Neo Biologist follows the international best practices standards, particularly those recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), ICMJE, and other scholarly publishing standards.

Transparency and Ethical Standards

Neo biologist follows the following standards for transparency, fairness, and prompt action to protect the scholarly record:

* COPE Retraction Guidelines
* ICMJE Recommendations
* WAME Publication Ethics Standards

1. Purpose and Principles
The *Neo Biologist Journal* (NBJ) is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. Retractions are issued when published material is found to be unreliable due to:

* Evidence of research misconduct (e.g., data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism).
* Honest errors that significantly affect the results or conclusions.
* Redundant or duplicate publication without proper attribution.
* Unethical research practices (e.g., lack of required ethics approval, undisclosed conflicts of interest).
* Legal concerns (e.g., libel, copyright infringement).

The primary goal of retraction is to correct the literature, not to punish authors.

2. Grounds for Retraction

NB may consider a retraction under the following circumstances:

1. Data Integrity Issues
   * Fabricated or falsified data.
   * Image manipulation that misrepresents findings.

2. Plagiarism
   * Significant overlap with previously published work without appropriate citation.

3. Ethical Violations
   * Research conducted without required institutional review board (IRB) approval.
   * Breaches of animal welfare or human subject research ethics.

4. Redundant/Duplicate Publication
* Same work or substantial overlap published in multiple outlets without proper disclosure.

5. Legal or Policy Breaches
   * Defamation, breach of confidentiality, or violation of journal publication ethics.

 3. Retraction Decision Process

1. Investigation Initiation

   * Concerns may be raised by readers, reviewers, editors, or whistleblowers.
   * Complaints must be supported by credible evidence.

2. Preliminary Assessment

   * The editorial board will review evidence and consult subject experts if necessary.
   * Authors will be notified in writing and given an opportunity to respond within **30 days**.

3. Formal Review

   * If misconduct or significant error is confirmed, NBJ will follow COPE’s retraction guidelines.
   * In cases of unresolved disputes, an independent ethics panel may be consulted.

4. Final Decision

   * The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision in consultation with the editorial board.

 4. Retraction Notice Requirements

* Clearly labeled as "Retraction" and linked to the original article.
* States the reason(s) for retraction (distinguishing between misconduct and honest error).
* Lists who is retracting the article (authors, editor, or both).
* Freely accessible to all readers (open access).
* Retained permanently in the public record (the original article is watermarked as "Retracted" but remains available for transparency).

5. Alternatives to Retraction

If the issues are minor or do not invalidate the findings:

* Correction (Erratum/ Corrigendum) for factual errors.
* Expression of Concern when investigation is ongoing but results are inconclusive.

6. Post-Retraction Conduct
* Retractions are not punitive but corrective; NBJ encourages responsible re-publication if issues are resolved.
* Authors found to have committed serious misconduct may face:

  * Temporary or permanent submission bans.
  * Notification to affiliated institutions or funding bodies.