By submitting to Neo Biologist authors agree to comply with this Publication Ethics Policy.

Neo Biologist is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and academic integrity. We are transparent about our ethical requirements for authors, reviewers, and editors, and we ensure that all published work reflects accuracy, credibility, and fairness. This policy outlines the principles and responsibilities that all parties involved in the publication process must follow.

The journal fully abides by the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and all ethical issues are addressed in accordance with COPE recommendations.

1. Authorship, Author Responsibilities, and Contributorship

1.1 Authorship Criteria
- Authorship is granted only to those who have made substantial intellectual contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research.
- All listed authors must have reviewed and approved the final manuscript before submission.
- The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors meet authorship criteria and for managing communication with the journal.
- All funding sources, institutional support, and contributions from individuals who do not meet authorship criteria must be properly acknowledged.

1.2 Citation Integrity
- Citation manipulation, including excessive or irrelevant self-citations or citations to boost a particular journal, is strictly prohibited.
- Fabrication or falsification of data, including inappropriate image manipulation, will lead to immediate rejection or retraction.

1.3 Author Contributions Statement
Authors must clearly describe each author’s contribution, including:

a) Study conception and design
b) Data collection
c) Data analysis and interpretation
d) Drafting the manuscript
e) Critical review and editing
f) Final approval of the version to be published

1.4 Changes to Authorship
- Any changes to the authorship list after submission require written approval from all listed authors and the Editor-in-Chief.
- Once an article is accepted and sent to production, no further changes to authorship will be permitted.

2. Complaints and Appeals

2.1 Editorial Decision Appeals
- Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a written request to the Editor-in-Chief.
- Appeals will be reviewed impartially, possibly involving an independent reviewer.
- The decision of the Editor-in-Chief on appeals is final.

2.2 Complaints
Complaints regarding editorial misconduct, reviewer bias, or delays should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief.
-Misconduct allegations will be investigated in line with COPE flowcharts.
- Complainants will be informed of the outcome once the investigation is complete.

3. Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests

3.1 Definition
A conflict of interest is any situation that could unduly influence an individual’s objectivity in the publication process, whether financial, personal, or professional.

3.2 Declaration
- Authors, reviewers, and editors must declare any potential conflicts of interest at the earliest stage.
- Undeclared conflicts discovered after publication may result in article retraction.

3.3 Examples

-Financial: Employment, stock ownership, grants, honoraria, paid consultancies, patents.
-Non-financial: Personal relationships, professional rivalries, political or religious beliefs affecting objectivity.

4. Editorial Ethics and Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for:

- Ensuring confidentiality of manuscripts.
- Maintaining transparency in peer-review and decision-making.
- Avoiding manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest.
- Acting on ethical breaches such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or undisclosed conflicts.
- Issuing corrections, clarifications, or retractions when required.

5. Data Sharing and Reproducibility

- Authors are encouraged to deposit data in publicly accessible repositories and include dataset links in their manuscripts.
- If data cannot be shared, authors must provide a clear and valid reason.

6. Ethical Oversight

- All research involving human participants must have Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and informed consent.
- Animal research must comply with institutional and national guidelines for animal welfare.
- Clinical trials must be registered in recognized trial registries.

7. Intellectual Property

- Articles in Neo Biologist are published under the **Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license.
- Authors retain copyright but grant the journal the right to publish and distribute the work.

---

8. Plagiarism and Originality
- All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software.
- The similarity index must not exceed 15%, excluding references and standard phrases.
- Plagiarism in any form (including self-plagiarism) will result in rejection or retraction.

9. Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
- Readers and authors may raise concerns post-publication.
- Corrections, retractions, or editor’s notes will be issued following COPE guidelines.
- Retractions will clearly state the reasons and link to the original article.

10. Peer-Review Policy

-Neo Biologist operates a single-blind peer-review process.
- All manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent experts.
- Poor-quality or out-of-scope manuscripts may be desk-rejected.
- Editors and reviewers must avoid bias and base their evaluations solely on academic merit.

11. Publication Schedule

Neo Biologist publishes two issues per year (January and July), with the possibility of expanding to quarterly publication as the journal grows.

12. Archiving Policy
- All published content is preserved through the PKP Preservation Network (PN) and other trusted repositories.
- Authors are encouraged to self-archive preprints and accepted manuscripts in institutional or subject repositories.

13. Funding Disclosure
- Authors must declare all sources of financial support, including grant numbers, in the manuscript’s Funding section.