Editorial Policy

Last updated: 27 August 2026

This policy applies across Glintplus journals. A journal may also state requirements for its scope, article types, peer review, licences, charges and manuscript preparation. Follow this policy together with the current instructions for the journal you are using.

1. Publication criteria

Editors consider whether a manuscript fits the journal’s scope, addresses a clear scholarly question, uses appropriate methods or reasoning, reports evidence transparently, engages relevant literature and meets the ethical and reporting requirements that apply to the work. Acceptance is not based on the author’s ability to pay a publication charge.

2. Originality, preprints and overlapping publication

A manuscript should not be submitted to more than one journal at the same time. Authors must disclose closely related manuscripts, prior versions and material that has already been published or made public. Preprints, theses, conference outputs and translations may be considered where the journal permits them and where prior dissemination is disclosed and appropriately cited.

Plagiarism, undisclosed duplicate publication and inappropriate fragmentation of one study into multiple overlapping papers can undermine the scholarly record and may lead to rejection or post-publication action.

3. Authorship and contributor responsibility

Authorship should reflect a genuine intellectual contribution and carries responsibility for the published work. All listed authors should approve the submitted manuscript and the choice of journal. Requests to add, remove or reorder authors must be explained and may require confirmation from all affected authors. Post-publication authorship changes are handled transparently through a published notice where appropriate.

4. Competing interests and funding

Authors, reviewers and editors should disclose financial, professional, personal or other relationships that could reasonably be viewed as influencing the work or an editorial decision. An editor or reviewer with a conflict that prevents independent assessment should not handle that manuscript.

5. Research ethics, consent and permissions

Research involving people, animals, protected locations, confidential data or regulated materials must comply with the ethical and legal requirements that apply to the study. Authors are responsible for obtaining necessary approvals, consent and permissions and for providing evidence when a journal reasonably requests it.

Authors must also have permission to reproduce third-party figures, images, instruments or other protected material where permission is required.

6. Artificial intelligence in submitted and reviewed work

AI-assisted tools cannot be authors because they cannot take responsibility for the accuracy, integrity and originality of a manuscript. Authors remain responsible for all material they submit and should disclose substantive AI use as required by the journal, including use in writing, analysis or image generation.

Editors and reviewers must protect manuscript confidentiality. They should not upload a confidential manuscript to an AI service or other external system where confidentiality cannot be assured unless the journal expressly permits that use and the necessary permission and safeguards are in place.

7. Editorial screening and peer review

Editors may reject a manuscript before external review when it is clearly outside scope, substantially incomplete, does not meet basic quality or integrity requirements, or is otherwise unsuitable for the journal. Manuscripts that proceed may be sent to independent reviewers selected for relevant expertise.

Glintplus journals may use different peer review models. The journal should state whether review is single blind, double blind, open, transparent or another clearly described model. Reviewers advise the editor; the editor is responsible for the final publication decision.

8. Reviewer conduct

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they have suitable expertise, disclose conflicts, protect confidentiality and provide constructive comments based on the manuscript rather than the identity or status of the authors. Reviewers must not appropriate unpublished ideas, data or text for their own use.

9. Decisions, revisions and appeals

Editorial decisions may include rejection, revision, resubmission or acceptance according to the options used by the journal. A request for revision is not a guarantee of acceptance. Authors should respond to reviewer and editor comments point by point and identify the changes made.

An author who believes a decision resulted from a material error or unfair process may appeal using the journal’s appeal instructions. An appeal should explain the specific basis for reconsideration and should not simply repeat arguments already assessed. Appeals are considered separately from ordinary revision.

10. Plagiarism, fabrication, manipulation and other misconduct

Glintplus may use similarity checking and other screening tools, but software scores are not treated as a substitute for editorial judgement. Suspected plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, fabricated citations, undisclosed competing interests, peer review manipulation and other serious concerns are assessed using the available evidence and appropriate publication-ethics guidance.

Where a credible concern is raised, the journal may ask authors for an explanation, original data, approvals or other supporting material. Institutions, funders or other bodies may be contacted where that is appropriate to resolve a serious integrity concern.

11. Withdrawal before publication

Authors who need to withdraw a manuscript should contact the journal promptly and explain the reason. Once editorial work has begun, the journal may need confirmation from all authors before closing the submission. A manuscript should not be submitted elsewhere until the withdrawal has been confirmed.

Before withdrawing, check the journal’s current withdrawal information for any charge or condition that may apply.

12. Corrections, expressions of concern and retractions

The published scholarly record should be corrected when an error materially affects the article but does not invalidate the work. An expression of concern may be used when a serious question exists but the evidence is not yet sufficient for a final conclusion. Retraction may be appropriate when findings are unreliable, the work involves serious misconduct, duplicate publication or another problem that makes continued reliance on the article unsafe.

Post-publication notices should be linked clearly to the affected article. Retraction normally preserves the publication record with a clear retraction notice rather than silently removing the article. Removal may be considered only in exceptional circumstances such as a legal requirement, serious privacy risk or material safety concern.

13. Editorial independence and publishing charges

Editors should be able to make decisions about individual manuscripts without inappropriate interference from owners, advertisers, sponsors, institutional partners or commercial considerations. Publication charges and waiver decisions must not determine whether a manuscript is accepted on scholarly grounds.

14. Complaints and concerns

A complaint should identify the journal, manuscript or published article involved and explain the concern clearly. For an active manuscript, contact the journal first. For other editorial concerns, use the Glintplus Contact page.

15. Publication ethics framework

Glintplus uses recognised publication-ethics principles to guide peer review, conflicts of interest, intellectual property, research integrity and post-publication corrections. Policies are updated as publishing practice and the journals develop.