The Journal of Biochemical Technology is committed, at its core, to upholding the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct across every part of the publication process — from the moment a manuscript is submitted to the day it appears in print, and for as long as it remains part of the scientific record afterward. This commitment isn't something we treat as a formality; it's grounded firmly in leading international guidelines, most notably the principles set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), both of which we consult and follow closely whenever a question of ethics or conduct arises.
The journal's ethical framework rests on three pillars: transparency, so that decisions and processes can be understood and scrutinized rather than hidden away; accountability, so that every party involved answers for their role in the process; and the ongoing cultivation of trust among everyone who takes part in the scholarly process — authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher alike. We see these three pillars as inseparable: transparency without accountability is just disclosure, and accountability without trust rarely holds up over time.
1. The Foundation of Ethical Research and Publication
The journal strictly follows the ethical requirements for research involving human subjects, as laid out in the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. This document has served for decades as the cornerstone of ethical medical research worldwide, and we treat it as a non-negotiable baseline rather than a set of optional recommendations. Any manuscript submitted to this journal is expected to reflect that same standard, regardless of where the research was conducted or which national regulations applied locally.
Access and reference: For authors, reviewers, or readers who wish to consult the declaration directly, the full text is available at:
https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki/
2. Research Involving Human and Animal Subjects, and Vulnerable Populations
Compliance for human subjects: Any research involving human participants, human data, or human-derived materials must clearly demonstrate compliance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. This isn't limited to a passing mention in the methods section — authors are required to explicitly confirm that their study was reviewed and approved by an appropriate institutional ethics committee, such as an Institutional Review Board or its equivalent in their country, and to name that committee and its approval reference where applicable.
Informed consent: Documented, written informed consent from all human participants — or from their legal guardians, where the participant is unable to consent themselves — is mandatory, not optional, and must be explicitly stated in the manuscript itself. Reviewers and editors will look for this statement specifically, and its absence is treated as a serious gap rather than a minor oversight.
Policy for vulnerable populations: The journal recognizes that some studies necessarily involve participants who are particularly susceptible to coercion or undue influence — children, patients living with cognitive disabilities, incarcerated individuals, or people residing in institutional care, among others. Because these participants often cannot advocate for themselves in the same way other adults can, we ask for a higher level of documentation and scrutiny whenever such groups are involved. Specifically, for research involving these populations, authors must provide:
A specific ethical justification explaining why it was necessary to include this particular vulnerable group in the study, rather than a less vulnerable population.
A detailed account of the actual procedures used to obtain informed assent from the participant themselves, wherever that is developmentally or clinically possible, in addition to informed consent from a legally authorized representative.
A clear description of the concrete measures taken to safeguard the privacy, dignity, and broader rights of these participants throughout the study.
Animal subjects: Research involving animals must conform to both institutional and national animal welfare guidelines, whichever are more stringent. Authors must confirm that every procedure was specifically designed to minimize distress, pain, and suffering to the animals involved, and that the full protocol was reviewed and approved in advance by a relevant institutional ethics or animal care committee.
3. Handling Misconduct, Corrections, and Retractions
The journal maintains a firm, structured policy for addressing allegations of publication malpractice, one that follows the COPE Core Practices and Guidelines closely rather than improvising a response case by case. We believe a predictable, consistent process protects everyone involved — the accused as much as the accuser — far better than ad hoc decision-making would.
Publication malpractice (as defined by COPE): This covers a fairly broad range of behavior, including but not limited to data fabrication, data falsification, plagiarism, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and duplicate or redundant submission of the same work to more than one venue. Any credible allegation touching on these areas triggers a formal investigation.
Corrections policy: If a published article turns out to contain a significant error — one that doesn't, however, compromise the overall scientific validity of its findings — the journal will issue a formal Correction Notice rather than simply editing the article quietly. This notice is prominently and permanently linked to the original article, and it clearly and specifically describes both the nature of the error and exactly what correction was made, so that anyone reading the article later understands its full history.
Retractions policy: Articles may be retracted altogether in more serious cases — confirmed research misconduct such as fabrication or plagiarism, or major ethical breaches that undermine confidence in the work. When this happens, a formal Retraction Notice is published, clearly stating the grounds on which the article was retracted, and this notice remains permanently visible on the article's page rather than being quietly removed from the record.
Roles in a misconduct investigation: Allegations of misconduct are investigated in line with COPE guidelines, following a defined sequence rather than an arbitrary one. The Publisher and the Editors share joint responsibility for launching an investigation once a credible concern is raised, for contacting the authors' home institution where that becomes necessary, and for taking whatever action the findings warrant — whether that turns out to be a correction, a retraction, or, in cases where the concern doesn't hold up, no action at all.
4. Responsibilities of Stakeholders
Ethical publishing depends on every party doing their part — no single stakeholder can guarantee integrity alone. The table below sets out what we expect from each:
|
Stakeholder |
Key ethical responsibility |
|
Publisher |
Ensures editorial decisions remain independent of any commercial or political pressure, and takes responsibility for protecting the integrity of the academic record over time through corrections, retractions, and consistent, unwavering transparency. |
|
Editors |
Responsible for running a fair, unbiased, and timely review process for every submission. Must declare any conflicts of interest before handling a manuscript, protect the confidentiality of both authors and reviewers throughout, and ensure that every decision rests solely on scientific merit and on COPE guidelines — never on personal or institutional considerations. |
|
Reviewers |
Must maintain strict confidentiality about the manuscripts they review, provide feedback that is genuinely objective and constructive rather than dismissive or self-serving, declare any conflicts of interest before agreeing to review, and alert the handling editor promptly to any ethical concerns or suspected overlap with other published work. |
|
Authors |
Must present data accurately and completely, cite all relevant prior work, disclose any conflicts of interest openly, and ensure their work fully complies with the journal's ethical standards — including securing ethical approval and informed consent before submission, not after the fact. |
5. Authorship, Originality, and Data Integrity
Originality and plagiarism: All submissions must represent original, unpublished work. This applies not only to wholesale copying but also to more subtle forms of self-plagiarism, where authors recycle substantial portions of their own previously published text without disclosure.
Authorship criteria (ICMJE): Authorship must be based on substantial intellectual contribution, as defined by ICMJE criteria — not simply seniority, funding, or institutional affiliation. Any change to the author list, whether adding, removing, or reordering names, requires the written consent of every author involved, submitted to the editorial office before the change is made.
Data availability and integrity: Authors must be prepared to provide access to relevant source data upon reasonable request from editors, reviewers, or readers, so that others have a genuine ability to verify and reproduce the research. Refusing such requests without adequate justification may itself be treated as a red flag during review.
Use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools: Authors must disclose the use of any such tools in the preparation of their manuscript — whether for drafting text, analyzing data, generating figures, or any other substantive contribution to the work — so that readers and reviewers have a complete and honest picture of how the manuscript was produced.
Harassment Policy
The journal holds a zero-tolerance policy toward harassment or discrimination directed at authors, reviewers, editors, or staff, in any form and at any stage of the publication process. Concerns raised under this policy are taken seriously and addressed promptly.
