Ethical Guidelines for Future Prospects for Medical, Pharmaceutical, and Environmental Biotechnology

Future Perspectives of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Environmental Biotechnology is dedicated to promoting ethical research and publication practices and adheres to a set of principles that safeguard the integrity of scientific knowledge. Our commitment to ethical publishing is grounded in the highest standards and values of academia. We expect all individuals involved in the publication process to uphold these ethical principles:

For Authors:                                                           

• Originality and Avoidance of Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their submitted work is entirely original and has not been published elsewhere. They should provide proper citations and references when referring to prior work. Any form of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is unacceptable.
• Authorship Criteria: Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the research and the manuscript's preparation. All authors should be listed and should have consented to the final version of the manuscript. Any changes to authorship should be collectively agreed upon.
• Data Transparency and Reproducibility: Authors are responsible for providing accurate and complete data associated with their research. Data should be made openly available, and authors should be ready to grant access to raw data upon request.
• Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Authors must disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that could potentially affect the research or its interpretation. These disclosures should be clearly stated in the manuscript.
• Ethical Approvals: Research involving human subjects or animals should have obtained the requisite ethical approvals. Authors should furnish details of these approvals in the manuscript.
• Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) tools, such as ChatGPT and others utilizing extensive language models (LLMs), cannot independently initiate original research without human author guidance. They also cannot assume responsibility for a published work or research design, a fundamental requirement typically associated with authorship (as discussed in the preceding section). Additionally, AIGC tools lack legal standing and the capability to assert or transfer copyright ownership. Consequently, in alignment with the position statement on AI tools by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), these tools cannot fulfill the role of an author of an article and should not be credited as such. In cases where an author has utilized such tools in the development of any portion of a manuscript, it is imperative to describe their use transparently and comprehensively in either the Methods or Acknowledgements section. The author bears full responsibility for the accuracy of any information generated by the tool and must properly reference any underlying work upon which that information relies. It is important to note that tools employed for enhancing spelling, grammar, and general editing are not encompassed by these guidelines. The ultimate determination of whether the use of an AIGC tool is suitable or permissible in the context of a submitted manuscript or a published article rests with the journal's editor or the relevant party overseeing the publication's editorial policies.

For Reviewers:

• Confidentiality: Reviewers are expected to treat all submitted manuscripts with utmost confidentiality. They should refrain from sharing the manuscript or its contents with others without prior authorization from the editor.
• Objective Evaluation: Reviewers should provide objective, constructive, and unbiased feedback on the manuscript. Personal or professional biases should not influence their evaluations.
• Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their assessments promptly within the stipulated timeframe. If they foresee any delays, they should notify the editor promptly.
• Declaration of Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that might impact their ability to provide an impartial review. If a significant conflict exists, reviewers should decline to evaluate the manuscript.

For Editors:

• Fair and Impartial Editorial Handling: Editors should handle each manuscript impartially and fairly, irrespective of the authors' identities, affiliations, or funding sources. Editorial decisions should be solely based on the manuscript's quality and its contribution to the field.
• Confidentiality: Editors and their staff should uphold the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts, refraining from disclosing any information about the manuscript to individuals not involved in the peer review process.
• Publication Decisions: Editorial decisions should be made solely on the manuscript's merit and its significance to the scientific community. Commercial considerations should play no role in editorial determinations.
• Addressing Ethical Concerns: Editors should diligently investigate and address any ethical concerns or allegations of misconduct, such as plagiarism, data manipulation, or authorship disputes. Such matters should be handled transparently and justly.
• Disclosure of Potential Conflicts: Editors should disclose any potential conflicts of interest and should abstain from handling manuscripts in which they have a personal, financial, or academic interest that might compromise impartiality.
• Correction and Retraction: Editors should be prepared to publish corrections, clarifications, or retractions if errors or ethical issues are identified in published work.
• At FPME journal, we regard authors, reviewers, and editors as vital contributors to the integrity of the scientific publication process. Our unwavering commitment to maintaining the highest ethical standards in all aspects of publishing is essential, and we greatly appreciate the cooperation of all stakeholders in upholding these principles. Violations of these guidelines may result in appropriate actions, including manuscript rejection, article withdrawal, or reporting to relevant institutions and authorities.

Revised Journal Editorial Process for Academic Excellence:

Future Prospects for Medical, Pharmaceutical, and Environmental Biotechnology is deeply committed to upholding the highest standards of academic rigor and integrity in the publication of research papers. Our editorial process has been refined to enhance transparency, thoroughness, and fairness, while prioritizing the scientific validity and robustness of submitted manuscripts across methodological, analytical, statistical, and ethical dimensions. We place a strong emphasis on allowing the scientific community to assess the impact of the work. Below, we present a concise and academically articulated overview of our editorial process:

Stage 1: Preliminary Evaluation:

Upon manuscript submission, a meticulous review is conducted to ensure strict compliance with Nature Research's editorial and publishing policies. This phase involves a comprehensive examination of various aspects, including authorship, conflicts of interest, ethical approvals, and plagiarism. Our primary goal is to provide authors with constructive feedback while upholding the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing.

Stage 2: Expert Assessment by Editorial Board Members:

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial quality check are entrusted to esteemed members of our Editorial Board, all of whom are active researchers in their respective fields. They conduct a meticulous evaluation to determine the suitability of the manuscript for peer review. The selection of peer reviewers takes into account factors such as expertise, experience, and potential conflicts of interest. While we welcome authors' suggestions for potential reviewers, it is essential to note that the final decision regarding reviewer selection rests with our Editorial Board. Authors are also granted the option to exclude up to three individuals or laboratories from the peer review process. To maintain the confidentiality of the peer review process, the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors, unless specifically requested by the reviewer.

Stage 3: Rigorous Peer Review:

Our dedicated peer reviewers, recognized experts in the relevant research domain, undertake a thorough assessment of the technical soundness and scientific validity of the manuscript's methodologies, analyses, and interpretations. We hold these aspects to the highest standards, expecting them to be meticulously executed, ethically sound, and substantiated by robust data. Peer reviewers provide comprehensive written reports, offering authors detailed feedback.

Stage 4: Decision-Making Process Transparency:

The Editorial Board Member overseeing the manuscript makes a well-informed decision regarding its disposition. This decision may include acceptance, as is, requests for minor or major revisions, or, in cases of insurmountable concerns, rejection. We are committed to providing our initial decisions in a timely manner, typically within 45 days of submission.

Revisions for Scholarly Excellence:

If revisions are requested, authors will receive clear guidance and a specific deadline for submitting a revised manuscript. Authors are expected to provide a point-by-point response addressing reviewers' comments and delineating the implemented changes. Subsequently, the manuscript may undergo additional rounds of review, as determined by the Editorial Board Member. Our objective is for accepted manuscripts to undergo a single round of revision, streamlining the publication process. Throughout this process, our dedicated editorial support team remains available to assist authors.

Publication Preparation with Academic Precision:

Upon the resolution of all editorial issues, the manuscript is formally accepted and prepared for online publication. Authors receive proof of the article for meticulous review, with a focus on scientific accuracy. At this stage, only modifications related to the title, author list, or scientific inaccuracies are permitted, subject to approval by our publishing team.

Appeals for Objectivity in Decision-Making:

In instances where authors believe that the rejection decision was influenced by scientific misconceptions or reviewer bias, they have the option to request a reevaluation of the decision. While we prioritize providing quality service to all authors, we understand the importance of appeals in maintaining fairness. It is important to note that appeals are subject to availability and may entail several weeks of processing. Each manuscript is allowed one appeal, and appeals can only be initiated after the peer review process. The final determinations on appeals rest with the Editorial Board Member responsible for the manuscript, with reversals contingent on substantial errors or indications of bias.

Our refined editorial process is dedicated to elevating the quality and integrity of the research we publish. We are firmly committed to fostering transparency, upholding ethical standards, delivering timely decisions, and advancing scholarly excellence while facilitating the scientific community's assessment of research impact.