Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.

A definition of plagiarism from the Office of Research Integrity:

“Plagiarism includes both the theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another’s work. It does not include authorship or credit disputes. The theft or misappropriation of intellectual property includes the unauthorized use of ideas or unique methods obtained by a privileged communication, such as a grant or manuscript review.”

Fraudulent authorship
Fraudulent authorship and misrepresentation are forms of misconduct. The following scenarios are examples:

• Ghost authorship: when someone who actively participated in the research, and who meets the authorship criteria, is not included in the author list
• Guest authorship: when researchers (typically those who are senior) are included in the author list because of their respect or influence, in the hope that this will increase the likelihood of publication and/or impact once the paper has been published
• Gift authorship: when an individual who did not contribute to the manuscript is listed as an author, perhaps to reward a collaborator, return a favour, or for some other personal or financial gain

Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.

If misconduct is suspected journal editors will act in accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines. 

Prior submission and redundant publication

The Society’s journals only consider article submissions which have not been published previously. In addition, it is not acceptable for an author to submit a manuscript (or manuscripts describing essentially the same matter) to more than one journal at a time.

It is important to ensure that research work is only published once. If it is published more than once, the scientific literature can be unjustifiably weighted by the appearance that one study has been replicated. It might also mean that the study is inadvertently entered twice into a meta-analysis, for example, or cause problems in systems which use the number of publications to assess an individual’s or an institute’s research output.

The following are not considered prior publication and are permitted:

1. Unrefereed manuscripts on preprint servers such as arXiv, bioRxiv and PeerJ PrePrints
2. Abstracts and posters presented as part of conference proceedings
3. Results presented at meetings (for example, to inform investigators or participants about findings)
4. Results in databases and clinical trials registries (data without interpretation, discussion, context or conclusions in the form of tables and text to describe data/information)
5. Dissertations and theses in university archives

Redundant publication, duplicate publication and text recycling is where authors reproduce verbatim content from their other publications.

Duplication of a published article or major overlap/redundancy with another published article is not acceptable. When this is identified we will follow appropriate COPE guidelines and consider publishing a notice of redundant publication.

Minor overlap or a small amount of redundancy may be unavoidable. This must always be reported transparently and be properly attributed and compliant with copyright requirements.

In research articles, some degree of text recycling in the background/introduction/methods section of an article may be reasonable. However, overlap in the results and conclusions section is unlikely to be acceptable.

In review articles, if text is recycled from an earlier publication without any further novel development of previously published opinions or ideas or when they are presented as novel without any reference to previous publications it will not be acceptable.

Research ethics, animal treatment and dual-use

Articles will be accepted based on scientific merit and only if they are considered ethically sound in the judgement of the editors.

Referees are asked to express any ethical concerns regarding human studies, potential risk of misuse or maltreatment of animals and conservation or environmental issues.

• Human subjects
• Animal subjects
• Dual use and biosecurity
• Other ethical issues

Human subjects

For experiments involving human subjects, the committee approving the experiments should be identified with any and all related project/licence numbers given and the research conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. The authors should confirm that informed consent was obtained from all subjects or their representatives or explain why this was not done.

Normally, we will need permission to share datasets and associated metadata with reviewers in a confidential manner. However, if this is not possible please consult the editorial office – in some circumstances metadata may be sufficient for reviewers to assess a paper.

We recognise three different scenarios for human data:

1. The simplest case is that the dataset was already published by another research group, and it is available for download. In this case all that is needed is a clear statement of how the data can be accessed
2. The dataset has been used for several publications but it is held by a third party (e.g., NIH), which only provides access following a very strict protocol. It is necessary to apply to the dataset owner for gaining access to it. If this is not permitted contact the editorial office
3. The dataset is completely new but contains sensitive information and, therefore, its access is restricted as required by EU or national laws. This is the most challenging case. The data owners have to be clearly identified by the authors and in principle we would expect that it is a national or international agency/institution/consortium to which the authors are associated. An official responsible for the access to the data needs to provide a statement explaining why the data cannot be shared with reviewers

For papers that are published, if data are restricted e.g., for ethical and/or legal reasons, they should be made available to readers upon request to a Data Access Committee or Ethics Committee. You should state the reason for restriction e.g., identifiable patient data, the name of the Data Access Committee or Ethics Committee and details for the point of contact.

Researchers undertaking cross-cultural behavioural studies should follow best-practice guidelines such as those outlined here and include clear details within the paper where relevant. Human articles must clearly specify the sample and context in which the study was done in the title or abstract (for example, geographical location, ethnicity of population, etc.).

Animal subjects

The Scholar Time Welfare Society believes that all research should be carried out with a high regard for animal welfare. Authors should include details of any animals used in their study, including information about welfare standards used (such as, but not limited to: species, number, sex, age, weight, housing conditions, welfare, animal training and the fate of the animals at the end of the experiment) and relevant details of steps taken to ameliorate suffering. These details should be included in the Methods section of the article.

Authors are expected to comply with the ‘Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments’ (ARRIVE) guidelines. These have been developed by NC3Rs to improve standards of reporting to ensure that the data from animal experiments can be fully scrutinised and utilised. Relevant information should be included in the appropriate section of the article, as outlined in the ARRIVE guidelines.

All research involving animals must have been reviewed and approved by an ethics committee prior to commencing the study and performed in accordance with relevant institutional and national guidelines and regulations. A statement identifying the institutional and/or licensing committee approving the experiments (including the number(s) of the licence/approval(s) received) must be included in the ethics statement in the submission system and in the article. If the study is exempt from ethics approval, authors need to state the reasons for exemption. Procedures used must be clearly described.

Any interaction with the animals that might cause them to change their typical behaviour must get full ethical approval, both from the institution where the work was done and from the researcher’s home institution. Permission is also required for any studies where food or apparatus are provided.

Any possible adverse consequences of the work for ecosystems, populations or individual organisms must be weighed against the possible gains in knowledge and its practical applications.

The journals of the Scholar Time Welfare Society reserve the right to ask authors for all ethical documentation related to their study and to contact the authors institution for more information.

Dual use and biosecurity

We consider potential dual use concerns on a case by case basis.

WHO defines this as:

“Research that is intended to provide a clear benefit, but which could easily be misapplied to do harm. It usually refers to work in the life sciences, but the principles are also applicable to other fields including engineering and information technology. It encompasses everything from information to specific products that have the potential to create negative consequences for health and safety, agriculture, the environment or national security.”

Please highlight the potential risk of misuse in your cover letter. This will be assessed alongside the technical review.

Authors who use DNA from commercial DNA providers should get their DNA from a company that screens against misuse. They should choose a provider which is a member of the IGSC, and they should disclose the name of the company they purchased DNA from to the editors.

Plagiarism Policy

The journal published under the supervision of Scholar Time Welfare Society is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and ethical publishing. All submitted manuscripts must be original works of the authors and should not contain any form of plagiarism, including direct copying, improper paraphrasing, self-plagiarism, or the use of previously published material without appropriate citation. To ensure originality and transparency in academic publishing, every manuscript submitted to the journal is screened using plagiarism detection software such as Turnitin, along with recognized AI-content detection tools, before it proceeds to the peer-review process.

The journal follows a strict similarity policy. The acceptable textual similarity index is up to 10% (excluding references, bibliography, and commonly used technical or methodological terms). Manuscripts exceeding this threshold may be returned to the authors for revision or rejected depending on the level and nature of the detected similarity. In addition, the journal also evaluates the presence of AI-generated content in manuscripts. The acceptable AI-generated content similarity limit is up to 20%, provided that such usage does not compromise the originality, intellectual contribution, or scientific integrity of the manuscript.

Authors are solely responsible for ensuring that all sources are properly cited and that their work adheres to ethical research and publication standards. If plagiarism or unethical use of AI-generated content is detected at any stage of the publication process—either before or after publication—the journal reserves the right to take appropriate actions, including rejection of the manuscript, request for revision, retraction of the published article, and notification to the authors’ affiliated institutions when necessary. This policy aims to uphold originality, credibility, and ethical responsibility in all scholarly publications of the journal.

Other ethical issues

We endorse guidance of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology by not publishing work resulting from unethically sourced Burmese amber and where fossil samples (i.e. the “data”) are not publicly available. We expect authors, on submission of a manuscript, to provide the following information: 1) evidence that the data are permanently curated in an accessible collection with specimen number(s); 2) Verification of the date of collection and export (this must be pre-2017) of the specimens, including a permit number or other verification that the fossils were legally exported from Myanmar; 3) clarification whether any of the listed authors are researchers or personnel based in Myanmar, with adequate justification if not. Item #1 should be in the manuscript and ethics statement. Items #2-3 should be part of the cover letter. We cannot proceed with considering studies for possible peer review until these questions are answered.

Peer review, editorial standards and processes

• Editorial independence
• Peer review systems
• Co-review
• Appeals
• Correcting the literature
• Author name changes after publication
• Open criticism and debate

Editorial independence

Editorial independence is respected. The content of Scholar Time Welfare Society journals is entirely independent of the Society’s views on any scientific or policy issues. The editor’s decision is final and will not be influenced or compromised in any way by the Society.

Peer review systems

Most papers submitted to Scholar Time Welfare Society research journals are peer reviewed in a single-anonymized fashion (author names are not concealed, but referee names are), while Notes and Records and Proceedings B are double-anonymized.

We do all we can to ensure the peer review process is fair and we aim to minimise bias, measures include:

• Striving to have a diverse representation on our editorial boards. We actively encourage board members to select from a diverse pool of reviewers – some of these being suggested by authors
• Regularly reminding board members, reviewers and staff to be aware of their unconscious biases when making decisions
• Working with other publishers to collect anonymised diversity data to assess where there are potential biases in our peer review system

Unless published with the article, the referee reports and other correspondence relating to your paper must remain confidential and should not be shared or made publicly available. If discussions between an author, editor, and referee have taken place in confidence they will remain in confidence unless explicit consent has been given by all parties or there are exceptional circumstances. Referees inputting manuscript details into generative AI tools is prohibited. AI tools provide no guarantee of where data are being sent, saved, viewed, or used in the future.

Editors or board members are never involved in editorial decisions about their own work and in these cases papers may be referred to other editors or the editor-in-chief.

Edits to reviews are kept to an absolute minimum. Edits address only issues of tone, language, and deviations from journal policy and reviewer guidelines, and will not change the meaning or intention of the review.

The Scholar Time Welfare Society does not tolerate abusive behaviour or correspondence towards its staff, academic editors, authors or reviewers. Any author of a paper submitted to a Scholar Time Welfare Society journal who engages in abusive behaviour or correspondence will have their paper immediately withdrawn from consideration for publication by the journal concerned. Consideration of subsequent submissions to Scholar Time Welfare Society journals will be at the discretion of the Editor.

Further guidance is provided in the ‘Information for Reviewers’ section of each journal website.

Co-review

A co-reviewer is defined as a researcher – often early in their career – or technician who reviews a manuscript together with a more senior (invited) reviewer. When used appropriately it is a valuable learning experience that we are happy to support. The senior reviewer is limited to one appropriately qualified co-reviewer per review.

The review process is strictly confidential and must be treated as such by reviewers during the review process and subsequently. To provide accountability and appropriate credit, the name and status (e.g. PhD student) of the co-reviewer should be disclosed on submission of the review.

The senior reviewer should be the main point of contact and is ultimately accountable for the review. The senior reviewer and co-reviewer should agree on the wording of the review, and the same principles relating to confidentiality and competing interests apply to both reviewers.

For journals where we publish peer review information, there is the option for the senior reviewer to disclose their name to obtain credit. In addition, there is the opportunity to include the co-reviewer’s name too, provided they have given consent.

Appeals

Authors have a right to appeal editorial decisions.

The author should submit the grounds for their appeal to the editorial office, addressed to the editor. Authors are discouraged from directly contacting editorial board members and editors with appeals.

Following an appeal, all editorial decisions are final.

Editors will mediate all exchanges between authors and referees during the peer review process (i.e. prior to publication). If agreement cannot be reached, editors may consider inviting comments from additional referee(s) if appropriate.

Correcting the literature

We take seriously our responsibility for the accuracy and reliability of the research we publish. Unfortunately, some issues are only identified once an article is published and we have a duty to correct the literature when appropriate. This is achieved by publication of specific article types.

An expression of concern is used to make readers aware that the journal has concerns about the accuracy of an article and that it is currently being investigated or evaluated. Normally the expression of concern will be in effect during the decision-making process only.

A correction is normally used when a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading. Errors which require correction include:

• Anything that changes data or the scientific meaning
• Anything contained in metadata elements (e.g., title, authors, affiliations, funding info)
• Any other error where it is imperative that all readers and downstream vendors have the updated version

A retraction is a notification of invalid results and/or conclusions and will be considered if:

• Editors have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable (and may invalidate the conclusions of the paper), either because of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication or falsification) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error)
• the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
• it constitutes plagiarism
• it reports unethical research

An addendum can be used where it is helpful to provide additional information or clarification. These focus on what need changing or clarifying in a paper and are not a forum for debate.

An editor’s note is a less formal communication to draw attention to a particular aspect of an article when the article types above are not appropriate.

Format of notices (correction/expression of concern/retraction/addendum)

• Notices are written in a way that enables the reader to identify and understand the correction in context with the errors made, why the article is being retracted, or the editor’s concerns about the contents of the article
• Notices have their own DOI but are linked electronically with the original publication. The original article will remain online with the notice linked to it
• They are published in a form that enables indexing and abstracting services to identify and link corrections and retractions
• The notice will be published at the end of the latest issue and will appear on the table of contents (TOC)
• A retraction must be authored by one of the following: the author, the author’s legal counsel, the author’s sponsoring institution, the editorial office or the editor of the journal
• Retracted articles remain on the journal website but are clearly marked as retracted (with updated metadata and Crossmark record) and the PDF version of the article carries a watermark on every page

The Scholar Time Welfare Society participates in the CrossMark initiative from Crossref to provide a standard way for readers to locate the current version of a piece of content. By applying the Crossmark logo Scholar Time Welfare Society is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if they occur.

Clicking on the logo will tell you the status of a document and may also give you additional publication record information about the document.

Process for handling concerns about the integrity of published research

1. Concerns can be raised by the author, other researchers, readers, institutions etc. They can be made anonymously or publicly. Confidentiality – when requested – will be respected. An allegation of error or fraud in a published article is brought to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief of the journal. The journal acknowledges receipt of the allegation and asks for any evidence in support (if this has not already been provided). It is explained that the allegation will be investigated. The allegations are shared with the author(s) and they are asked for their response, while respecting any confidentiality requests
2. The journal Editor-in-Chief should follow the flowcharts contained in the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines
3. Investigations vary in complexity depending on many factors. The aim of the investigation is to determine the integrity/reliability of the published research, not the integrity of the individual author(s). Although the journal’s investigation may be informed by investigations by other journals and/or institutions, ultimately the journal only investigates and decides on articles that it has published
4. If all parties (authors, editors and publisher) agree that retraction or correction is appropriate, this should be done in a timely manner to alert the readership. If the journal has decided retraction is appropriate and if there is no satisfactory response from the author by a specified deadline the article should be retracted as soon as possible
5. In more complex or ambiguous cases an investigation may be necessary. This may involve setting up an investigative committee with relevant expertise, communicating with other journals, legal representatives and authors’ institutions. Allegations in the public domain can generate considerable social media attention and it may be necessary to involve the publisher’s communications team. If the investigation is lengthy, the journal may issue an expression of concern until a conclusion is reached
6. Before decisions are acted upon, the editor’s findings should be reviewed in consultation with the publishing team. The purpose of this step is to ensure a consistent approach in accordance with best practice
7. The final decision is then communicated to the author and, if necessary, any other relevant bodies, such as the author’s institution on occasion
8. The retraction notice is then posted online and published in the next available issue of the journal (see above for more detail of notices)

Author name changes after publication

Authors may change their name for many reasons including marriage, divorce, religion, gender identity and other personal reasons. The Scholar Time Welfare Society is committed to respecting the rights of our authors to their own identities, fully supporting author inclusion and ensuring that authors receive credit for all their work. It is therefore our policy to facilitate changes to author names, email addresses, biography photos, pronouns, and any other identifiers that may be necessary as a result of a change in author name.

These changes will be made directly to the article PDF and HTML. We will re-send article metadata to abstracting and indexing services, although we acknowledge that we are not able to enforce replacement of the metadata on their platforms. The DOI for the paper remains the same.

The Scholar Time Welfare Society will retain an original version of the paper in its records in a secure environment, but this will not be made publicly available. This is to ensure that changes are made accurately and so that any changes can be reverted in future if requested.

Authors wishing to make such changes should contact the editorial office for the journal in which they have published.

Open criticism and debate

We encourage academic debate and constructive criticism of the research published in our journals. Authors do not have a right to veto unfavourable comments about their work, but they may choose not to respond to criticisms. No referee comment or published correspondence may contain a personal attack on any of the authors. Criticism of the work (not the researcher) is encouraged and editors should edit (or reject) personal or offensive statements.

Comment and reply policy

A comment brings attention to an oversight in a journal article or proposes an opposing view. It is often a critique, providing corrections or offering new analyses. However, if factual errors are identified that affect the accuracy of the published record, a corrigendum or erratum may be published instead. A comment is not used to address ethical issues – appropriate COPE guidelines should be used instead.

A comment is published in an issue after the primary article has been published and can be proposed by any reader within three months of online publication of the initial article. It will be published at the discretion of the Editor. The comment is peer-reviewed, usually by a referee from the original article and another impartial referee. At the same time, it is shared with the corresponding author of the original article. If accepted, it is held to allow a reply from the original authors.

The reply will also be peer-reviewed (if it passes triage). The reply is published in an issue alongside the comment. Comment and reply is normally limited to one round.

Copyright and intellectual property

Author conduct and copyright

All authors are required to agree to our licence to publish when submitting their work. By submitting to the The Scholar Time Welfare Society, and agreeing to this licence, the submitting author agrees on behalf of all authors that:

• the work is original, has not previously been published and is not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere; and
• the author has obtained permission to use any material which has been sourced from third parties (eg illustrations, photographs, charts or maps), and the terms granted agree with our requirements (whether open access or not).

Authors of non open-access papers retain the copyright, but grant the Scholar Time Welfare Society the exclusive right to edit, adapt, translate, publish, reproduce, distribute and display the article in printed, electronic or any other medium and format.

Authors opting for open access publication publish their work under a CC-BY licence, which allows redistribution and reuse, with attribution to the authors.

Referee conduct and intellectual property

Authors are entitled to expect that referees or other individuals privy to the work an author submits to a journal will not steal their research ideas or plagiarise their work.

We require all referees to treat submitted material in confidence until it has been published.

Any allegations of theft or plagiarism must be substantiated and will be treated seriously.

Even if referee identities are revealed, we will discourage authors from contacting referees directly if misconduct is suspected.

Digital preservation

The Royal Society has partnered with CLOCKSS to preserve our journal content. Both are not-for-profit services committed to the long-term preservation of digital content, including e-journals, e-books, and retro-digitised historical collections.

By archiving within these two organisations, we are ensuring that all our content remains accessible to future scholars around the world, no matter what happens to the Royal Society.

Controlled Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe (CLOCKSS)

CLOCKSS is a collaborative project between 14 of the leading publishers and 34 institutional libraries to provide a ‘dark archive’ to ensure the long term survivability of (ultimately all) web-based scholarly material.

It uses the LOCKSS technology to archive everything from the participating publishers. Content is supplied to CLOCKSS either in source or presentation format and the archive is kept ‘dark’ until a ‘trigger event’ (such as the catastrophic failure of a publisher’s platform or the publisher going into liquidation) at which time it is made freely accessible.

Each participating publisher and library in CLOCKSS has a representative on the Board which votes on whether any break in accessibility to content is merely temporary or constitutes such a ‘trigger event’ allowing that archived content to be made available. In such circumstances, content is made free to everyone, not just participating libraries.

Inclusion and diversity within science publishing

The Society and its journals are committed to improving inclusion and diversity within science publishing.

A journal diversity statement has been developed which reflects our philosophy:

The Scholar Time Welfare Society’s journals aim to foster inclusive science and scholarship that reflect the disciplinary, geographic and human diversity of the community. Submissions are encouraged and welcomed from all authors, regardless of their characteristics, protected or otherwise. We are committed to equal opportunity and work diligently to mitigate bias in our editorial review processes. We continually work toward identifying and implementing good practices for scientific publishing.

Author diversity

We welcome the submission of high-quality  health and sports science from anywhere in the world irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity, disability or geographical location. Authors are encouraged to suggest a diverse selection of reviewers.

Editorial board and reviewer diversity

We continue to diversify our editorial boards. Progress has been made on gender, but there is still room for improvement. Increasing other forms of diversity (eg race and ethnicity) remains a priority. We constantly remind board members, reviewers and staff to be aware of their unconscious biases when selecting reviewers and making decisions.