Research and Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics Statement

The establishment of publication ethics standards aims to ensure the quality and integrity of scholarly publications, maintain public trust in scientific research, and ensure that individuals receive appropriate credit for their intellectual contributions. BIG.D fully adheres to the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Research Ethics and Consent

Research Involving Human Participants

All research involving human participants must be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and must receive approval from an appropriate independent ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB) at the local, regional, or national level prior to commencement. Details of ethical approval, including the name of the approving body, must be stated in the manuscript under Ethical Statement. If ethical approval was waived, authors must clearly state the name of the ethics committee granting the waiver and the reasons for exemption. Authors should be prepared to provide additional documentation upon request. Manuscripts raising potential ethical concerns will be investigated in accordance with COPE Guidelines.

Consent to Participate

For all studies involving human participants, written informed consent must be obtained from participants, or from parents/legal guardians for participants under the age of 16. A statement regarding informed consent must be included in the Ethical Statement section. If informed consent was waived, authors must provide the name of the ethics committee granting the waiver and the justification. Any ethical breaches identified at any stage of publication will be investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Consent for Publication

All articles published in BIG.D are openly accessible online. Manuscripts containing identifiable individual data (including personal details, images, or videos) will not be published without explicit written consent for publication from the individual concerned, or from a parent/legal guardian in the case of minors.
If the individual is deceased, consent must be obtained from the next of kin. Authors must include a “Consent for Publication” statement confirming that written informed consent has been obtained.

Research Involving Animals

Experimental studies involving animals must obtain approval from an appropriate ethics committee and must be conducted in compliance with institutional, national, or international guidelines. BIG.D encourages authors to follow the guidelines of AALAS, ARRIVE, and/or ICLAS, and to obtain ethical approval in advance.
Manuscripts must include a statement confirming that ethical approval was obtained and that the study complied with relevant guidelines throughout the research process. If ethical approval was waived, authors must provide the name of the committee granting the exemption and the justification. Editors will consider animal welfare issues and reserve the right to reject manuscripts, particularly where research protocols deviate from generally accepted standards of animal research.

Research Involving Plants

Experimental studies involving plants, whether cultivated or wild, including the collection of plant material, must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines. Field studies must be conducted in accordance with local laws and regulations. Manuscripts must include a statement confirming that appropriate permits and/or licenses were obtained. BIG.D recommends compliance with the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Endangered Species and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

For each submitted manuscript, authors must provide supporting genetic information and source details for the plant material used. For studies involving rare or non-model plants (excluding typical model species such as Arabidopsis thaliana, Nicotiana benthamiana, and rice), voucher specimens must be deposited in a public herbarium or other publicly accessible collection.

Suspected Research Practices and Misconduct

BIG.D makes every reasonable effort to investigate publication misconduct, including but not limited to:

• Data fabrication and falsification: Fabrication refers to making up data without conducting research; falsification refers to conducting research but subsequently altering data.
• Inappropriate image manipulation, including introducing, enhancing, moving, or removing features from original images; combining images that should be presented separately; or adjusting contrast, brightness, or color balance to obscure, eliminate, or exaggerate information.
• Plagiarism, including presenting others’ work, results, ideas, or text as one’s own, as well as self-plagiarism involving substantial reuse of previously published content.
• Inappropriate citation practices, including failure to provide appropriate cross-referencing of closely related work; failure to properly acknowledge prior research; or deliberate omission of relevant citations (including one’s own work) to increase apparent novelty.
• Promotion and citation manipulation, including public promotion of manuscripts under review and excessive or inappropriate self-citation intended to influence citation metrics.
• Simultaneous submission, which is considered unethical and wastes editorial and reviewer resources.
• Improper authorship or attribution, including listing individuals who did not make substantial scientific contributions or omitting those who did.

BIG.D reserves the right to contact authors’ institutions to investigate suspected misconduct before or after publication. If substantial plagiarism is identified after publication, the journal will retract the article or require corrections, depending on the severity, context, and impact on the integrity of the work, in accordance with COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Author Ethical Guidelines

Responsibility and Cooperation

Authors are responsible for the accuracy and reliability of their manuscripts and must provide original images, data, and other supporting materials upon request by the editorial office.

Authorship Criteria

To qualify for authorship, an individual must meet all four of the following criteria:

• Made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the research, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
• Drafted the work or critically revised it for important intellectual content;
• Approved the final version to be published;
• Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Individuals who do not meet all four criteria (e.g., those providing only technical assistance, financial support, or materials) should not be listed as authors but may be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section.

Corresponding Author

The corresponding author is the primary individual responsible for communication with the journal editors throughout the manuscript handling process, both before and after publication, and is typically responsible for ensuring that all journal requirements are fulfilled. These responsibilities include confirming that all listed authors agree to be included as authors and approve submission of the manuscript to the journal; providing complete author information; supplying ethical approval and/or informed consent documentation where applicable; and collecting conflict-of-interest disclosure forms. In general, only one corresponding author is permitted. For multi-institutional or interdisciplinary research, more than one corresponding author may be designated where justified, provided that each corresponding author’s academic responsibilities are clearly defined.

Author Order

The order of authorship should be jointly determined by the co-authors based on their relative contributions and must be approved by all authors. Any changes to the list of authors and/or institutional affiliations must be formally requested by the responsible author(s) (the first author and/or corresponding author), accompanied by a justified explanation and written approval from all authors, and submitted to the editorial office for consideration.

Co–First Authors

Authors who contributed equally to the work should be clearly identified at the time of submission.
The number of co–first authors is generally limited to no more than two. In the case of multi-center trials or multidisciplinary research, more than two co–first authors may be permitted where justified. Any additional co–first authors beyond two must be from different institutions or research groups.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose any actual or potential financial and/or non-financial conflicts of interest on the title page, in the end-of-manuscript statements, and in the cover letter, and must confirm these disclosures in the submission system. If no conflicts of interest exist, authors must state: The authors declare no conflict of interest. If conflicts of interest do exist, all relevant financial interests that could be perceived to influence the research outcomes must be fully disclosed.

Funding Statement

Authors must identify all organizations, institutions, or individuals that provided financial support for the conduct of the research and/or the preparation of the manuscript at the time of submission.

Appeals

If authors disagree with the outcomes of peer review or the editorial decision, they may submit a written appeal to the editorial office, clearly explaining the reasons for their disagreement. The editor will review the appeal and determine whether an error in judgment was made by the reviewers or whether additional peer review is warranted. The editor’s decision at this stage is final.

Changes to Authorship

Changes to authorship are not permitted after a manuscript has been formally accepted following peer review.

Proofreading

During the proofreading stage, authors are not permitted to make changes to data, figures, or key results.

Corrections

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they are obligated to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and to cooperate with the editorial process to retract or correct the article through the publication of a correction notice.

Reviewer Ethical Guidelines

Reviewers are independent experts who assist in evaluating whether a manuscript is suitable for publication by the publisher. They are not employees of the publisher. Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following responsibilities:

Confidentiality

• Reviewers must consult the editor before involving any third party in the review of a manuscript.
• The identity of reviewers and any other details of the peer review process must not be disclosed to third parties.
• Reviewers must not share any part of an unpublished submitted manuscript (including data, information, interpretations, or discussions) with others.
• After completing the review, reviewers must not retain copies of the submitted manuscript in any form and must comply with applicable data protection regulations.

No Misuse of Information

Confidential information or ideas obtained through the peer review of unpublished manuscripts must not be used for reviewers’ own research or personal advantage.

Qualifications and Competence

If reviewers believe they are not sufficiently qualified to assess a manuscript, or are otherwise unable to complete the review, they must promptly notify the editor.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must inform the editor of any conflict of interest arising at any stage of the review process. Potential conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to:

• Close personal or professional relationships with any of the authors;
• Direct competitive relationships between the reported work and projects in which the reviewer is currently involved.

Timeliness

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts in a timely manner. If a reviewer is unable to continue the review or requires additional time, the editor must be informed immediately.

Objectivity

Reviewers should conduct careful and objective assessments of the manuscript, including any supporting information. Reviewers should explain and substantiate their evaluations and, where appropriate, refer to relevant published work. Suggested references should be based solely on their relevance to the work under review.

Professional Conduct

Comments to authors must be polite, respectful, and professional, focusing on the content of the manuscript and avoiding personal criticism.

Notification of Similarity

Reviewers should inform the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the submitted manuscript and other published or concurrently submitted works of which they are aware.

Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should alert the editor to any indications of potential ethical issues, including but not limited to:

• Any form of scientific misconduct, such as plagiarism or data manipulation;
• Ethical concerns related to research involving human participants or animals;
• Insufficient consideration of hazards or dual-use concerns, where the reported work could be misused to pose a threat to public health or safety.

Editor Ethical Guidelines

Editors may be professional in-house editors or active researchers serving in an editorial capacity on behalf of the publisher. They are responsible for making the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. The following responsibilities also apply to members of the Editorial Board.

Basis for Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions must be based solely on the scientific merit of the work, without regard to authors’ institutional affiliations, nationality, race, gender, age, or other personal characteristics.

Fairness and Timeliness

Editors should make every reasonable effort to ensure that the peer review process is fair and conducted in a timely manner.

Confidentiality

Editors must ensure that submitted manuscripts are handled confidentially. Except as required as part of a formal investigation into alleged misconduct, no details of a manuscript may be disclosed to anyone other than the reviewers without the authors’ permission.

Conflicts of Interest

• Editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. This is particularly important when editors are active researchers.
• If an editor is an author of a submitted manuscript, the manuscript must be handled by another editor through an independent review process.
• If authors are current or former colleagues and/or frequent collaborators of the editor, the manuscript must be assigned to a different editor.
• Editors must not use unpublished information from submitted manuscripts in their own work. If the manuscript topic is closely related to the editor’s own research, it must be assigned to another editor.

Selection of Reviewers

• Editors should select reviewers carefully to ensure a fair and unbiased peer review process.
• Author-recommended reviewers should be used with caution to avoid positive bias.
• Editors must independently verify the contact information of author-recommended reviewers to safeguard the integrity of the peer review process.
• Editors reserve the right to appoint reviewers of their own choosing.
• Unless there are compelling and overriding reasons, editors should not use specific reviewers explicitly opposed by the authors.

Confidentiality of Reviewer Information

Editors must ensure that reviewers’ names and identifying details remain confidential. In exceptional circumstances (e.g., suspected ethical misconduct), the identity of previous reviewers may be disclosed to adjudicating reviewers.

Handling of Appeals

Editors should give fair and careful consideration to appeals against editorial decisions.

Data Protection

Editors must comply with applicable data protection regulations.

Handling of Concerns

Editors should follow up on any indications or allegations of suspected unethical research practices (see  Section “Suspected Research Practices and Misconduct” ahead).

Appeals and Complaints

Appeals Against Rejection

If authors wish to request reconsideration of a rejection decision, they should first contact the editor in accordance with the instructions provided on the journal website. Such requests are treated as formal appeals. In accordance with journal policy, appeals must take lower priority than routine editorial work. In practice, this means that decisions on appeals may take several weeks. Only one appeal is permitted per manuscript. The final decision on an appeal will be made by the handling editor or an appropriate member of the Editorial Board. Appeals against rejection decisions will normally be considered only under the following circumstances:

• The authors can demonstrate that the reviewers or editor made a factual or interpretative error that materially affected the final decision;
• The authors can provide substantial new data;
• The authors can demonstrate clear evidence of bias during the review process.

Authors wishing to appeal an editorial decision must submit a formal written appeal to the journal editorial office. If an appeal is successful, authors will receive instructions on how to proceed. If an appeal warrants further consideration, the editor may send the authors’ response and revised manuscript for additional peer review.

Complaints

Complaints regarding editorial procedures or publication ethics will initially be handled by the editor responsible for the journal. If the complaint concerns an editor, authors should contact the editor and the publishing management team by email.

• For procedural complaints (e.g., review timelines), the editor will review and respond to the concerns. Feedback will be shared with relevant parties to inform improvements to processes and procedures.
• For complaints relating to publication ethics or scientific content, the editor will follow the guidelines issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
• For complex or difficult cases, the editor may seek advice from the BIG.D Research Integrity Group before determining an appropriate course of action and providing feedback to the complainant.

If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of the complaint, the matter will be escalated to the journal’s editorial and publishing management team for further investigation.