Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Betasciencepress Publishing endorses the Code of Conduct for Editors of Biomedical Journals, produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics (publicationethics.org). The full text of the Code of Conduct (Publication ethics) we fully endorse can be downloaded here Code_of_Conduct.pdf
We publish two general articles types based on solicited and unsolicited manuscripts. Receipt of all manuscripts is prompt by the manuscript submission and review platform the journal uses Scholastica platform). The corresponding author will be notified automatically by the platform as to whether the submitted manuscript is considered to progress to external review by a minimum of 2-3 external experts. Prior to the peer-review process the submitted manuscript will undergo an initial screening by one editorial staff member. The editorial staff member will assess the general quality of the manuscript based on topicality, clarity, importance and relevancy to the journal’s audience.
Through the peer review- process, the journal ensures that manuscripts submitted are scientifically accurate. We endorse the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers from the Committee on Publication Ethics. Full text of these guidelines are available at http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines. All manuscripts are submitted to a peer-review process by a minimum of 2-3 external experts selected on their experience and expertise. The peer-review will be performed on a double-blind basis – where the identities of peer-reviewers as well authors are kept confidential. Peer reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interests that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased peer-review of the manuscript. The peer-review process includes a referee report document, used by the peer-reviewers to provide the editorial office with general comments to the editor and specific comments about the peer-reviewed manuscript to the corresponding author.
Author appeals to Editors decisions
In the case an author believes that an editor has made an error in declining a manuscript, corresponding author (on behave of all authors) have the possibility to submit an appeal to the editor. The appeal should include a letter that clearly states the reason(s) why the author(s) consider(s) the editors decision to be incorrect. The letter should provide detailed, specific responses to any comments relating to the rejection of the submitted manuscript.
Revision of manuscripts
In general manuscripts require some degree of revision prior to full acceptance. The corresponding author of the manuscript should provide a clearly marked revised manuscript – in which the changes made should be highlighted. Detailed responses to reviewers’ comments, in the to the corresponding author send document with the comments of the reviewers are also required. A second evaluation of the manuscript (revised manuscript) will be done and at this point the peer-reviewers may decide to accept the revision of subject the revised manuscript to further peer-review. The final decision on acceptability for publication of the revised manuscript lies with the journal editor.
Corresponding author will receive a proof of the article for approval and final sign-off of the editorial process.
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of a correction statement or erratum or, in the most severe cases, the retraction of the affected work. The journal will follow the advisory guidelines on scientific misduct from COPE and will act accordingly these guidelines.
Digital Archiving Policy
Betasciencepress Publishing has recently started its collaboration with the Dutch National Library in the Hague (Koninklijke Bibliotheek; http://www.kb.nl) for contributing to their digital archiving repository service of issues published online.