Resources

 

1. For Authors 

The following describes the general guidelines in the publication process of Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group journals.

Most particularly, Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group journals’ policies strictly adopt and continuously strive to adhere to the following standards and requirements:

COPE – Committee on Publication Ethics

ICMJE – International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

STM – International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers

WAME – World Association of Medical Editors

It should be noted that editorial policies of some particular Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group journals, may be different from one another. This section provides general information for authors who would like to contribute to English journals published by Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group. Authors are strongly encouraged to carefully check the relevant policies of their target journals.

  • To submit a manuscript, authors need to register with the journal and login to start the five-step process (i.e., start, upload submission, enter metadata, confirmation, and next steps). Authors can also track their submissions by logging in to their accounts.
  • Prior to submitting a manuscript, authors need to check the target journal’s focus and scope, policies, and author guidelines, otherwise, the manuscript may be rejected at the pre-check stage. Other reasons for submissions to be rejected at the pre-check stage include poor English, lack of innovation, inadequate citations, and a high similarity index (usually no more than 30%). Academic misconduct is never tolerated, and this can lead to authors being blacklisted from Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group.
  • There should be at least one corresponding author responsible for communicating with the journal editors throughout the entire manuscript operation process. A corresponding author is marked with an asterisk (*), and an e-mail address is provided. At the submission stage, please ensure the accuracy of the author list (including the order of authorship). Only contributors who meet the four criteria in the ICMJE definition of authorship can be listed as authors, while those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section. Changes to the authorship are subject to each journal’s authorship policy. All authors must approve the submission and the version of the submission before submission.

For the purpose of transparency, authors of research articles (only this type of article) with more than one author are required to specify the contribution of each author to the work.

  • Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group publishes its journals in an open-access model; authors retain all copyrights of their articles; and everyone has unlimited access to these publications. Currently, all works are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) by default (some journals used to publish articles under CC BY-NC 4.0). 
  • To support open-access publishing and cover publication costs, we charge authors of accepted articles an Article Processing Charge (the exact amount varies per journal). Meanwhile, Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group offers APC discounts or waivers, which are granted on a case-by-case basis. The status of APCs, whether full, discounted, or exempt, does not affect editorial decisions. 
  • Rigorous peer review helps to ensure high-quality publications. Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group adopts a double-blind peer review process and collects at least two review reports from external independent reviewers for one manuscript. Authors can recommend reviewers or provide an avoidance list. The Editor-in-Chief oversees the entire peer review process and makes the final editorial decision: acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.

Authors may appeal the rejection decision; please refer to each journal’s policies for details. Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group is determined to eliminate review manipulation.

  • Accepted articles will be sent to the production team. Authors should stay in touch and carefully proofread galleys. Then articles will be immediately published and made available online.
  • Articles published will be archived for long-term electronic preservation

Corresponding Author Responsibilities

The corresponding author must submit the manuscript and related files (e.g. supporting data files, media, etc.). From the point of submission through to publication, all communication related to that manuscript will be directed to and received from the corresponding author. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors are aware of and approve the submission of the manuscript, its content, authorship, and order of authorship. Confirmation of this action is required at the submission of all manuscripts.

 

2. For Reviewers

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group publishes high-quality articles. A strict double-blind peer review process is applied and at least two independent and valid reports from external reviewers are required for each submission in order to make a fair and scientific editorial decision. This section provides general information for scholars who would like to serve as a reviewer for journals published by Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group.

Who can become a reviewer?

Reviewers play a vital role in controlling the academic quality of journal articles. Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group takes a rigorous approach to the selection of reviewers by screening candidates from the following aspects.

  • Holding a PhD or equivalent;
  • Having relevant research experience (including a publication record) in the field of the served journal;
  • Having no conflict of interest with the authors (e.g., coming from the same affiliation as any of the authors).

How to become a reviewer?

Scholars who would like to become reviewers can send their CVs to the Editorial Office or ask for recommendations from editorial board members or a colleague who serves the journal.

Scholars cannot self-register as reviewers. The Editorial Office will register accounts for scholars meeting the above criteria. Scholars can login to the OJS system to view requested review tasks. Reviewers who complete a valid review are provided with a discounted Article Processing Charge (depending on the specific policy of each journal, please contact the Journal Office). 

Review steps

  1. Login to reviewers’ accounts and check the request. Please respond to an invitation as soon as possible, even if the decision is to decline the invitation. We encourage reviewers who decline the invitation to recommend alternative reviewers. Before accepting an invitation to review an article, reviewers should carefully read the peer review policy of the served journal, as well as its focus and scope. Reviewers are required to declare any conflict of interest at this stage. Once accepting an invitation, reviewers should complete the review by the due date (usually two weeks). If more time is needed, please inform the Editorial Office in advance. It is prohibited to share the material or information about the review with others (except editors) who are not involved in the processing of the article.
  2. View the guidelines that help reviewers evaluate the article scientifically.
  3. Download the article, and conduct reviews. There are two boxes where reviewers can enter their comments (a review report), one for authors and editors, and one for editors only. Reviewers can also upload a file (e.g., a revised version of the article). Please note that as we apply a double-blind peer review mode, both the identities of the authors and reviewers should remain anonymous to each other.
  4. Make recommendations.
  • Accept: No revision is required.
  • Minor revisions: Minor revisions are required before the submission is accepted.
  • Major Revisions: Major revisions are required and another round or more rounds of peer review will be initiated.
  • Decline: The submission is not considered for publication due to serious flaws or not contributing to the research community.
  1. Post peer review

Authors may appeal against the results of the peer review, at which time an investigation team will be formed to review the entire peer review process. Reviewers are obliged to cooperate with the investigation team.

Reviewer Guidelines

Introduction

Thank you for agreeing to serve as a reviewer for our journal. Your expertise is invaluable in maintaining the quality and integrity of our publications. The following guidelines are intended to assist you in conducting thorough, fair, and constructive reviews.

Tips: If you peer review an article for ESD you will get 10% off the article processing charge for one article you submit and have published in ESD in the next 24 months.

Review Notes

  1. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Do not discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the review process.

Do not use any information obtained through the peer review process for personal gain.

  1. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest before agreeing to review a manuscript. If you have any personal, financial, or professional connections to the authors or the content that might influence your review, please inform the editor immediately.

If you recognize the author of the manuscript and feel it may influence your review, please notify the editor.

  1. Timeliness

Please complete your review within the specified timeframe. If you anticipate any delays, contact the editor as soon as possible to discuss an extension or to decline the review.

Conducting the Review

  1. Initial Assessment

Evaluate whether the manuscript fits within the scope of the journal.

Check for any significant flaws or ethical concerns that might necessitate immediate rejection.

  1. Detailed Evaluation

Originality: Assess whether the manuscript presents new and original findings.

Relevance: Ensure the manuscript is relevant to the field and the journal’s audience.

Methodology: Evaluate the appropriateness and rigor of the research methods used.

Results: Consider whether the results are clearly presented and supported by the data.

Discussion: Check if the discussion is well-argued and places the findings in the context of existing research.

Conclusion: Ensure the conclusions are justified and supported by the data presented.

References: Verify the adequacy and accuracy of the references cited.

  1. Structure and Presentation

Assess the clarity and quality of the writing.

Check the organization of the manuscript, including the structure of the abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion sections.

Identify any significant issues with grammar, spelling, or punctuation.

Novelty may be important, but please focus more on the quality of the article.

  1. Constructive Feedback
  • It might be helpful to start your report with a brief overview/summary of the article – describe the authors’ objectives (perhaps also considering the current state of the field), what methods they used, what their main findings were, and the importance of their findings in the context of their field.
  • Briefly state your overall opinion of the article, ideally with reference to its main strength and/or limitation, before moving on to your more detailed discussion and suggestions.
  • The numbering of detailed suggestions (1, 2, 3, etc.) will aid in editor-author communication, author response to reviewers, and re-review.
  • Reviews should be understandable and well-written.
  • Review comments should be organized, and constructive, and provide clear points for the author.
  • Provide suggestions on how to address the problems identified, and if you are suggesting improvements to the article, it is a good idea to indicate which are major and which are minor suggestions.
  • Be polite and professional in your comments. Sometimes you will receive a manuscript that has clearly been written by someone whose first language is not English. In such cases, be sure to distinguish between the quality of the writing and the quality of the ideas as much as possible. Writing problems in an otherwise insightful paper can be addressed during manuscript revision.
  • When authors are asked to cite a reviewer’s research, the reviewer should clearly state the reason.

Separate confidential comments to the editor from feedback intended for the authors

For Editor Only

Submitting comments to the editor will help guide the editor in deciding on the final disposition of the paper. Comments and constructive criticism of the manuscript should be placed in “For author and editor”.

In your comments to the editor, please indicate your opinion as to whether the study makes an important contribution to the literature and is appropriate for the reader, and whether it is controversial. In addition to recommendations, we rely heavily on reviewers to point out any evidence of violations of publication or scientific ethics:

  • Have the data in this paper been published before?
  • Is there plagiarism?
  • Is there scientific fraud or failure of the authors to disclose any conflicts of interest?
  • Are there ethical violations?

For author and editor

  • Do not include general recommendations (“this paper is publishable,” “this paper is acceptable,” “this paper should not be published,” etc.) in your comments to the author. Recommendations should only appear in ”For Editor Only”.
  • Do not identify yourself or your organization in comments to authors. Do not use letterheads.
  • In your written comments to the author, please include your judgment (optional) on the following:
  • Does the title reflect the content of the paper?
  • Does the abstract accurately reflect the scope and content of the manuscript? Does it summarize the entire text?
  • Is the research question or hypothesis clearly stated in the introduction to the manuscript?
  • Is the article of the correct type?
  • Is the article concise, clear, and well-organized? Do all sections consistently reflect the main ideas? Should sections be shortened or expanded?
  • Are the data in the text and tables/figures consistent? Are charts and graphs of high quality and clearly labeled? Is the necessary information conveyed?
  • Are the findings convincing? Are the methods and statistical design valid for the question posed? Are the methods up-to-date? Are the methods clearly presented so that other researchers can repeat the work? Is the sample size adequate? Are the statistical analyses appropriate and correct?
  • Are the results clearly summarized? Are the conclusions outlined in the discussion section of the paper justified and interpreted reasonably? Are the limitations of the study noted?
  • Are the references cited relevant and up-to-date? Do they support any factual claims not covered by the data provided in the paper?

Your thorough and thoughtful review is crucial to the success of our journal. Thank you for your dedication and contributions to the scientific community.

If you have any questions or need further guidance, please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.

Peer review resources

 

3. For Editors

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group aims to provide a stable platform for scholars to share their insightful ideas and innovative research results. To achieve this, Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group works closely with the editors of each journal. Editors, including guest editors, are experts in their fields and have extensive research experience and publishing knowledge. The work of editors must be scientific, rigorous, and impartial, and strictly adhere to publication ethics. An Editor-in-Chief is the most important role for a journal. He works throughout the publishing process to ensure the high-quality publication of the journal.

Generally, the work of an editor involves two major components, namely manuscript handling and journal development.

Manuscript handling

Editors are required to disclose any conflict of interest in relation to the manuscript or the authors. In case where a conflict of interest exists, they should not participate in processing the manuscript and another editor will be reassigned. Once handling a manuscript, it is important for editors to:

  • Keep the material and information of the manuscript confidential;
  • Evaluate the manuscript fairly.
  1. Before sending a manuscript for peer review, editors should assess it from the following aspects:
  • Whether the submission fits the focus and scope of the journal;
  • Whether there is any suspected misconduct, e.g., plagiarism or duplicate publication;
  • Whether the manuscript appears to be sufficiently sound;
  • Whether the manuscript includes necessary informed consent files if necessary;
  • Whether the manuscript is written in readable English.
  1. Sending for peer review
  • Editors should fully understand the peer review policy of the served journal, and invite two independent-external qualified reviewers (see the “For Reviewers” section for reviewer qualifications). At least two valid reports should be gathered to the Editor-in-Chief for considering the final editorial decisions. 

Journal development

In addition to controlling the publication quality, editors are also responsible for promoting the development of the journal. The following ways are some examples to achieve this goal:

  • Updating the scope of the journal according to the current advances in the field;
  • Maintaining an active Editorial Board by recommending and inviting scholars to join the Editorial Board. Each research area of the journal should be represented by Editorial Board Members. In addition, the composition of the Editorial Board should take due account of geographical diversity and gender;
  • Inviting submissions from colleagues or other researchers;
  • Showcasing the journal during conferences;
  • Listing the journal information in personal profiles.
 

4. Open Access Policy

Open Access Information 

Open access (OA) refers to free and unrestricted online access to scientific and scholarly information and makes published academic research freely and permanently available online. Articles published by ESD are under an open-access license, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. The concept of open access was first defined by The Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). ESD defines open access by the following: peer-reviewed article is freely available without subscription or price barriers, article is immediately released in open access format (no embargo period), and published material can be re-used without obtaining permission as long as a correct citation to the original publication is given.
Please note that some materials such as figures, tables, or text in articles may be from other publications. In this case, you should inquire with the original copyright holder (usually the original publisher or authors), whether or not this material can be re-used.

License

ESD’s journals publish articles under the Creative Commons Attribution License and using the CC BY license, ESD believes that open access publishing fosters the exchange of research results amongst scientists from different disciplines, thus facilitating interdisciplinary research.

Advantages of Open Access

Open Access provides greater availability and visibility of academic works, which leads to more citations and greater research impact. For the researcher or author, Open Access increases the audience for a publication far beyond the audience of any non-Open Access journal. As a reader, you have barrier-free access to the literature you need for your research. Access is not constrained by subscription costs or library budgets.
Open Access journals usually provide faster publication, accepted articles are typically published online more rapidly in ESD’s journals than those of traditional, subscription-based, and printed journals.

Data Sharing Policy

Researchers are to share their data to provide other researchers the ability to expand and build upon their published claims. Authors are encouraged to share and make available any data and materials supporting the results or analyses presented in their paper. Research data can be uploaded to repositories with the access information included in the article or appended in supplementary files. Any restrictions on the availability of the published research materials or relevant information therein must be disclosed to the editors directly at the time of submission and cited in the submitted manuscript.

Data Repository Guidance

Authors are advised to deposit data in a recognized data repository where possible, or to generalist repositories if no suitable community resource is available.

We encourage researchers to consider the FAIR Data Principles when depositing data. We further advise researchers to refer to the FAIRsharing.org and re3data.org websites for the search of a suitable repository – both websites provide a list of certified data repositories.

Data Availability Statement

Authors are encouraged to provide a data availability statement (DAS), detailing where data associated with a paper can be found and how it can be accessed, including, where applicable, hyperlinks to datasets utilized or generated therein. The DAS should be included in the submitted manuscript, before the ‘References’ section (not required for review articles), clearly indicating the location and access manner of the study’s data being shared, and providing an explanation of the unavailability of the data which cannot be released.

During a peer review, the Journal’s editors may require, as a condition for publication, that the data supporting the results in the paper be peer-reviewed and archived in an appropriate public repository. In such cases, a data availability statement is required, with a list of citations for the shared data, and a link to the repository used. It is the author’s responsibility to ensure the soundness of any shared data. Any errors in the data rest solely on the provider of the shared dataset(s). Peer reviewers and editors will be rigorously examining the manuscript’s data availability statement and its compliance with the journal’s data sharing policy.

 

5. Peer Review Policy

Editorial Procedure and Peer Review

All ESD’s journals are peer-reviewed. The publication ethics and publication malpractice statement regulate ethical behavior based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)´s Best Practice Guidelines and is supplemented by the journal’s Instructions for Authors.

Initial Check

All submitted manuscripts received by the Editorial Office will be initially checked by a Managing Editor before the manuscripts are sent for peer review to decide whether they are correctly formatted/prepared, follow the ethical policies of the journal, and also fit the scope of the journal, and whether they are scientifically sound. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s ethics policy do not qualify for the standards or do not fit the scope of the journal will be rejected before peer review. Manuscripts that are inadequately prepared will be returned to the author(s) for revision and resubmission. After the initial check, the Managing Editor will send the qualified manuscripts to the journal’s Editor(s). Editor(s) will make initial decisions, and qualified manuscripts will be sent for peer review. No judgment on the significance or potential impact of the work will be made at the initial check stage. Rejection decisions at this stage will be verified by the Editor(s).

Peer Review

All manuscripts considered for publication in our journals, including invited papers, go through a stringent and thorough peer-review procedure. After an initial check, the manuscript is assigned to a handling editor, who then assigns it to reviewers and oversees the peer review. Authors may be asked to make minor or even major revisions before a handling editor decides whether to proceed with subsequent rounds of peer review. The final decision regarding acceptance is made by the journal’s Editor(s).

At least two independent experts who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff take part in the peer-review procedure. The procedure is double-anonymous(double-blind) in nature, meaning that the authors and reviewers do not know the identities of each other. This is to maximize the fairness of the review process. The comments generated during peer review remain confidential and may only be disclosed with the express agreement of the reviewer.

Editor(s) may consider assigning a manuscript to reviewers whom the authors suggest. In any case, the reviewers must have no conflicts of interest. In particular, scholars who have published joint work with any of the authors two years prior to submission of the manuscript or who are currently collaborating with any researchers at any of the authors’ institutions are not eligible to serve as reviewers.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected

  • to contribute to the orderly running and reputation of the journal and to further its quality-driven mission by evaluating manuscripts objectively and in a timely manner;
  • to maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author, to destroy the manuscript after their reviews, and not to copy it or to use or disseminate unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained therein without express permission to do so;
  • to make clear and justify the basis of their evaluations;
  • to be aware of potential conflicts of interest (i.e., financial, institutional, collaborative, or other relationships between a reviewer and an author) and to bring any such conflicts to the editor’s attention, if necessary ceasing their work on the manuscript;
  • to notify the Associate Editor and Editors-in-Chief immediately should they become aware of any scientific misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, or other unethical behavior related to the manuscript.

The Peer-Review Process

Editorial Decisions

All original articles, reviews, and other types of papers published in the journal go through the peer-review process. The decision regarding publication is based on a minimum of two reviewers’ comments and may take one of four forms. 

  • Accept 

The paper is in principle accepted based on the reviewers’ comments. The decision to publish is not based solely on the scientific validity of an article’s content but may also take into account such considerations as its extent and importance.

  • Minor Revision

The paper is to be accepted after it has undergone minor revisions specified in the reviewers’ comments. In this situation, authors have five days to complete the minor revisions along with point-by-point responses to the comments or to provide a rebuttal letter.

  • Major Revision

The paper may be accepted provided that it is thoroughly revised. In this case, as well, the authors must provide a point-by-point response or rebuttal to the comments, and the revised version is sent to the same reviewer for further comment. 

  • Reject

The editor reviews the manuscript for completeness and compliance with the journal’s guidelines. This includes checking the manuscript for formatting errors, plagiarism, and ethical violations. If the manuscript is incomplete or does not meet the guidelines, the editor may return it to the author for revision.

Articles are rejected even after revision when they are found to have serious flaws and/or to make no substantial original contribution to the scholarship. The editors are authorized to reject any manuscript if its subject is deemed inappropriate, it is of poor quality, or its results are proved to be erroneous. 

Editors themselves are prevented from serving as external reviewers of manuscripts in order to ensure that every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a well-informed and unbiased peer-review process. Thus, any manuscript must be recommended by, usually, two or more external reviewers along with the handling editor before it is accepted for publication in its final form. 

In cases where authors do not respond within the specified timeframe, we consider this a sign of author disengagement. We may temporarily decline the submission to uphold the timeliness and quality of our academic discourse. Authors are welcome to reconsider and resubmit their work; however, it will be subjected to a fresh peer-review process.

 

6. Research and Publishing Ethics

Publication Ethics

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group is dedicated to ensuring the quality of each paper that it publishes. In the interest of maintaining the highest standards in academic publishing, we insist that all authors, editors, reviewers, and editorial staff abide by the Core Practices and Guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The potential conflicts of interest for all authors must be disclosed in their papers at the time of submission. It is required that authors present their research findings accurately and discuss the significance of their work objectively.

The data and methods used in the research must be presented in sufficient detail in the paper so that other researchers could be able to replicate the work. Authors should make the raw data available in a public repository prior to the submission of their manuscripts; at the very least, the data should be accessible to the journal’s referees and editors upon request. In addition, authors are expected to take appropriate measures so that their raw data are retained in full for a reasonable period of time after publication.

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group does not consider for publication manuscripts that have been submitted to more than one journal at the same time or that do not present novel results. Thus, for example, an English translation of a paper that has already been published in another language would not be considered. Furthermore, manuscripts should not be published in Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group if major original information has already been published elsewhere. Accordingly, previously published figures or images may be included, even by the authors themselves, only after necessary permission has been obtained from the original copyright holders for publication under the CC-BY license.

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group strictly abides by the Ethical Oversight Policy of COPE. Any submission with an unethical possibility will not be pushed forward to the next stage. A rigorous editorial process ensures an objective decision. Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group also deals with ethical problems, consent for medical case reports, and research issues specific to social science disciplines followed by COPE. Submissions relating to animal research should follow international norms and academic values of its discipline, and provide the granting committee or approval identifiers, e.g., the reference numbers. If necessary, the Editorial Office will check the authenticity with the granting committee. Authors should explain the reasons if there is no information on ethics approval. If submissions involve human research, the Informed Content Statement is needed.

Should authors find errors or inaccuracies in the published versions of their papers, they must promptly make editors of the journal aware of the fact so that appropriate action can be taken to rectify the situation.

Misconduct

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group expects all authors, editors, and reviewers to be aware of the best practices in publication ethics. Any form of misconduct is strictly prohibited. Authors should avoid ghosts, guests, gifts, and other authorship issues. Authors should retain their original data and source files after submitting their articles, as the editor might request this material in the publication evaluation process, which otherwise will be suspended until any issue is resolved.

Reviewers and editors are required to treat manuscripts fairly and in confidence and to declare any competing interests. We will vigorously investigate allegations of research or publication misconduct.

Any suspicion that authors, reviewers, or editors have engaged in misconduct will result in action either before or after publication. When ethical questions are raised regarding a paper that has already been published—even years after publication—a preliminary investigation will be carried out, following COPE guidelines, in the course of which the party or parties involved will be called upon to present their case. The editor reserves the right to question a manuscript’s originality and integrity and to raise these concerns with the authors’ sponsoring institutions and other relevant bodies.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is strictly not acceptable in any submissions to Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group. Authors must not directly use words, images, or ideas, of others or other sources, without attribution. All sources must be cited at the point they are used, and reuse of wordings must be limited, be attributed to, or quoted, in the text. It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure the originality of their work. Upon submission, all manuscripts are meticulously evaluated for similarity against previously submitted and published articles. Figures and images are examined for the presence of duplicative or anomalous data. Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group uses Crossref Similarity Check (iThenticate) to check for the originality of a submission. Manuscripts that are detected to have plagiarism will be rejected (if unpublished) or retracted (if published), as appropriate. We will inform all the authors and their institutions about the case.

Submission of Duplicate and Redundant Manuscripts

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group considers for publication only original manuscripts, not published elsewhere in any form or language. It is assumed that, when a manuscript is submitted, no other manuscript that is substantially similar to it has been or will be submitted to any other journal before Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group has the opportunity to decide whether to publish it. In other words, it is considered unethical to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. If authors have specific requirements regarding the online publication date of their paper, they are encouraged to contact the relevant journal editor.

If authors use their work, which was previously published or under review, in their new manuscripts, they should cite the work appropriately. The new manuscripts should indicate the differences from the previously published work.

Any form of reuse of the author’s own words in any parts of the submitted manuscript should be appropriately attributed. Reuse of the authors’ own figures, or substantial amounts of wording, may require copyright permission from the copyright holder, which the authors are responsible for obtaining.

Extension articles from published conference proceedings must be declared and have clear citations and discussion.

Publications that are duplicative or redundant (i.e., that present, in different wording, data that have already been published by the same authors) are not accepted. A single study should not be split up into several submissions with the same/similar methods and questions, and submitted to various journals, or to one journal over time (i.e. ‘salami-slicing/publishing’).

Fabrication and Falsification

The authors of submitted manuscripts or published articles in which the results are found to have been fabricated, falsified, or subjected to image manipulation, will be sanctioned, and their published articles will be retracted immediately.

Investigations and Sanctions

Suspected breaches of the publication ethics policies, either before or after publication, as well as concerns about unethical research behavior, should be reported to Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group’s ethics group and undergo a thorough investigation. During the investigation process, the authors may be requested to provide the underlying data and images and answer all editors’ queries.

Depending on the situation, this may result in the Journal’s and/or Publisher’s implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:

  • If the manuscript is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.
  • If the article has already been published online, an erratum/correction may be published and linked with the article, or in severe cases, a retraction of the article may occur.
  • If Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group becomes aware of breaches of the publication ethics policies, the following sanctions may be applied across the journals:
  • Rejection of the manuscript and any other manuscripts submitted by the author(s).
  • Not allowing submission for 1–3 years.
  • Prohibition from acting as an editor or reviewer.

Suspected breaches of the publication ethics policies, either before or after publication, as well as concerns about unethical research behavior, should be reported to Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group’s ethics group and undergo a thorough investigation. During the investigation process, the authors may be requested to provide the underlying data and images, answer editors’ queries, and etc.

Ethics Approval

All research involving human participants, human material, or human data must be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must be approved by the ethics committee. A detailed statement, including the name of the ethics committee and the appropriate reference number, must be included in all manuscripts reporting such research. If a study is granted an exemption from ethical approval, this should also be detailed in the manuscript (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption). If a study is not approved by the ethics committee prior to the commencement of the study, the decision on whether the article can be peer-reviewed will be made by the editor and the editorial board team.

Informed Consent

For case reports that include case details, personal information, or images that may make it possible to identify specific individuals, these individuals (or parents, legal guardians, or next of kin) must consent to the publication of the material, and their consent should be declared in the manuscript. Authors should also disclose to participants in their studies any personally identifiable material that may be made available on the Internet or in print following publication. Publication without such written consent may be considered if all identifying information has been removed. Considerations of public interest may outweigh the potential harm associated with the identification of individuals in situations in which it is impossible to obtain permission and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication. The final decision regarding publication remains the prerogative of the editor.

Research Involving Human Subjects

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group adheres to the standards established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the Code of Conduct and its Best Practice Guidelines of COPE. According to these standards, research performed on humans must follow international rules set out in the Declaration of Helsinki (wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/). Thus, manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants, identifiable human data, human primary cells, or human tissue must include a statement of ethics approval and consent. In practice, approval from an ethics committee should be obtained before the research is undertaken. The statement should indicate the name of the ethics committee, the date on which it approved the study, and, where appropriate, the committee’s reference number. Any exemption from ethics approval should also be detailed in the manuscript (with, again, the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption).

When this research relies on human subjects or tissue, manuscripts must be accompanied by statements of written informed consent from all of the participants. It is also Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group’s policy that patients have a right to privacy that should not be violated irrespective of any informed consent statement; in any case, an editor may ask for written informed consent forms from participating patients who can be identified (including by the patients themselves). Further information and documentation that support this policy should be made available on request to the editors, who retain the discretion regarding whether to proceed to peer review in such cases.

Research Involving Animals

All articles published by Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group that report experiments performed using animals must be conducted in accordance with rigorous ethical standards concerning animal welfare. Thus the Materials or Methods section must identify the institutional and/or licensing ethics committee that approved the experiments and also provide a full description of the procedures and efforts to minimize the harm to animal subjects. More specifically, experiments involving animals need to be consistent with the relevant international, national, and/or institutional guidelines (e.g., local and national regulations in accordance with the U.K. Animals Act and associated guidelines, Animals Act 1986, Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures; official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc8889/hc01/0107/0107.pdf). Animal studies may also be checked for compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE).

As with manuscripts reporting studies involving humans, those reporting on animal research for which an exemption from ethics approval was granted should provide details in this regard (with, as usual, the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption and the reasons for it). The editors retain the right to reject manuscripts owing to concerns about the treatment of animal subjects.

Research Involving Cell Lines

All articles reporting on research involving cell lines that are published in Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group journals must state the origin of the lines in the Methods section. For established cell lines, the provenance should be stated and references provided either to a published paper or to a commercial source. If previously unpublished de novo cell lines were used, including any acquired from another laboratory, the authors of the article must supply details regarding the necessary approval from an institutional review board or ethics committee as well as confirmation of written informed consent in the case of human cell lines.

Research Involving Plants

Experimental research on plants (cultivated and wild), including the collection of plant materials, must be conducted in compliance with applicable institutional, national, and international guidelines. We, therefore, recommend that authors consult the Convention on Biological Diversity as well as the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

For each submitted manuscript, supporting information on the genetics and origin of the plants involved must be provided. When the research involves rare and non-model plants (other than, e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Nicotiana benthamiana, or Oryza sativa), voucher specimens must be deposited in an accessible herbarium or museum. Future investigators may review these vouchers in order to verify the identity of the material used in a study (especially in cases in which subsequent taxonomic rearrangements occur). Submissions of specimens should provide details of the populations sampled at the site of collection (including GPS coordinates), the date of collection, and an indication of the parts of the plants used in the study where appropriate. The requirement for this documentation may be waived for work involving threatened or endangered species provided that the researchers submit a cover letter with their manuscript explaining the situation. The editors reserve the right to reject any submission that does not meet these requirements.

The following are examples of ethical statements:

  • “Torenia fournieri plants were used in this study. White-flowered crown white (CrW) and violet-flowered crown violet (CrV) cultivars selected from the ‘Crown Mix’ (XXX Company, City, Country) were kindly provided by Dr. XXX (XXX Institute, City, Country).”
  • “Arabidopsis mutant lines (SALKxxxx, SAILxxxx, …) were kindly provided by Dr. XXX, institute, city, country).”

Clinical Study Reporting Guidelines

Clinical Trials Registration

For manuscripts reporting research involving clinical trials, Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group requires the registration of all clinical trials in a public trials registry at or before the time of first patient enrolment. The trial registration number and date of registration must be included as the method section. The ICMJE’s clinical trial registration policy is detailed on its website. Suitable databases include clinicaltrials.gov and those listed by the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

Randomized Controlled Trials

Reports of completed randomized controlled trials should follow CONSORT reporting standards. More information can be found on the CONSORT statement website at http://www.consort-statement.org.

Reporting guidelines in peer review

Reporting guidelines are tools for health researchers to use while writing manuscripts. They provide minimum lists of information needed to ensure a manuscript can be

  • Understood by a reader,
  • Replicated by a researcher,
  • Used by a doctor to make a clinical decision, and
  • Included in a systematic review.

Reporting guidelines are also helpful for reviewers. If the information required by a reporting guideline is not included in a manuscript, then you cannot properly judge the quality of that study.

Reporting guidelines for main study types

Randomised trials

CONSORT

Extensions

Observational studies

STROBE

Extensions

Systematic reviews

PRISMA

Extensions

Study protocols

SPIRIT

PRISMA-P

Diagnostic/prognostic studies

STARD

TRIPOD

Case reports

CARE

Extensions

Clinical practice guidelines

AGREE

RIGHT

Qualitative research

SRQR

COREQ

Animal pre-clinical studies

ARRIVE

  

Quality improvement studies

SQUIRE

Extensions

Economic evaluations

CHEERS

  

Meeting Abstracts

Meeting abstracts are not strictly peer-reviewed and are not under the regulation of the Editorial Board. Issues or concerns regarding meeting abstracts must be directed to the meeting organizers.

 

7. Editorial Policy

Our editorial team operates independently of any external influence to ensure unbiased and fair decision-making. The final decision on publication rests solely with the journal editors, based on the peer reviewers’ recommendations and the manuscript’s overall quality.

Authors who believe their manuscript was unfairly rejected may appeal the decision by providing a detailed justification to the journal editor. All appeals and complaints will be reviewed thoroughly and impartially.

 

We are committed to upholding the highest standards of academic publishing and fostering an environment of scholarly excellence.

8. Copyright and License

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group publishes all articles under an open-access license, which means that the articles remain accessible to all without charge and without technical or legal barriers and that they can be reused with proper acknowledgment and citation. Financial support for the open-access publication is provided by the authors’ institutions or by research funding agencies in the way of article processing charges (APCs) once manuscripts have been accepted. More specifically, Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group publishes articles under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License. Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group is committed to open-access publishing as a means to foster the exchange of research among scientists, especially across disciplines. 

The copyright and other proprietary rights related to papers published by Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group are retained by the authors. If the authors reproduce any text, figures, tables, or illustrations from the papers published by Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group in their own future research, they must cite the originally published version. They are further asked to inform the editorial office of any exceptional circumstances in this regard at the time of submission, for which exceptions may be granted at the discretion of the publisher.

Articles published in Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group are likely to contain material republished with permission under a more restrictive license. When this situation arises, it should be indicated; it is the responsibility of the authors to seek permission for reuse from the copyright holder.

 

9. Conflict of Interest 

Conflicts of interest (COIs, also referred to as “competing interests”) may indicate the potential to influence the validity or objectivity of research. Editors, authors, and reviewers may be involved in COIs, and it is essential to identify and seek to mitigate them so as to ensure the integrity of their role in the dissemination and preservation of knowledge. Failure to declare conflicts of interest may result in a decline of a manuscript.

Authors must declare all potential conflicts of interest; if they have none to declare, they should state plainly, “The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report regarding the present study”.

In order to limit COIs, all roles involved in the peer-review process must identify and declare any personal circumstances or associations that may be perceived as having such influence and acknowledge all funding sources for the work. However, COI statements relating to public funding sources, such as government agencies and charitable or academic institutions, need not be supplied.

To be specific, we define a COI as any relationship that may have an impact on the authors, reviewers, or editors of a manuscript during the peer-review process, on the making of editorial decisions, or generally on any stage in the path toward publication.

Thus, COIs may include (but not limited to): 

Financial COIs

  • Stock or share ownership
  • Patent applications
  • Research grants
  • Consultancies
  • Royalties

Non-financial COIs

  • Affiliation with the same institution;
  • Personal relationships, e.g., between thesis advisers and their students, friends, family members, etc.;
  • Academic relationships, e.g., among co-authors, collaborators, or competitors;
  • Government employees;
  • Members of the editorial board of Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group‘s journal.

COIs are not considered permanent; such relationships that have ended more than two years prior to the submission of a manuscript need not be identified as sources of potential conflict.

According to COPE’s guidelines on Conflict of Interest, here are some definitions of the processes for handling conflicts of interest of authors, reviewers, and editors.

For authors: authors should declare potential conflicts of interest in related to the work during the submission stage, such as the list of academic competition or financial benefits, and an avoidable list of reviewers or editors. The declared conflict of interest will be kept confidential during the review process but will be shown in the Conflict of Interest section of the final PDF file.

For reviewers: reviewers should avoid the peer review process if there is any relationship with any author, such as being friends, competitors, and co-authors, or coming from the same institute. If reviewers feel it is impossible to make objective comments, they should reject the peer-review invitation. Reviewers are encouraged to recommend other experts as reviewers, and the journal office reserves the right to adopt it.

For editors: if editors are one of the co-authors or come from the same institute as one of the authors, or there are potential conflicts, they should avoid participating in the peer review process. The editor who processes the article must not interfere with reviewers making decisions.

Failure to declare COIs may raise an ethical appeal, which affects academic judgment and the objectivity and impartiality of scientific research. Any complaints or appeals against the peer review process and results will raise a new process investigation. Once editors, reviewers, or staff are implicated in a review issue, it will be dealt with according to the COPE flowchart, and a process participation ban will be placed on them.

 

10. Authorships

Authorship

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group strictly abides by the guidelines of Authorship and Contributorship of COPE, and the Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors of ICMJE. Authorships mean that authors have the responsibility and accountability for the published work. All authors need to give the approval of the sequence of authors before publishing. Authors should read and understand the APCs policy and other policies (especially the peer review process) before submitting a manuscript. Authors hold the copyright of their work under the open access policy and CC BY 4.0 License. Authors have the right to recommend an avoidable list of reviewers provided they do not have any conflict of interest in this endeavor.

 Authorship should be based on the following 4 criteria:

  • 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
  • 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.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged in the acknowledgment section.

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer-review, and publication process. The corresponding author typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and disclosures of relationships and activities are properly completed and reported, although these duties may be delegated to one or more co-authors. The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission and peer-review process to respond to editorial queries in a timely way and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication.

When the work has to be conducted by a large multi-author group, it is advised that the list of authors be decided before the work starts and confirmed before the manuscript submission. All members of that group listed as authors should have met all the above four criteria for authorship with final approval of the manuscript and should be able to take public responsibility for the work with full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the work of all group authors. As such, they will be required as individuals to complete conflict-of-interest disclosure forms.

Submissions by any individual other than one of the listed authors will strictly not be considered. All authors will take responsibility for the content of the manuscript they submitted, and ensure they are familiar with the other authors’ individual contributions. 

Non-author Contributor

Contributors who meet fewer than all 4 of the above criteria for authorship should not be listed as authors, but they should be acknowledged. Examples of activities that alone (without other contributions) do not qualify a contributor for authorship are acquisition of funding; general supervision of a research group or general administrative support; and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading. Those whose contributions do not justify authorship may be acknowledged individually or together as a group under a single heading (e.g. “Clinical Investigators” or “Participating Investigators”), and their contributions should be specified (e.g., “served as scientific advisors,” “critically reviewed the study proposal,” “collected data,” “provided and cared for study patients,” “participated in writing or technical editing of the manuscript”).

Alteration to Authorship

Requests made for an authorship change after submission must be made to the editorial office with an explanation for the change, including the signature of all authors, and be submitted by the corresponding author.

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group places significant importance on maintaining the integrity and transparency of authorship contributions, and Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group journals do not accept any requests to change the first author or corresponding author during any stage of manuscript processing. Any insistence on altering the first author or corresponding author will result in the rejection of the manuscript without further review or consideration.

Please note that if you have changed affiliation during the course of the research, your new affiliation could be acknowledged in a note. Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group does not normally take requests for changes to affiliations after the acceptance of manuscripts.

Authorship issues found after publication may result in a correction. If and when the authors are unable to resolve among themselves an authorship-related dispute, Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group may raise the issue with the authors’ institution(s) and abide by its/their guidelines. 

Authorship Contribution Statement

All listed authors should have substantially contributed to the manuscript and have approved the final submitted version, which should include a description of each author’s specific work and contributorship.

We suggest the following format for the contribution statement:

The authors confirm their contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design: X. Author, Y. Author; data collection: Y. Author; analysis and interpretation of results: X. Author, Y. Author. Z. Author; draft manuscript preparation: Y. Author. Z. Author. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Authorship and the Use of AI or AI-Assisted Technologies 

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position statement when it comes to the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technology in manuscript preparation. Tools such as ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) do not meet authorship criteria and thus cannot be listed as authors on manuscripts.

In situations where AI or AI-assisted tools have been used in the preparation of a manuscript, this must be appropriately declared with sufficient details at submission via the cover letter. Furthermore, authors are required to be transparent about the use of these tools and disclose details of how the AI tool was used within the “Materials and Methods” section, in addition to providing the AI tool’s product details within the “Acknowledgments” section.

Authors are fully responsible for the originality, validity, and integrity of the content of their manuscript and must ensure that this content complies with all of Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group’s Publication Ethics Policies. 

Editors and Journal Staff as Authors

 

In the circumstances where Editors or editorial staff of the journal submit their own studies to the journal, they shall not be involved in the reviewing process, and the review process must be made transparently and rigorously. Submissions authored by editors or editorial staff of the journal will be handled by another editor who has the least COIs(Conflict of interest) with the authors to minimize the bias.

 

11. Errata, Corrections, Retraction & Withdrawal Policy

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group journals will issue corrections, and/or retraction statements when deemed proper.

Errata & Corrections 

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group aims to publish every article online in its final form. Upon receiving the proofs of their accepted manuscripts, authors will have an opportunity to check for errors and oversights. Occasionally, a mistake is pointed out in a published article, necessitating the issuance of a correction statement. A correction is a statement rectifying an error or an omission, Authors or readers may submit such a statement either through the journal’s online manuscript submission system or by sending an email, along with the submission ID, to the editorial office (office@esdpub.com). A correction notice, published and linked to the corresponding article, is freely accessible to all readers.

When making corrections to the original articles, the original article both in PDF and XML versions is corrected and bi-directionally linked to and from the published amendment notice that details the original error. Any changes made to the original articles affect data in figures, tables, or text, the amendment notice will reproduce the original data. If it is not possible to correct the original article in both PDF and XML versions, the article will remain unchanged but will contain links that direct to and from the published correction notice.

  • Author’s Correction: An Author’s Correction may be published to correct an important error(s) made by the author that affects the scientific integrity of the published article, the publication record, or the reputation of the authors or the journal. The Managing Editor of that manuscript will be responsible for handling the correction process.
  • Publisher’s Correction(Errata): A Publisher’s Correction may be published to correct an important error(s) made by the journal that affects the scientific integrity of the published article, the publication record, or the reputation of the authors or of the journal.

Retractions 

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group follows the retraction guidelines of COPE. Once a retraction is initiated, a retraction notice will be posted, which will include the initial party, the reason, and the retracted article information. Most importantly, a bi-link between the retracted article and the retraction notice must be associated to minimize harmful effects. If there are major issues, both the author and their institutes will be informed.

Editors of the journal office will post Editor’s Note to express concerns with published materials.

A retraction is a notice that a previously published paper should no longer be regarded as part of the published literature. The primary purpose of a retraction is to ensure the integrity and completeness of scholarly records by withdrawing any manuscript that is found to contain infringements of professional ethical codes, major errors, or where its main conclusion is seriously undermined as a result of new evidence coming to light.
Violations of professional ethical codes include multiple submissions without proper citations or permission, redundant publications, fake claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, etc. Major errors cover any or all miscalculations or experimental errors, intentionally or due to honest mistakes.

The retraction will be referred to the Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors, and the Managing Editor who has handled the paper. Retracted articles will not be removed from the printed copies of the journal (e.g., from libraries) nor from the electronic archives. Their retracted status will be indicated as clearly as possible. Bibliographic information about the article will be retained to ensure the permanence and integrity of the published scientific record. When an article is retracted, in most cases, the original manuscript is corrected and is bi-directionally linked (to and from) the published retraction notice which details the original error. For the purpose of transparency, when corrections made to the original article affect any data, figures, tables, or texts, the retraction notice will display the original data alongside the corrected version. When a correction is not possible, all existing versions of the article will remain unchanged but will contain the bi-directional links, to and from, the published retraction notice.
The notice of retraction is permanently linked to its corresponding retracted article and is freely available and accessible to all readers.
Articles may be retracted by their Author(s), by the Journal Editors, or by the Publisher, i.e., Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group. In all instances, the retraction should indicate the reason for the action as well as the entity behind the decision. A retraction made without the unanimous agreement of the authors is feasible and indicated as such.

Article Withdrawal

Article Withdrawal is only used for articles in press, which represent early versions of articles and sometimes contain errors, or may have been accidentally submitted twice. Occasionally, an article may contain infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, and fraudulent use of data or the like. Articles that include errors or are discovered to be accidental duplicates of other published article(s), or are determined to violate our publishing ethics guidelines in the view of the editors (such as multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like), maybe “Withdrawn” by the article author or the journal editor.

Removal of Published Content

Under special circumstances, Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group reserves the right to remove an article, book, or other content from Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group’s website and submission system. Such action may be taken when:

  • There is evidence indicating that the published content is defamatory, infringes on intellectual property rights, privacy rights, or other legal rights, or is plainly unlawful;
  • A court or government order requires the removal of such content;
  • The content, if acted upon, would pose an immediate and serious risk to health. Removal may be temporary or permanent. A statement will be published explaining the decision behind the removal.

Addressing Post-publication Issues

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group is fully committed to maintaining the integrity and completeness of the scientific record and recognizes its importance to researchers and the academic community at large. As such, Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group will thoroughly investigate concerns that are directly raised with us by authors and/or readers. Authors are strongly encouraged to address any raised issues. In the course of our investigation, we may request original raw data, and consult with experts and other scholars in the field. Depending on the seriousness of the issues, the following outcomes may ensue:

  • A manuscript still under consideration may be rejected and returned to the author.
  • A published online article, depending on the nature and severity of the issues, may result in a correction notice or a retraction notice.
  • Issues deemed to be serious may prompt Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group to inform the authors’ institution and related affiliations.

Our actions are driven by our dedicated aim for transparent notification to our readers and unabated commitment to the integrity of the published record, and not by any motivation to sanction individuals or attribute responsibility to specific named individuals. We may refer readers to the institutional investigations’ reports if they are publicly available. While we are committed to addressing post-publications issues and correcting the record swiftly, investigations typically take some time to reach resolutions given the complexity of the discussions, the diligence in our process, and the need to obtain original data and consult with experts. We will issue and regularly update relevant Editor’s Notes and/or Editor’s Expression of Concern as interim notifications to alert our readers of any of concerns with published material.

 

12. Preprint Policy

Author’s publication of unreferenced manuscripts on a community preprint server will be considered pre-published, provided the following conditions are met:

1) Upon submission, the author must acknowledge receipt obtain a pre-deposited preprint from the server, and provide any associated access numbers or DOIs;

2) Unable to deposit versions of a revised manuscript due to the peer review process;

3) After publication, the authors are responsible for updating the pre-print stored with the DOI and a link to the published version of the paper.

Formal citation of preprints in the reference list is encouraged, if appropriate.

 

13. Advertising Policy   

Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group includes commercial advertising in its website, printed materials, and other forms of communication.
Online advertising: Any use of Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group trademarks or copyrighted material for links to and from the Publisher’s website must be approved in advance by the Publisher. Unauthorized linking is prohibited.

1. All advertisement(s) are accepted and published by the Publisher independently of editorial decisions. Thus, the editorial content of Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group journals is not compromised by commercial or financial interests or any specific arrangements with advertising clients or sponsors. Put another way, editorial decisions are not influenced by current or potential sponsors or advertisers or by marketing decisions.
2. Advertisements and editorial content must be clearly distinguishable. All published content, including advertisements and sponsored supplementary materials, undergoes the same peer review as the journal’s editorial content.
3. Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group does not endorse any product or service marked as an advertisement or promoted by a sponsor in its publications.
4. Advertisements should clearly identify the Advertiser and the product or service being offered. Advertisements may not be deceptive or misleading and must be verifiable. Advertisements should clearly identify the Advertiser and the product or service being offered. Exaggerated or extravagantly worded copies will not be allowed.
5. The Advertiser will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group regarding all expenses arising from any claims, losses, or damages associated with the advertisement, including but not limited to violations of privacy, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
6. The Advertisers or their agents will be responsible for the advertising material and warrant that they have the right to use any trademarks, service marks, or trade names depicted in the advertisement.
7. Advertisements will not be accepted that include indecent or offensive material in the form of either text or artwork or content that is disparaging toward any persons as a group or individually regarding race or ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.
8. All advertisements and pharmaceutical products should comply with the applicable laws, rules, and regulations in the country or countries where the advertisements will be seen.
9. No treatment-specific or drug-specific campaign connected to a specific article or article or to any page on which the content relates to the product or products being advertised is permitted.
10. No advertisements for products or services known to be harmful to health will be accepted.
11. Any proprietary names of pharmaceutical products must be accompanied by the corresponding chemical, generic, or official names, and the quantity of all active substances must be stated along with the recommended dosage.
12. The Advertiser assumes responsibility for the registration and protection of any copyright relating to the advertisement and also licenses to Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group the right to copy from the advertisement.
13. Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group retains all rights and the title to any materials that it prepares for Advertisers.
14. Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group will not be held liable for any failure to publish an advertisement that it has accepted but will make reasonable efforts to publish it in available space subsequently.
15. Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group reserves the right to reject any type of advertisement at any time. Thus, all advertisements are subject to Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group’s approval.
16. An advertisement may be withdrawn at any time from the journal’s website should the Editor(s)-in-Chief, Publisher, or the collaborative societies request its removal.

Digital Cancellation Policies

On written notice to the publisher, the Advertiser may cancel all or a portion of the campaign without penalty up to 30 days before the start date. For cancellations made within 21 days of the start date, the advertiser will be responsible for 50% of the amount agreed upon for delivery of the campaign.

 

14. Disclaimer

The author(s) of each article published in this journal assumes full responsibility for its content. Publication of an article does not represent any statement or opinion of the editor or Enlight Science Digital Publishing Group.

Any editors, reviewers, authors, etc. who are involved in the process of each manuscript from submission to online publication, are aware of their responsibilities, have a detailed understanding of the publisher’s journal policies, and ensure that they will not have any violations.

 

15. Appeal and Complaint

Clear publishing ethics will lead to a better science community. All the persons related to the publishing process are responsible for the work. Editors will take any possible misconduct seriously. Anyone, such as authors, editors, readers, and reviewers, could complain about any misconduct to the Editorial Office, including academic fraud, research misconduct, or publication malpractice.

If authors appeal against rejection, another independent report will be collected from the handing editor to the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief will consider all the comments and complaints to make a final decision with appropriate explanations. The decision is final, and more complaints will not be accepted.

If authors complain about the time taken in the editorial process, the handling editor will investigate the matter, and coordinate with relevant parties to deal with the obstacles and carefully control the processing time. The complainant will be given appropriate feedback.

If the allegation is about publishing ethics, involving behaviors of reviewers, editors, and editorial staff, the Editor-in-Chief will organize a panel to investigate this allegation. If necessary cooperation is required for this investigation, e.g., ethical approval, and data reliability, in such cases, the Editorial Office will contact the authors’ institutes or other journals from which the author(s) cited the relevant data for requesting assistance, as appropriate. Any possible complaints will be dealt with according to the guidance on complaints and appeals of COPE.

Investigations and sanctions

All suspected allegations of misconduct before or after publication will be investigated by the Editorial Office, and authors are expected to answer truthfully. Depending on the circumstances, sanctions for misconduct include, but are not limited to the following forms:

  • If the work is under consideration, the manuscript may be rejected.
  • If the work has been published, an erratum or correction will be posted with a link to the article or even a retraction will be initiated.
  • Authors are banned from submitting manuscripts to the publisher for 3 years.
  • Reviewers are no longer engaged in reviewing manuscripts for all journals from this publisher.
  • Authors have the right to appeal to the Editorial Office within 30 days of receiving an editorial decision.