clear journal policies, review models, APCs, and conflict-of-interest declarations.

Other Publishing Ethics Policies

Preprints and Text Recycling

SNP allows the submission of manuscripts previously deposited on recognized preprint servers, provided disclosure is made at submission.

Text recycling (“self-plagiarism”) must be avoided unless clearly stated and justified (e.g., in Methods sections). Reused content must be appropriately cited.

Post-Publication Updates

SNP supports corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, and author name change policies in line with COPE best practices.

Post-publication discussion (e.g., through letters to the editor or public forums like PubPeer) is encouraged to maintain academic discourse and transparency.

Code of Conduct

Spectrum Nexus Publishing (SNP) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and professionalism in academic publishing. This Code of Conduct outlines the principles and responsibilities of all individuals involved in our publication process, including authors, editors, reviewers, editorial board members, staff, and service providers.

Our Code of Conduct is aligned with:

The COPE Core Practices

The Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME)

Ethical standards adopted by leading open-access publishers

General Principles

All individuals involved in SNP publishing must:

Uphold academic integrity and scholarly rigor

Promote diversity, inclusivity, and fairness

Avoid all forms of unethical behavior including plagiarism, data fabrication, reviewer manipulation, and inappropriate authorship

Cooperate fully in investigations into ethical concerns

Respect the confidentiality and rights of all parties

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are expected to:

Submit only original work that is not under review elsewhere

Properly cite sources and avoid plagiarism or redundant publication

Ensure accurate reporting of research methods and findings

Declare all conflicts of interest and sources of funding

Follow ethical standards in research involving human or animal subjects, including informed consent and institutional approval

Promptly report errors or corrections needed post-publication

Respect authorship criteria: only those who made a substantial contribution should be listed as authors

Responsibilities of Editors and Editorial Boards

Editors and editorial board members must:

Ensure a fair, unbiased, and timely peer review process

Make editorial decisions based solely on scholarly merit and alignment with the journal's scope

Uphold confidentiality throughout the editorial process

Disclose and manage conflicts of interest appropriately

Investigate all allegations of misconduct in accordance with COPE guidelines

Promote ethical publishing and foster high editorial standards

Avoid coercive citation practices

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide objective, constructive, and respectful evaluations

Maintain confidentiality and not share or use manuscript content for personal benefit

Declare conflicts of interest and decline review when impartiality is compromised

Refrain from using generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) to generate review reports

Report any suspected misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, ethical violations)

Responsibilities of SNP Staff and Management

SNP staff and management are responsible for:

Ensuring that all journals operate transparently and ethically

Providing clear information on editorial policies, peer review, publication fees, and copyright/licensing

Maintaining digital preservation and archiving systems

Offering training and resources to support ethical editorial practices

Investigating complaints, appeals, and ethical concerns promptly and fairly

Ethical Oversight and Misconduct Handling

SNP is committed to upholding integrity in scholarly publishing. We:

Follow COPE flowcharts and procedures in handling allegations of misconduct

Issue corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when necessary

Collaborate with authors’ institutions in cases of serious ethical violations

Allow for post-publication discussions and corrections

Support author name change requests for any reason (e.g., gender identity, marriage)

Inclusivity and Non-Discrimination

SNP does not tolerate any form of discrimination based on race, gender, age, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, or political beliefs. Editorial decisions are based purely on scholarly content.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

SNP permits the responsible use of AI tools in manuscript preparation (e.g., language editing or data analysis) when disclosed. However:

AI tools cannot be listed as authors

Authors must remain accountable for all content generated

Reviewers and editors may not delegate their roles to AI tools

Advertising and Sponsorship

Advertising, reprint, and sponsorship arrangements must not influence editorial decisions. All sponsorship and advertising relationships must be clearly disclosed and kept separate from editorial operations.

1Monitoring and Enforcement

Breaches of this Code of Conduct will be investigated thoroughly and may result in actions including manuscript rejection, retraction, or removal from editorial boards or reviewer pools. Repeat or serious violations may be referred to the appropriate institutional or legal authorities.

Peer-Review Policy

At Spectrum Nexus Publishing (SNP), we uphold a rigorous and ethical peer-review process to ensure the integrity, quality, and academic merit of the research we publish. Our peer-review policy adheres to the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing. It ensures the credibility of research by evaluating manuscripts for originality, scientific rigor, clarity, ethical soundness, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

Peer Review Models

All SNP journals adopt one of the following peer review models, which is clearly stated on each journal's website:

Single-blind review: Reviewers know the authors' identity, but authors do not know reviewers' identities.

Double-blind review: Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other.

Open review (where applicable): Reviewers’ names may be disclosed, and review reports may be published alongside the article.

Reviewer Selection and Invitation

Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Invitations are issued by the editorial team or handling editor, who ensure a fair and balanced evaluation process.

SNP encourages diversity, inclusion, and balanced representation in its reviewer pool.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Maintain confidentiality of all manuscript content.

Provide objective, constructive, and timely feedback.

Evaluate the manuscript solely on its scholarly merit.

Declare any conflict of interest or inability to review.

Report concerns about plagiarism, data manipulation, or ethical issues.

All reviews must be submitted through our online editorial system.

Editorial Decision Process

Editors make decisions based on reviewer feedback, journal scope, and publication standards.

Possible decisions include: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of review.

Final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief or delegated Senior Editors.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed rebuttal.

All appeals are reviewed objectively and independently.

Complaints about peer review, editorial bias, or reviewer behavior are handled according to SNP’s ethics procedures.

Use of AI in Peer Review

SNP prohibits the use of generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) to write or generate peer-review reports. Reviewers must ensure their reports are entirely their own intellectual work.

Recognition and Credit

SNP supports reviewer recognition through:

Reviewer acknowledgment (with consent).

Integration with [Publons/ORCID Reviewer Recognition] (where applicable).

Certificates of reviewing upon request.

Data Sharing & Reproducibility

Data Availability Requirements

Authors are encouraged—and in some journals, required—to make the data underlying their findings publicly available at the time of publication. Authors must include a Data Availability Statement in the manuscript, indicating:

Whether data are available

Where the data can be accessed (e.g., repository link, DOI)

Any conditions for access (e.g., embargo, approval required)

Justification for any data that cannot be shared (e.g., privacy, legal, or ethical constraints)

Reproducibility Standards

To facilitate reproducibility:

Methods and protocols must be described with sufficient detail to allow replication by other researchers.

Code, software, and algorithms used in analysis should be shared, preferably in public code repositories (e.g., GitHub, GitLab) with versioning.

Pre-registration of study protocols and clinical trials is encouraged and may be required in certain journals (e.g., clinicaltrials.gov, OSF Registries).

Reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE) should be followed where applicable.

SNP may request authors to submit raw data, code, or documentation during peer review for verification.

Data Citation

Data used or generated in the study should be formally cited in the references section using standard data citation formats, including:

Creator(s)

Year

Title

Repository

Persistent Identifier (e.g., DOI)

Exceptions and Ethical Considerations

We recognize that certain data cannot be shared openly due to:

Participant privacy or confidentiality

Legal or contractual restrictions

National security or sensitive fieldwork

In such cases:

Authors must clearly justify the restriction in the Data Availability Statement.

Data sharing may be facilitated through controlled access or anonymized subsets where feasible.

Compliance and Enforcement

Failure to provide a required Data Availability Statement may delay publication. If post-publication concerns arise regarding unavailable or manipulated data, SNP reserves the right to:

Request original datasets for verification

Issue corrections or retractions if data misrepresentation is found

Notify the author’s institution in cases of data fabrication or ethical misconduct

Funding & Funder Compliance

Spectrum Nexus Publishing (SNP) is committed to maintaining transparency, impartiality, and integrity in all aspects of the scholarly publishing process. We require full disclosure of any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest (COI) from all parties involved in the publication process—including authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial board members.

This policy is based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and best practices adopted by leading open-access publishers.

What is a Conflict of Interest?

A conflict of interest exists when a person’s personal, financial, or professional relationships could inappropriately influence (or appear to influence) their actions, decisions, or judgment in the editorial or peer review process.

Conflicts can be:

Financial: Grants, funding, employment, stock ownership, honoraria, paid consultancies, patents, or royalties.

Non-financial: Personal relationships, academic competition, ideological beliefs, institutional affiliations, or political/religious bias.

Professional: Past or current collaboration with the author, mentorship relationships, or rivalry.

For Authors

Authors must disclose:

All sources of funding related to the research.

Any financial interests (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, patent applications).

Institutional, personal, or professional relationships that may influence the interpretation of results.

Use of third-party services (e.g., editing, translation, or writing assistance) paid for by a sponsor or funder.

How to disclose:

A “Conflicts of Interest” statement must be included at the end of the manuscript.

If there are no conflicts, authors should state: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest."

Failure to disclose relevant COIs may result in editorial action, including retraction of published articles.

For Reviewers

Reviewers must:

Decline to review a manuscript if they have any relationship with the authors or topic that may impair their objectivity.

Disclose any competing interests to the editor if uncertain, and recuse themselves if necessary.

Not use unpublished material for personal advantage.

Reviewers should avoid reviewing manuscripts if:

They have recently co-authored papers with the authors.

They are currently collaborating or working in the same institution.

They are engaged in competitive research that may bias their judgment.

For Editors and Editorial Board Members

Editors and board members must:

Recuse themselves from handling submissions in which they have a conflict (personal, professional, or financial).

Disclose all relevant conflicts annually or upon assuming editorial roles.

Not use unpublished materials or privileged information for personal gain.

Ensure editorial decisions are made independently of any commercial or personal interests.

Submissions from editors or board members must undergo independent peer review and be handled by an uninvolved editor.

Transparency and Recordkeeping

All disclosed COIs will be reviewed and managed by the Editor-in-Chief or designated ethics team.

SNP journals will publish conflict of interest statements in all articles.

Undisclosed COIs discovered post-publication may result in correction, expression of concern, or retraction depending on severity.

Third-Party Funding and Sponsored Research

For research supported by third parties (e.g., pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, industry sponsors), authors must:

Clearly identify the sponsor's role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and writing.

Ensure that results are reported honestly and without sponsor interference.

Appeals and Breach Handling

Breaches of this COI policy may lead to editorial sanctions or referral to the authors’ institutions. Appeals and complaints will be handled in line with SNP’s ethics and complaints procedures, based on COPE guidelines.

Corrections & Retractions

Principles

Maintain the accuracy and transparency of the scholarly record.

Correct honest errors while preventing misleading or fraudulent information from remaining in the literature.

Ensure changes are visible, clearly labeled, and linked to the original publication.

Provide authors and readers with clear procedures for reporting and correcting issues.

Types of Post-Publication Updates

A. Corrections (Errata or Corrigenda)

Corrections are published to amend honest errors that do not invalidate the work but may affect its clarity, reproducibility, or citation.

Examples:

· Author name misspelling

· Figure or table labeling errors

· Minor data or textual inaccuracies

Correction notices must include:

· A clear description of the correction

· The citation of the original article

· The corrected content (if applicable)

· Date of publication of the correction

The original article is updated and clearly marked with a link to the correction.

B. Retractions

A retraction is issued when:

There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct (e.g., data fabrication, plagiarism) or serious errors (e.g., miscalculations, experimental flaws).

The article contains unethical content (e.g., without informed consent, undeclared conflicts of interest).

The article was published as a result of systematic manipulation of the peer-review or editorial process.

Retraction notices must include:

The reason(s) for retraction

Who is retracting the article (authors, editors, or jointly)

A link to the original article

Retraction date

The original article will remain available online with a “Retracted” watermark on each page and a link to the retraction notice.

C. Expressions of Concern

When an investigation is ongoing but inconclusive, SNP may publish an Expression of Concern to alert readers to potential problems.

This may be issued when:

There are suspicions of misconduct or data issues, but an institutional investigation is pending

Editors have received conflicting evidence

Authors are unresponsive in clarifying issues

An Expression of Concern will remain linked to the article until the issue is resolved.

Article Withdrawal (Pre-Publication)

Articles may be withdrawn before formal publication if:

Authors request withdrawal before acceptance

A serious issue (e.g., plagiarism or duplicate submission) is identified during peer review

The manuscript is found to violate publishing ethics

Withdrawals will be handled discreetly and the record will indicate that the article was withdrawn with brief explanation if applicable.

Authorship Changes and Name Corrections

If an author changes their name post-publication (e.g., for gender identity, marriage, etc.), SNP will support name correction without public notice, unless otherwise requested by the author. Authorship disputes are addressed according to COPE’s authorship change flowchart.

Transparency and Record-Keeping

All corrections, retractions, or concerns are freely accessible and clearly labeled.

Post-publication updates are archived and preserved in the metadata and on the article page.

Changes do not affect the citation or DOI of the original article.