Publishing Ethics



At Future Science Association, the integrity of our academic content and publishing process is paramount. This document outlines the best practice principles that we apply to our books and journals. We hope these guidelines will be useful to many different groups, including authors, peer reviewers, editors within and outside of Future Science Association, societies, and founders.


FSA a global not-for-profit organization which aims to support publishers and editors to achieve high standards in publishing ethics. Although FSA focus on   provides guidelines and resources for journal editors, these can also be useful to books editors – so we reference them throughout this document. We also follow standards and best practice guidelines set by other relevant industry associations. Any external guidelines we follow are referred to in the relevant sections below.

Research Integrity

We uphold the same high standards as our University, and expect research published by Future Science Association to abide by the principles within the Association Research Integrity Statement. These principles cover: honesty in all aspects of research; scrupulous care, thoroughness and excellence in research practice; transparency and open communication; care and respect for all participants in and subjects of research.

In addition to the general principles above, we expect our journal and book editorial teams to provide specific guidelines and policies for authors on research integrity and ethics appropriate to their subject matter and discipline.

Anyone who believes that research published by Future Science Association has not been carried out in line with these Research Publishing Ethics Guidelines, or the above principles, should raise their concern with the relevant editor or email Concerns will be addressed by following COPE guidelines where possible  and/or by escalating the matter to our Publishing Ethics Committee if necessary.

Editorial Board:

Editorial board is an independent and volunteer academic committee. EB is multinational group of volunteer academic scientists. Editorial board has a monthly meeting to discuss the progress of publication process and discuss any appeal against publication decisions. More information about our editorial team can be found at:

Editorial Process

We are committed to editorial independence, and strive in all cases to prevent this principle from being compromised through conflicts of interest, fear, or any other corporate or political influence. Our editorial processes reflect this commitment to editorial independence.

Our academic publishing programme is overseen by the Academic Publishing Committee (APC), consisting of academics from all over the world that independently advise on and approve all our contracts for publication. The role of the APC differs for book and journal contracts:

Proposals submitted for our publishing programme are initially reviewed by in-house editors, who may also consult relevant external book series editors or subject specialists. If the proposal is suitable for consideration by Future Science Association, the proposal, along with sample content, will be sent to a minimum of two external and independent peer reviewers. The peer reviewers’ assessments are used to inform the editor’s decision as to whether or not to recommend publication to the APC. The APC subsequently make the final decision on whether or not to award the author(s) a publishing contract. Our editors are free to solicit additional reviews and guidance post-contract to inform the development of the manuscript.


Editorial decisions on articles submitted to our journals are made by external academic editors and based on independent peer review reports. The SAPC is required to approve Future Science Association  taking on the publishing of an established journal or the creation of a new journal. The APC may also advise on policy changes, ethics or other matters affecting the conduct of our journals’ business, but SAPC responsibilities do not include decisions to publish individual articles.

Peer Review

Peer review is critical to maintaining the standards of our publications. We:

provide appropriate systems, training and support to facilitate rigorous, fair and effective peer review for all our publications; encourage our editors and peer reviewers to familiarize themselves with and act in accordance with relevant best practice guidelines on peer review. For journal editors and peer reviewers, please refer to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Expect those who oversee the peer review process to be able to recognize warning signs of fraudulent or manipulated peer review, and to raise any concerns by emailing People who oversee the peer review process may be internal to Future Science Association or contracted by us; support our editors and peer reviewers in investigating and acting on any suspected cases of manipulated or fraudulent peer review; protect the confidentiality of participants in the peer review process where anonymity forms part of that publication’s peer review  process. We also expect our publishing partners, authors and peer reviewers to uphold any relevant confidentiality arrangements for each book or journal and to provide necessary information to support this.

Review Process

  1. Submission of Paper

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. This is usually via an online system such as Scholar-One Manuscripts. Occasionally, journals may accept submissions by email.

  1. Editorial Office Assessment

The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.


  1. Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC)

The EIC checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

  1. EIC Assigns an Associate Editor (AE)

Some journals have Associate Editors who handle the peer review. If they do, they would be assigned at this stage.

  1. Plagiarism detection

The submitted manuscript will be subject to  CrossCheck . CrossCheck sometimes flags passages as plagiarized when they have been improperly cited, and, in some instances, there are few ways to describe methods or materials differently. Editors will contact authors to ask them to revise their work or correct their citations.

  1. Invitation to Reviewers

The handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is 2, but there is some variation between journals.

  1. Response to Invitations

Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers.

  1. Review is conducted

The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.

  1. Journal Evaluates the Reviews

The handling editor considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the editor may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision.


  1. The Decision is communicated

The editor sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.

  1. Next Steps

If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor should include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the handling editor.

Authors and Authors responsibilities

We acknowledge that different disciplines and publication formats have different norms for who is listed as an author.

These should apply to all fields of research: Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and Final approval of the version to be published; and Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Our default position is that the corresponding author has the authority to act on behalf of all co-authors, and we expect the corresponding author to confirm this at the beginning of the publication process.

COPE also provides extensive resources on authorship and authorship disputes, and we encourage anyone involved in editorial decisions to familiarize themselves with these resources. We support our editors in dealing with any authorship disputes, including escalating or seeking advice on cases with COPE. We integrate with established and emerging industry standards to increase transparency in authorship (for example, ORCID).


Plagiarism is defined as ‘submitting as one’s own work, irrespective of intent to deceive, that which derives in part or in its entirety from the work of others without due acknowledgement. It is both poor scholarship and a breach of academic integrity.’2

Future Science Association adheres to the core principles of the Association Statement on Plagiarism, adapted below where relevant to publishing.

Examples of plagiarism include copying (using another person’s language and/or ideas as if they are one’s own), by: quoting verbatim another person’s work without due acknowledgement of the source; paraphrasing another person’s work by changing some of the words, or the order of the words, without due acknowledgement of the source; using ideas taken from someone else without reference to the originator; cutting and pasting from the Internet to make a pastiche of online sources; submitting someone else’s work as part of one’s own without identifying clearly who did the work. For example, not attributing research contributed by others to a joint project.


Plagiarism might also arise from colluding with another person who has not been declared or acknowledged (i.e. where collaboration is concealed or has been forbidden). Work should include a general acknowledgement where it has received substantial help, for example with the language and style of a piece of written work.

Plagiarism can occur in respect to all types of sources and media, including: text, illustrations, musical quotations, mathematical derivations, computer code, etc.; material downloaded from websites or drawn from manuscripts or other media; published and unpublished material, including lectures, presentations and grey literature.

We do not tolerate plagiarism in any of our publications, and we reserve the right to check all submissions through appropriate plagiarism checking tools. Submissions containing suspected plagiarism, in whole or part, will be rejected. If plagiarism is discovered post-publication, we will follow our guidance outlined in the Retractions, Corrections and Expressions of Concern section of these guidelines. We expect our readers, reviewers and editors to raise any suspicions of plagiarism, either by contacting the relevant editor or by emailing

Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Duplicate or redundant publication, or ‘self-plagiarism’, occurs when a work, or substantial parts of a work, is published more than once by the author(s) of the work. This can be in the same or a different language. Redundant publication can occur when there is substantial overlap between two or more publications without appropriate cross-referencing or justification for the overlap. We do not support duplicate or redundant publication, unless:

It is felt that editorially this will strengthen the academic discourse; and we have clear approval from the original publication; and we include citation of the original source.

We expect our readers, reviewers and editors to raise any suspicions of duplicate or redundant publication, either by contacting the relevant editor or by emailing

Research with Humans or Animals

Research involving humans or animals should be approved by relevant ethics committee(s) and should conform to international ethical and legal standards for research. We also expect authors to respect human participants’ right to privacy, and to gain any necessary consent to publish before submitting to us. For information on whether authors are required to submit or include evidence regarding the above, please consult individual journal submission guidelines or contact the relevant book or journal editor.

Conflicts of Interest and Funding

We try to ensure that any Future Science Association publication is free from undue influence. Authors submitting a book or journal manuscript to Future Science Association, employees, the SAPC, editors and reviewers of Future Science Association publications, are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest that could interfere with the objectivity or integrity of a publication. Conflicts of interest are situations that could be perceived.

Based on COPE’s definition of redundant publication, available at: keywords/redundant-publication

Exert an undue influence on the presentation, review and publication of a piece of work. These may be financial, non-financial, professional, contractual or personal in nature. We also expect that anyone who suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest regarding a work published or under consideration by Future Science Association should inform the relevant editor or email

Many of our publications require the inclusion of a funding declaration in addition to

a conflicts of interest declaration. Please check with the relevant journal or book editor regarding declaration requirements.

Libel, Defamation and Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression is critical to us as academic publishers, but we do not support publishing false statements that harm the reputation of individuals, groups, or organisations. Our legal team can advise on pre-publication libel reviews, and will also address allegations of libel in any of our publications.

Retractions, Corrections and Expressions of Concern

Journal editors will consider retractions, corrections or expressions of concern in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines. If an author is found to have made an error, the journal will issue a corrigendum. If the journal is found to have made an error, they will issue an erratum. Retractions are usually reserved for articles that are so seriously flawed that their findings or conclusions should not be relied upon. Journals that publish Accepted Manuscripts may make minor changes such as those which would likely occur during typesetting or proofreading, but any substantive corrections will be carried out in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines.

In the case of books, if someone raises a legal, ethical or security concern about a Future Science Association publication, we would inform the author(s) and editor(s) involved. Our next step would be to investigate the concern and, if appropriate, address it through dialogue or negotiation with any third parties involved or by referring it to a relevant institution for investigation. If the concern relates to the integrity or accuracy of the content itself, we would consider issuing a correction, or a retraction and withdrawal from sale. Where any content is retracted, we would do so in a way that still preserves the integrity of the academic record and of other affiliated works (for example, other volumes in a series). This includes maintaining any associated metadata and, if legally possible, the abstract.

We also participate in CrossMark; a multi-publisher initiative to provide a standard way for readers to locate the current version of a piece of content, view any changes that have occurred, and access additional information about that publication record.


Falsification, Fabrication and Image Manipulation

Where research data are collected or presented as images, modifying these images can sometimes misrepresent the results obtained or their significance. We recognize that there can be legitimate reasons for modifying images, but we expect authors to avoid modifying images where this leads to the falsification, fabrication, or misrepresentation of their results.

Fraudulent Research and Research Misconduct

Where we are made aware of fraudulent research or research misconduct by a Future Science Association author, our first concern is the integrity of content we have published. We work with the relevant editor(s), COPE, and other appropriate institutions or organisations, to investigate. Any publication found to include fraudulent results will be retracted, or an appropriate correction or expression of concern will be issued. Please see the Retractions, Corrections and Expressions of Concern section of these guidelines for more information.

Versions and Adaptations


Our publications are distributed in many different global cultural, environmental and economic contexts. We may therefore issue different versions of some of our products in order to cater to these contexts. We neither modify existing, published content nor originate new materials to meet political or ideological requirements where we judge these to compromise the quality, effectiveness or factual accuracy of the materials or to conflict with our Code of Ethics.

We grant licenses in volume and subsidiary rights to third-parties which permit the reproduction, reuse or adaptation of our content in different contexts, languages and territories. Where we license volume rights, we and our authors retain the right to withhold approval for publication if we have concerns about the integrity and accuracy of the licensed edition.


We strive to follow COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and encourage our publishing partners to uphold these same principles.

Data and Supporting Evidence

We support transparency and openness around data, code, and other materials associated with research. We expect authors to maintain accurate records of supporting evidence necessary to allow others to understand, verify, and replicate new findings, and to supply or provide access to this supporting evidence, on reasonable request. Where appropriate and where allowed by employer, funding body or others who might have an interest, we encourage authors to deposit data in a suitable repository or storage location, for sharing and further use by others. Future Science Association  aims to provide authors with the ability to connect supporting data with their manuscripts, either on our own platform or through third party services.

Future Science Association is also a signatory of Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines. Please contact us for information on their transparency requirements.

Integrity of Record

We maintain a record of the existence of everything we publish with information (metadata) describing each publication. If our content is deemed not to comply with the laws of a sovereign nation, we make every effort to ensure the metadata remain accessible within that jurisdiction. Where we are obliged to alter the publication record in any way, such as in the case of research misconduct leading to retraction of a publication, we preserve the academic record as far possible.

We apply these same principles to our marketing, and do not modify or manipulate the representation of the academic record in our marketing activities.

When any product (chapter, article, book or journal) is purchased or subscribed to, we supply it only in its totality to the customer, who is not entitled to alter its content in any way that is inconsistent with the licensing terms under which it was published. Any sale of disaggregated products is subject to the contracts with the copyright holders of the original products.

Copyright and access

Future Science Association applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license to articles and other works we publish. Authors of articles published in Frontiers journals retain copyright on their articles, except for any third-party images and other materials added by Innovative Scientific Information and Services network, which are subject to copyright of their respective owners. If you submit your paper for publication by Innovative Scientific Information and Services network, you agree to have the CC BY license applied to your work. Under this Open Access license, you as the author agree that anyone can reuse your article in whole or part for any urpose, for free, even for commercial purposes. Anyone may copy, distribute, or reuse the content as long as the author and original source are properly cited. This facilitates freedom in re-use and also ensures that published content can be mined without barriers for the needs of research.

Corrections to published articles: If necessary, corrections of significant errors in published articles will be published in a later issue of the Journal. Within two months after publication, authors are requested to bring any errors to the attention of the managing editor.


FSA utilize Open Journal system for content archiving and journal management.

 Ownership and management:

Future Science Association in the owner of The future of Biology Journal. FSA is a nonprofit organization runs be independent scientist from different countries with high credential academic degrees.

The web site:

Publishing schedule: The Future of Biology is published 4 issues/ a year; , January, April, June, September.

Name of the journal: The Future of Biology ; ISSN: 2572-3006 (Print) / 2572-3111 (Online) .


The full publication ethics can be downloaded from the following link

Future Science Association publication ethics (Doc)