Ethical Principles and Publication Policy

Fair play and editorial independence

  • Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (originality and clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content. 

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

  • Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. Editors follow the COPE Flowchartswhen dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If the investigation finds that the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.

Publication decisions

  • The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication to undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field.
  • The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments.
  • Such legal requirements are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
  • The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Contribution to editorial decisions

  • Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific endeavor.

Promptness

  • Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Standards of objectivity

  • Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Confidentiality

  • Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Acknowledgment of sources

  • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration.

Peer Review Process and Manuscript Processing Time

SAquaRes is an anonymous peer-reviewed open-access journal. 

  • All submitted papers undergo a peer review process with at least two anonymous reviewers who are experts in the field. During the review process, special care will be given to ensure scientific validity, technical accuracy in materials and methods, explanatory results, ethical soundness and transparency, acceptable practice in terms of animal and human ethical guidelines of the country where the study was conducted, consent to publish, and declaration of conflicts of interests, if any.
  • Authors are obliged to participate in the peer-review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents, and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
  • Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of SAquaRes and manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.
  • Once an article has been submitted to the journal, the Editor first evaluates the topic of the study and whether the paper is within the scope of the journal. After considering that the paper meets minimum editorial standards, a minimum of two external peer reviewers will be assigned.
  • Those that pass are then assigned to a Associate Editor and/or Section Editor for consideration for sending for peer review. Authors of manuscripts rejected at initial evaluation stage will normally be informed within 1 week of receipt.
  • When assigned a new submission, the Editor will decide if it warrants peer review or if it should be rejected without review. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious conceptual and/or methodological flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal.
  • Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within 15 days of assignment to the editor.
  • Feedback is provided by the Editor for all manuscripts rejected without review and, where possible, suggestions are made on other suitable publication outlets.
  • Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise, and our referee database is constantly being updated. We welcome suggestions for reviewers from authors, though these recommendations may or may not be used.
  • Reviewers are asked to evaluate a manuscript for: Originality and significance of contribution, İnterest to aquatic  science and/or practitioners and coverage of appropriate existing literature etc. Please see the Reviewer Form.
  • Reviewers are asked to provide anonymous comments to the author and are also given the option of providing confidential comments to the editor.
  • Reviewers are not expected to correct or copy-edit manuscripts. Language correction is completed from the journal's Language editor during the peer review process
  • Authors are required to approve the proof before publishing.
  •  Should the reviewers' reports contradict one another or a report is unduly delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. If necessary, revised manuscripts may be returned to the initial reviewers, usually within 15 days. Reviewers and Co-Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript, and alternative reviewers may also be invited to review the manuscript at any time.
  • Please note we may forward accepted papers for legal review if appropriate.

The estimated time of manuscript processing

  • The average time during which the preliminary assessment of manuscripts is conducted is 7 days. The average time during which the reviews of manuscripts are conducted is 60 days. The average time in which the article is published is 75 days.

Duties of Authors

Originality and plagiarism

  • Authors should ensure that they have written and submitted only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
  • See also https://saquares.com/index.php/sar/plagiarismpolicy

 

Reporting standards

  • The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such.

Data access and retention

  • Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant, or concurrent submission/publication

  • Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.
  • The publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Authorship of the manuscript

  • The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
  • Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

  • Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript.
  • Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
  • Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies etc. related to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
  • All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

Acknowledgment of sources

  • Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from the conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source.
  • Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Automated Tools Policy

  • Sustainable Aquatic Research is committed to maintaining research integrity, transparency, and human oversight throughout the publication process. This policy defines the principles governing the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and other automated tools by authors, reviewers, and editors. It covers generative artificial intelligence systems, including large language models (LLMs) and chatbots, that create new content based on training data.
  • Authors must clearly disclose the use of artificial intelligence or automated tools in the preparation of their manuscript beyond basic language correction, editing, or formatting. Authors are fully responsible for verifying the validity and accuracy of any outputs generated by automated tools used in their research and manuscript preparation. Automated or AI-assisted tools cannot be listed as authors. Generative artificial intelligence tools cannot be cited as references.
  • Reviewers and editors must not use generative AI to produce peer review reports or editorial evaluations, due to risks such as confidentiality breaches, superficial or non-specific feedback, bias, hidden prompts, misinformation, and fabricated references. Limited use of AI for language editing or rephrasing may be acceptable only if explicitly disclosed. All peer review and editorial decisions must be based on human expertise and judgment.
  •  If automated tools are routinely used by the journal or publisher, their use will be transparently disclosed, and the tools must be appropriately tested and validated. The use of automated tools must occur under human supervision. Any automated detection of integrity-related issues—such as text similarity, image manipulation or duplication, undisclosed generative AI use, or automated reviewer suggestions—must be verified by an editor or authorized staff member.

Ethical Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research

  • Sustainable Aquatic Research endorses the ARRIVE guidelines (www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE) for reporting experiments using live animals. Authors and reviewers can use the ARRIVE guidelines as a checklist, which can be found at www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVEchecklist.
  • Manuscripts containing original research on animal subjects must have been approved by an ethical review committee. The project identification code, date of approval and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board must be cited in the Methods Section, as well as the first / last source of the article.
  • For research involving animals, any potentially derived benefits must be significant in relation to harm suffered by participating animals. Authors should particularly ensure that their research complies with the commonly accepted “3Rs”:
  • Replacement of animals by alternatives wherever possible,
  • Reduction in the number of animals used, and
  • Refinement of experimental conditions and procedures to minimize the harm to animals.

Statement of Human Rights

  • When reporting studies that involve human participants, authors should include the following statement:

Ethical approval: The studies have been approved by the appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee and have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards.

  • Authors must ensure that participants have formal consent and their privacy is protected. Or, for retrospective studies; a summary statement in the text of the manuscript should be included as follow:

Ethical approval: For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Fundamental errors in published works

  • It is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper.
  • If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation of the authors to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.
  • In the event that a journal’s publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in their journal, the editor follows COPE’s guidelines (or equivalent) in dealing with allegations.