These policies exist to protect the integrity, transparency, and fairness of scholarly publishing at NexQ Research Consortium. They set out clear, role-specific expectations for authors, reviewers, and editors across every stage of the publication lifecycle — from submission and peer review through to editorial decisions and the long-term stewardship of the published record, in line with COPE's guidance.
NexQ Research Consortium upholds full editorial independence. Every decision on peer review, revision, and publication is made solely by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Editorial Board member, free from financial, commercial, or institutional influence. The publisher provides administrative and production support but never directs or overrides an editorial outcome — manuscripts are judged purely on scholarly merit, scientific rigour, and editorial quality.
Every manuscript is evaluated by independent subject-matter experts to confirm scientific quality, originality, and ethical compliance. Reviewers are chosen for relevant expertise and are screened in advance to rule out conflicts of interest with the authors. Confidentiality, fairness, and timely evaluation are maintained throughout.
For the full reviewer workflow, eligibility criteria, and review model, see our Peer Review Process page.
Authors may use AI tools while preparing a manuscript, but remain fully accountable for the result.
- AI tools can never be listed as an author.
- Any AI assistance used must be clearly disclosed in the manuscript.
- Authors carry full responsibility for the accuracy of any AI-assisted text or images.
Full requirements, including image guidelines and disclosure wording, are set out in our Ethical Oversight page.
Reviewers must keep manuscripts strictly confidential and must never upload them to AI tools or share them with third parties — doing so would breach author confidentiality and copyright. Manuscripts should be assessed on the reviewer's own expertise and judgement; suspected AI-generated content should be flagged to the Editorial Office rather than checked through an external AI tool.
Limited AI use is acceptable only to polish the reviewer's own written report — grammar, spelling, or clarity — never to evaluate, interpret, or judge manuscript content. Reviewers are encouraged to disclose any such use when submitting their report.
Editors may not use AI tools to evaluate, assess, or decide on a manuscript; every revision, acceptance, or rejection decision must rest on the editor's own independent expertise. Manuscripts, reviewer reports, and other confidential submission content must never be uploaded to external AI platforms.
Limited AI use is permitted only for linguistic or administrative help — such as polishing correspondence — and only through tools officially approved by the publisher, operating within a secure environment. Even then, AI output must be reviewed critically; it never replaces the editor's independent judgement on reviewer selection, revision requests, or final decisions.
Similarity & AI-content screening — Submitted manuscripts are screened through Crossref Similarity Check (powered by iThenticate), which also supports AI-content pattern detection. Every report is interpreted by qualified editorial staff, not acted on automatically; authors are always given a chance to respond before any action is taken.
Reviewer-recommendation tools — Suggestions from our submission platform support, but never replace, the editorial team's independent verification of a reviewer's expertise, credentials, and suitability.
Language & production support — After acceptance, tools such as Grammarly may assist with grammar and readability; all suggested edits are reviewed by in-house production editors and any substantive change is confirmed with the authors.
XML conversion — Automated XML tools support technical formatting for indexing and archiving only, and never alter scientific content.
All automated and AI-supported tools operate under strict editorial oversight; they assist efficiency and quality control but never substitute for human editorial judgement at any stage.
All articles are published as immediate Gold Open Access under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 licence, allowing copying, remixing, and redistribution for commercial and non-commercial purposes provided the author is credited. Authors retain copyright.
- Readers pay nothing — articles carry no price barrier.
- Content is available immediately, with no embargo period.
- Anyone may use, reproduce, or distribute the article, provided proper credit is given and no substantive errors are introduced.
- Authors are free to share and promote their published article to students, colleagues, or their institution.
Because articles are published under CC BY 4.0, no special permission is needed to reuse them. However, where a manuscript includes figures or tables sourced from another copyright holder, permission for reuse must be obtained from that original publisher or author.
Publication is currently free of charge for authors. If APCs are introduced in future, they will apply only to new submissions received after advance notice; manuscripts already under review or in process will continue to be published free of charge.
Authors retain copyright of their published articles under the CC BY 4.0 licence, which permits unrestricted use, reuse, and quotation provided the original published version is properly cited. Any supplementary materials — datasets, videos, appendices — are released openly under the same licence.
Where authors cannot retain copyright (for example, government employees), the Editorial Office must be informed before publication, since the copyright statement cannot be changed once an article is published.
On acceptance and publication, authors grant the publisher the right to distribute and share the article, produce translations or derivative works, include it in publisher-managed collections or repositories, promote it through relevant channels, and enforce copyright against unauthorised use.
Permission from the copyright holder is generally required to reproduce material the authors do not own — for example, previously published figures, tables, or images; illustrations or photographs copyrighted by another party; substantial text excerpts; or proprietary datasets and graphics not covered by an open licence.
Permission is generally not required where the material is entirely original to the authors, is published under a compatible Creative Commons licence, is in the public domain, or is a figure fully redrawn from previously published data with the source properly cited. Even then, appropriate citation is always required.
Under CC BY 4.0, authors keep copyright while granting us the right to publish, identify as original publisher, and disseminate the work. Authors may freely share and self-archive both the accepted manuscript and the final Version of Record on personal websites, institutional or subject repositories, or other open-access platforms, with no embargo period. Including a link to the version of record helps preserve proper attribution.
For permanent digital preservation, published content is archived with Portico, ensuring continued access even in the event of future disruption.
Authors, reviewers, and readers may occasionally have concerns about an editorial decision, the peer-review process, publication ethics, or a post-publication matter. This policy sets out how such concerns are raised and resolved fairly, confidentially, and in line with COPE guidance.
Authors may appeal a rejection within 30 days of the decision. The appeal is evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor not involved in the original decision, weighing reviewer comments, the authors' response, and all relevant material.
Concerns about delays, communication, or workflow are acknowledged and investigated fairly and confidentially by the editorial team, consulting the Editor-in-Chief or other independent staff where needed. Outcomes may include an explanation of the cause, adjustments to internal procedure, or a direct resolution of the specific concern.
This covers authorship disputes, plagiarism, undeclared conflicts of interest, data fabrication or falsification, and redundant or duplicate publication — each handled per our related Ethical Oversight policies and COPE guidance. The Editorial Office may contact authors or other parties for clarification before deciding whether a manuscript can proceed.
Complaints submitted mainly to harass or unduly burden the Editorial Office may be dismissed at the team's discretion, as may repeated complaints on the same matter that add no new evidence.
Where an issue surfaces after publication, corrective action may include a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, together with notification to affected parties and, where necessary, escalation to external authorities — all in line with COPE's guidance on post-publication critiques.
Complaints or appeals should be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office, including the sender's name and contact details (unless anonymous), the manuscript title and reference number, a clear description of the issue, and any supporting evidence.
Errors identified after publication are addressed promptly to protect the scholarly record, using errata, corrigenda, withdrawals, retractions, editor's notes, or expressions of concern as appropriate. Corresponding authors should contact the Editorial Office with a detailed explanation of the error; corrections follow COPE guidelines.
| Type | When it applies |
|---|---|
| Erratum | Minor errors introduced during editing or production, with no ethical concern and no effect on the article's conclusions. Assigned its own DOI, linked to the original article. |
| Corrigendum | An error identified by the author after publication, described in a note signed by all co-authors. Only appropriate where the error does not invalidate the study's main results. |
| Article withdrawal | Requested by authors before acceptance freely; after acceptance or publication, only for compelling integrity-related reasons, approved by the publisher. If a DOI is already live, the files are replaced with a formal withdrawal notice and the DOI redirects to it. |
| Retraction | Serious ethical issues, data fabrication, or other misconduct that undermine the article's validity. May be initiated by authors, editors, or the publisher; authors may respond before it is finalised. Follows COPE's retraction guidelines. |
| Editor's Note | An online-only, non-indexed note flagging an aspect readers should interpret with caution, without affecting the article's results or conclusions. |
| Editorial Expression of Concern | Issued where there is inconclusive evidence of possible misconduct or an ongoing/uncertain investigation. Published with its own DOI, linked both ways to the article, and may later be replaced by a correction or retraction once an investigation concludes. |
Authors are expected to follow COPE's guidance on citation practice. Citation manipulation by authors, reviewers, or editors — inflating references for reasons unrelated to a manuscript's content — is strictly prohibited.
Authors should not inflate their reference list with an excessive number of their own or colleagues' papers. Genuinely relevant prior work should still be cited properly to avoid self-plagiarism or redundancy.
Authors are discouraged from citing an unusually large number of articles from the journal they are submitting to. Editors and reviewers must never suggest irrelevant references purely to inflate their own or the journal's citation count.
Authors receive a digital PDF of their published article, freely shareable with colleagues, institutions, or online platforms. We do not offer physical reprints as a standard service, in keeping with our open-access, digital-first, and sustainability-focused approach — the PDF and its DOI link are sufficient for wide distribution. Special print requests can be directed to the relevant journal office.
We do not host advertising on any journal or on our website, keeping editorial decisions fully independent and unbiased — our focus stays on the integrity and quality of scholarly content. If advertising is introduced in the future, it will be clearly separated from editorial material, held to ethical standards, and will never influence peer review or publication decisions.
- Invitations to submit, contribute to a special issue, or serve as guest editor are always ethical, professional, and transparent.
- Editorial Board members, reviewers, and authors may voluntarily contribute their own research or recommend colleagues, free from undue pressure.
- Outreach is targeted to researchers whose work genuinely fits the journal's scope, avoiding unsolicited or misleading messaging.
- Calls for papers are published on the journal website and shared through official channels with clear, accurate information, leaving recipients free to decide whether to participate.
- Editors may use professional networks to share submission opportunities, provided all communication is truthful and transparent.
- We participate in webinars, conferences, and academic events to share journal information and published research, and may invite attendees to contribute.
- After publication, articles are promoted responsibly across the journal website, academic platforms, social media, newsletters, and professional channels to broaden their reach.
All outreach, before or after publication, remains professional, informative, and unobtrusive, consistent with COPE's principles of transparency and best practice.
Ensuring assigned reviewers have relevant expertise and no conflict of interest with the authors, and checking that reviewer-suggested references are genuinely relevant rather than self-serving.
Confirming no conflict exists between reviewers and authors; stepping back from any manuscript where the editor has a personal conflict and reassigning it to another board member.
Deciding on publication and board appointments without regard to an author's race, gender, religion, nationality, or political views, and appointing board members from diverse regions.
Watching for plagiarism, data fabrication, or other misconduct, enforcing authorship and citation standards, managing disclosed conflicts, and acting promptly — including retraction or correction — when issues surface post-publication.
Never adding references to boost a journal's own metrics, and never pressuring authors to cite an editor's own work.
Keeping submitted manuscripts and unpublished findings private, instructing reviewers on discretion, and restricting access to submitted content, per COPE's confidentiality guidance.
Not using AI in any decision-making step, since the critical judgement peer review requires sits outside what automated tools can reliably provide; the editor remains responsible for the process and outcome.
Continually reviewing published articles for issues such as plagiarism, acting per COPE guidance when found, and communicating corrections transparently to readers.
Conducting every review in an unbiased, transparent manner, as the foundation of a trustworthy peer-review process.
Judging a manuscript solely on its scientific quality, originality, and significance — never on the authors' identity, affiliation, or personal beliefs.
Flagging any suspected conflict of interest to the Editorial Office immediately, even though reviewers are pre-screened, so an alternate reviewer can be assigned without delay.
Never disclosing manuscript details to third parties; informing the Editorial Office first if a co-reviewer is proposed; never reusing unpublished ideas or data from a manuscript in the reviewer's own work without the authors' written consent.
Not using AI to assess, analyse, or edit any part of a manuscript, since this risks compromising authors' confidentiality and proprietary rights. AI may be used only to refine the grammar and clarity of the reviewer's own written report, with no manuscript content ever shared with an AI tool.
Accepting a review only when able to commit to the deadline, and notifying the Editorial Office promptly if more time is needed.
Notifying the Editorial Office immediately on encountering suspected plagiarism, and pausing further review pending guidance.
Watching for data fabrication, unethical experimentation, image manipulation, or other research-ethics violations, and reporting concerns to the Editorial Office in line with COPE guidance.