Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

• Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

  The ethical policies of Sustainable Aquatic Research (SAquaRes) are established in accordance with the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available at publicationethics.org. The journal adheres to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors as well as the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers, ensuring that all editorial and publishing activities are conducted with integrity, transparency, and accountability.

  Fair Play and Editorial Independence

  All submitted manuscripts are assessed solely on their scholarly merit, including originality, scientific quality, clarity, and relevance to the aims and scope of the journal. Editorial decisions are made without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic background, nationality, religious beliefs, political views, or institutional affiliation of the authors.

  Editorial decisions remain entirely independent of any external influence. Neither governmental bodies nor other organizations have any role in determining whether a manuscript is accepted or published. 

  Involvement and Cooperation in Ethical Investigations

  When ethical issues or allegations of publication misconduct arise concerning a submitted or published manuscript, the editors, together with the publisher and/or the sponsoring society, will take appropriate and timely action. Every allegation of unethical publishing practice is investigated thoroughly, regardless of when it is reported, including cases identified long after publication.

  SAquaRes follows the COPE Flowcharts and relevant COPE guidance when handling suspected cases of research or publication misconduct. If an investigation confirms that an ethical breach has occurred, the journal will take appropriate corrective measures, which may include issuing a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or any other notice considered necessary to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

Publication Decisions

The editorial team ensures that every manuscript submitted to SAquaRes is evaluated through a rigorous peer-review process involving at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Editorial decisions are based on the scientific quality, originality, significance, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal's scope.

The Editors-in-Chief have the final authority over all editorial decisions after taking into account the recommendations of the handling editor and the peer reviewers. Decisions are made in accordance with applicable legal and ethical requirements, including those related to copyright, plagiarism, and defamation. When necessary, the Editors-in-Chief may consult additional editors or reviewers before reaching a final decision.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly publishing and scientific communication. It supports editors in making informed editorial decisions while providing authors with constructive feedback that helps improve the quality, clarity, and scientific value of their manuscripts.

Promptness

Invited reviewers who believe they do not possess the appropriate expertise or are unable to complete the review within the requested timeframe should promptly inform the editorial office and decline the invitation. This enables the editors to appoint alternative reviewers without unnecessary delays.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and professionally. Their comments should be supported by clear scientific reasoning and presented in a constructive manner to assist authors in improving their work. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate and unacceptable.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for peer review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, discuss, or share any part of a manuscript with others unless specifically authorized by the Editors-in-Chief under exceptional circumstances. This confidentiality obligation also applies to reviewers who decline an invitation after accessing the manuscript.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published studies that have not been cited by the authors and recommend appropriate references where necessary. They should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity, duplication, or overlap between the manuscript under review and previously published or submitted work of which they are aware.

Peer Review Process and Manuscript Processing

SAquaRes is an international, open-access journal that operates a double-anonymous peer-review system, in which both authors' and reviewers' identities remain confidential throughout the review process.

Each manuscript undergoes evaluation by at least two independent experts in the relevant discipline. During peer review, particular attention is given to:

• Scientific originality and significance;

• Methodological rigor and technical accuracy;

• Validity and clarity of the results and conclusions;

• Compliance with ethical standards for research involving humans or animals;

• Transparency of research methods and reporting;

• Declaration of conflicts of interest;

• Availability of ethical approval, informed consent, and copyright permissions where applicable.

Authors are expected to cooperate fully throughout the peer-review process by responding promptly to editorial requests for revisions, additional information, raw data, ethics approvals, informed consent documentation, or copyright permissions. When revisions are requested, authors should address each reviewer comment systematically and resubmit the revised manuscript within the specified deadline.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Following submission, manuscripts are first evaluated by the Editor to determine whether they fall within the aims and scope of the journal and satisfy the journal's minimum editorial and scientific standards.

Manuscripts failing to meet these requirements may be rejected without external review because of reasons including, but not limited to:

• Lack of originality;

• Major conceptual or methodological deficiencies;

• Poor language quality that prevents scientific evaluation;

• Insufficient relevance to the journal's scope.

Authors are generally notified of editorial rejections within 15 days, and whenever possible, constructive feedback and recommendations for alternative publication venues are provided.

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are assigned to an Associate Editor and/or Section Editor and subsequently sent to at least two external reviewers selected according to their subject expertise. Reviewer recommendations provided by authors may be considered but are not binding upon the editors.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on criteria including originality, scientific contribution, methodological quality, relevance to aquatic sciences, practical significance, and adequacy of the supporting literature.

Reviewers submit anonymous comments intended for the authors and may also provide confidential recommendations directly to the editors.

Reviewers are not responsible for language editing or copy-editing. Language corrections, when required, are handled by the journal's language editors during the editorial process.

If reviewer recommendations differ substantially or a review is significantly delayed, additional expert reviewers may be invited. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, and more than one round of revision may be requested before a final editorial decision is reached.

Before publication, authors are required to review and approve the final page proofs. When necessary, accepted manuscripts may also undergo legal review.

Estimated Manuscript Processing Time

Although processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript, the journal aims to maintain an efficient editorial workflow.

• Initial editorial assessment: approximately 7 days

• Peer-review process: approximately 60 days

• Average time from submission to publication: approximately 75 days

Duties of Authors

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors are responsible for submitting manuscripts that are entirely original. Whenever the ideas, data, figures, or words of others have been used, appropriate acknowledgment and citation must be provided.

Authors should cite all publications that have significantly influenced the reported research. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to, presenting another person's work as one's own, copying or closely paraphrasing substantial portions of published material without proper attribution, or misrepresenting previously published findings as original research.

SAquaRes considers all forms of plagiarism to constitute serious publication misconduct and will take appropriate editorial action in accordance with COPE recommendations.

For further information, please refer to the journal's Plagiarism Policy. https://saquares.com/index.php/sar/plagiarismpolicy

• Reporting Standards

  Authors should present their research accurately, clearly, and in sufficient detail to enable other researchers to replicate the study. Manuscripts should include appropriate references, complete methodological descriptions, and transparent reporting of results. Review articles are expected to provide balanced, objective, and comprehensive analyses of the existing literature, while editorials, commentaries, or opinion articles should be clearly identified as such.

  Data Availability and Retention

  Authors may be requested to provide the original data supporting the findings reported in their manuscript for editorial assessment. Where appropriate and feasible, authors are encouraged to make research data publicly available through recognized repositories or upon reasonable request, in accordance with ethical, legal, and institutional requirements. Authors should retain their original research data for an appropriate period after publication to facilitate verification if necessary.

  Multiple, Duplicate, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

  Manuscripts describing substantially the same research should not be submitted to or published in more than one journal or primary publication. Simultaneous submission of the same or closely related manuscripts to multiple journals constitutes unethical publishing practice and is not permitted.

  Secondary publication of certain article types, such as clinical guidelines, consensus statements, or authorized translations, may be acceptable provided that all involved journals approve the arrangement, the secondary publication accurately reflects the original work, and the primary publication is properly cited.

  Authorship and Contributorship

  The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all individuals who meet the journal's authorship criteria are appropriately listed as authors and that no individual who does not meet these criteria is included.

  Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the research by:

  • Contributing significantly to the conception, design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation of the study;

  • Drafting the manuscript or critically revising it for important intellectual content;

  • Approving the final version of the manuscript before submission; and

  • Accepting responsibility and accountability for the integrity and accuracy of the published work.

  All authors must agree to the submission and publication of the manuscript.

  Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

  Authors are required to disclose any financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the results or interpretation of their work. Conflict of interest declarations should be submitted during manuscript submission and included within the published article.

  All sources of financial support, including grant numbers and funding agencies where applicable, must also be disclosed.

  Reviewers and editors must likewise declare any conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality. Individuals with conflicts arising from competitive, collaborative, financial, institutional, or personal relationships should decline participation in the review or editorial process.

  Information obtained during peer review must remain strictly confidential and may not be used for personal, professional, or financial advantage.

  Acknowledgement of Sources

  Authors are responsible for appropriately acknowledging the work of other researchers and citing all publications that have substantially influenced the reported research.

  Information obtained through private communications, correspondence, confidential peer review, grant evaluations, or other privileged sources must not be used without the explicit written permission of the original source.

  Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Automated Tools Policy

  Sustainable Aquatic Research (SAquaRes) supports the responsible, transparent, and ethical use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies while maintaining full human accountability throughout the publication process.

  Authors must clearly disclose any use of generative AI or automated tools that contributed to the preparation of their manuscript beyond routine language editing, grammar correction, or formatting. Authors remain fully responsible for verifying the accuracy, originality, validity, and integrity of all content produced with AI assistance.

  Artificial intelligence systems, chatbots, or other automated tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot assume responsibility for published work or satisfy internationally accepted authorship criteria. Likewise, AI-generated content should not be cited as a scholarly reference.

  Editors and reviewers must not use generative AI systems to prepare peer-review reports or editorial decisions due to concerns regarding confidentiality, bias, fabricated information, inaccurate references, and loss of independent scientific judgment. Limited use of AI solely for language improvement may be acceptable when appropriately disclosed.

  Where automated technologies are employed by the journal or publisher—for example, plagiarism detection, image integrity screening, duplicate publication checks, reviewer recommendations, or AI-generated content detection—their use will remain under direct human supervision. Editorial decisions are made exclusively by qualified editors.

  Ethical Guidelines for Animal Research

  SAquaRes endorses the ARRIVE Guidelines for reporting research involving live animals.

  All studies involving experimental animals must have received prior approval from an appropriate institutional or national Animal Ethics Committee before the research begins. The manuscript must include the ethics committee name, approval number, approval date, and relevant institutional information within the Methods section.

  Authors are expected to conduct animal research in accordance with internationally recognized welfare standards and the principles of the 3Rs:

  • Replacement: Use alternatives to animals whenever scientifically possible.

  • Reduction: Use the minimum number of animals necessary to achieve valid scientific results.

  • Refinement: Design procedures that minimize pain, suffering, stress, and distress while maximizing animal welfare.

  Any expected scientific or societal benefits should clearly outweigh any potential harm to the animals involved.

  Research Involving Human Participants

  Research involving human participants must comply with internationally accepted ethical principles, including the Declaration of Helsinki, as well as applicable national regulations.

  Authors should include an ethics statement confirming that the study received approval from the appropriate institutional and/or national ethics committee and was conducted in accordance with recognized ethical standards.

  Participants must provide informed consent where required, and authors must ensure the protection of participants' privacy and confidentiality.

  For retrospective studies where formal informed consent is not required, authors should clearly state this within the manuscript together with the basis for the exemption.

  Corrections, Retractions, and Research Misconduct

  Authors have an ongoing responsibility to ensure the accuracy of their published work. If a significant error or inaccuracy is identified after publication, authors must promptly inform the editors and cooperate fully in issuing an appropriate correction, corrigendum, erratum, or retraction.

  If credible concerns regarding research misconduct, ethical violations, or major errors are raised by third parties, the editorial office will investigate the matter in accordance with COPE guidance and internationally recognized best practices.

  Where an investigation confirms that corrective action is warranted, the journal may publish a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other editorial notice necessary to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.