Publication Ethics

These standards apply to everyone involved in publishing with Oak Academic Publishing — authors, reviewers, editors, and our own staff — and to every submission, regardless of where it comes from, who funded it, or whether a charge is payable.

Our policies follow the COPE Core Practices, the ICMJE authorship criteria, and the transparency criteria used by the DOAJ. Where a question is not covered here, we apply COPE’s guidance and flowcharts.

We apply the ICMJE criteria. Everyone listed as an author must meet all four:

1. Substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data.
2. Drafting the work, or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
3. Approval of the version to be published.
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work, including the resolution of questions about its accuracy or integrity.

Contributors who do not meet all four — including funders, technical staff, and language editors — should be named in the Acknowledgements instead.

Corresponding author

The corresponding author is our point of contact and is responsible for confirming that every eligible author is listed and none has been omitted, that all co-authors have approved the submitted version, and for collecting competing-interest declarations on behalf of the group.

Changes to the author list

Additions, removals, and reordering after submission require the written agreement of every listed author, including anyone being removed. After publication, changes are made only where a clear administrative error is demonstrated, and are accompanied by a public correction notice.

Disputes

We cannot adjudicate authorship disputes. Where authors cannot agree, we refer the matter to the institution where the work was carried out and hold the manuscript, or flag the published article, until it is resolved.

A competing interest exists where a secondary interest could reasonably be seen to influence judgement about the work. Having one is not misconduct; failing to declare it is.

Authors

Every submission carries a competing-interest declaration, covering financial interests (employment, consultancy, shareholdings, honoraria, patents, funding) and non-financial ones (personal or professional relationships bearing on the subject matter). The declaration is published with the article. Where there is nothing to declare, we publish that too.

Reviewers

Reviewers must decline where they have a recent collaborative, supervisory, or employment relationship with an author, a financial stake in the outcome, or a personal relationship that could compromise objectivity.

Editors

An editor who has authored a submission, works closely with an author, or has a financial interest in the subject matter must recuse themselves and hand the manuscript to an independent editor. Editors are not shown the payment status of any submission.

Every submission is screened with similarity-detection software before it reaches review. The following are treated as misconduct:

• Plagiarism — presenting another’s words, data, figures, or ideas as your own, including close paraphrase without attribution.
• Text recycling — reusing substantial passages of your own earlier work without disclosure and citation.
• Duplicate submission — submitting work that is under consideration elsewhere, or that has already been published in substantially the same form.
• Fabrication and falsification — inventing data, or manipulating materials, processes, or results so the research is not represented accurately.
• Image manipulation — adding, removing, obscuring, or rearranging elements of an image. Adjustments to brightness or contrast are acceptable only when applied evenly to the whole image and disclosed.
• Citation manipulation — padding a reference list to inflate metrics. Our editors and reviewers may not require authors to add citations that are not editorially justified.

Data and code availability

Research articles must carry a data availability statement saying either where the data can be obtained, or why they cannot be shared. A bare “available on request” with no further detail is not sufficient. Where custom code underpins the results, we ask authors to deposit it in a public repository with a persistent identifier.

Human participants

Research involving people must comply with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Manuscripts must name the approving ethics committee or review board and its reference number, and confirm that informed consent was obtained or explain any waiver.

Identifiable information about a participant may only be published with their specific written consent for publication.

Animal research

Research involving animals must name the approving body and its reference number, state the regulatory framework it was conducted under, and describe the steps taken to minimise suffering under the 3Rs — replacement, reduction, refinement. We ask authors to report in line with the ARRIVE guidelines.

Using AI tools to improve grammar, spelling, or readability is fine and needs no declaration. Using them to generate text, images, data, study designs, or analysis must be disclosed in the Methods, naming the tool and describing what it was used for.

• AI tools cannot be authors. They cannot take responsibility for a work, and accountability is an authorship criterion. Responsibility for everything in a submission — including anything a tool produced — rests with the human authors.
• AI must not be used to create or alter research images or data.
• Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts to AI tools that may retain or train on them. Doing so breaches confidentiality.

Undisclosed use is handled as a transparency breach under section 8.

Published articles are part of the scholarly record, so we amend them in the open rather than quietly. We do not remove articles.

• Correction. Issued where an error does not affect the conclusions. We publish a linked notice saying what changed and why.
• Retraction. Issued where the findings are unreliable — through misconduct or honest error — or where the work was published without the necessary approvals. Retracted articles stay online, clearly marked, with a notice giving the reason, who requested it, and the date. Retraction is not a judgement of intent: we follow the COPE retraction guidelines.
• Expression of concern. Issued where an investigation is unresolved but readers should know the reliability of the work is in question. It is replaced by a correction, retraction, or clearing statement once the matter concludes.

Anyone may raise a concern about work we have published or are considering — readers, reviewers, editors, or authors. Concerns are assessed on their substance, and we act on anonymous reports.

1. Acknowledgement. We confirm receipt and tell you who is handling it.
2. Assessment. We establish whether there is a case to answer, without prejudging it.
3. Response. The authors — or whoever the concern relates to — are told what has been raised and given a fair opportunity to respond.
4. Outcome. We issue a written determination: dismissal, correction, expression of concern, retraction, referral to the relevant institution, or a restriction on future submissions.
5. Referral. Where establishing the facts is beyond what a publisher can do — for instance, examining original lab records — we refer the matter to the authors’ institution.

Concerns about the conduct of an editor are handled by someone independent of that journal. Raise anything under this section at inquiries@oakpub.com.

Submitted manuscripts are confidential from receipt until publication. Editors and reviewers may not share, cite, or use their content, and reviewers must not retain copies once a review is complete.

Reviewer reports, decision letters, and correspondence about a manuscript are likewise confidential. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors — see peer review. Personal data is handled under our privacy policy.