Publication Ethics Statement
Publication ethics
The journal and its editorial board fully adhere to and comply with the policies and principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Ethical Guidelines for Research Involving Living Organisms
For studies involving animals, plants, or other living organisms, it is essential to ensure compliance with ethical standards and legal requirements. This includes securing all necessary permits for research, collection, and the extraction or use of genetic resources from the study location. Documentation of these permissions should be included in the manuscript to demonstrate adherence to local, national, and international regulations.
Research involving animals must follow protocols approved by institutional or regional ethics committees to ensure humane and ethical treatment. Similarly, studies on plants or other living organisms must comply with conservation laws and ethical guidelines, ensuring minimal environmental impact during sample collection and handling. These measures safeguard biodiversity and uphold ethical research practices.
Duties of the editors
Publication decisions
The Editorial Board of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. In making this decision, the members of the Editorial Board consider the recommendations of the peer reviewers and are constrained by legal requirements relating to libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editorial decisions are not influenced by the origin of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race or religion of the authors.
Confidentiality, disclosure and conflicts of interest
During the review process, editors should not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisors. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in the research of the editor, peer reviewers, or other readers without the express written consent of the author. Readers should be informed who funded the research or other scholarly work and what role, if any, the funders played in the research and its publication.
Relations with authors
The editors are committed to ensuring that peer review in the journal is fair, impartial and timely. The journal has established guidelines for the handling of submissions from editorial board members to ensure impartial review. Instructions to authors provide guidance on the criteria for authorship.
Relations with reviewers
The journal encourages reviewers to comment on ethical issues and potential misconduct raised by submitted papers (e.g. unethical research design and inappropriate manipulation of data), and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism. Reviewers' comments should be sent to authors in full, unless they contain offensive or defamatory remarks. Reviewers' contributions to the journal will be regularly acknowledged and reviewers who consistently produce rude, poor quality or late reviews will not be used.
Quality assurance
Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognising that different sections have different aims and standards. Editors should ensure that the research they publish has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee or institutional review board) where one exists. Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with their publishers to address potential violations of laws and conventions. Errors, inaccuracies or misleading statements should be corrected promptly and with appropriate prominence.
Duties of Reviewers
Contributing to editorial decisions
Reviewers assist the editorial board in making editorial decisions. Reviews should be conducted in an objective manner, and comments should be clearly stated with supporting arguments so that the authors can use them to improve the article. Personal criticism of the author is not appropriate.
Reviewer qualifications
Any selected reviewer who does not feel qualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, or who knows that a timely review will be impossible, should inform the editor and excuse him/herself from the review process. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the journal.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. References to the ideas of others should be accompanied by the appropriate citation. Reviewers should also bring to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and other published work of which they have personal knowledge.
Authors' obligations
Reporting standards
Authors of original research reports should provide an accurate description of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data should be accurately reported in the article. Authors should be willing to provide public access to the raw data associated with the work and to retain it for at least two years after publication. Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Originality, plagiarism and concurrent publication
Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original and that all work and/or words of others are properly acknowledged. Plagiarism in any form is unethical editorial behaviour and is unacceptable. Simultaneous submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical editorial behaviour and is unacceptable.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of funding for the project should be declared.
Authorship of the document
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the article and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and agree to its submission for publication. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as collaborators.
Major errors in published work
If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the published work, he/she has an obligation to notify the editor of the journal immediately and to work with the editor to retract or correct the article.
Peer review process
All manuscripts are peer-reviewed and are expected to meet the standards of academic excellence. If accepted by the Editor, manuscripts are reviewed by peer reviewers whose identities remain anonymous to the authors and, conversely, the authors' identities remain anonymous to the reviewers (double-blind peer review). The decision to accept or reject a manuscript is made by the Editorial Board based on the recommendations of the reviewers (peer review process).
Occasionally, our Research Integrity team will seek advice outside the standard peer review process, for example in the case of proposals with serious ethical, safety, biosafety, biosecurity or societal implications. We may consult with experts and the scientific editor before deciding on appropriate action, including but not limited to the recruitment of reviewers with specific expertise, evaluation by additional reviewers, and refusal of further consideration of a submission.
Plagiarism
The journal has a strict policy against plagiarism and will not tolerate the use of another's ideas, words or work without attribution. Submissions containing total or partial plagiarism, duplicate and redundant publication, or self-plagiarism (in the same or a different language) will be rejected. The preprint file is not considered a duplicate publication. The corresponding author is responsible for the manuscript during and after the evaluation and publication process, and is authorised to act on behalf of all co-authors. All submitted manuscripts will be checked for plagiarism using professional plagiarism checking software. Manuscripts submitted with an unacceptable similarity index resulting in plagiarism will be rejected immediately.
Preprint policy
Authors are free to share their preprint anywhere and anytime. If accepted for publication, we encourage authors to link from the preprint to their formal publication using their Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Authors can update their preprint on arXiv or RePEc, etc. with their accepted manuscript.
Protecting the privacy of patients
Identifying data should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, ultrasound scans, CT scans, etc., or pedigrees, unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or his/her parents or guardian, if applicable) gives informed consent for publication. Authors should remove patient names from figures unless informed consent has been obtained from the patient. The journal adheres to the ICMJE guidelines:
- Authors, not journals or publishers, should obtain and retain the patient consent form prior to publication. Consent forms should not be uploaded with the cover letter or emailed to the publisher or editor.
- If the manuscript contains images of patients that preclude anonymity or a description that clearly indicates the patient's identity, a statement about obtaining the patient's informed consent should be included in the manuscript.
Research ethics and informed consent
Human and animal studies
If the work involves the use of human subjects, the author should ensure that the work described has been carried out in accordance with the World Medical Association Code of Ethics for Experiments on Human Subjects (Declaration of Helsinki). The manuscript should conform to the Recommendations for the Conduct, Submission, Editing and Publication of Scientific Work in Medical Journals and should seek to include representative human populations (sex, age and ethnicity) according to these recommendations. The terms sex and gender should be used correctly.
Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent for human experimentation has been obtained. The privacy rights of human subjects should always be respected.
All animal experiments must comply with the ARRIVE guidelines and be carried out in accordance with the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and associated guidelines, the EU Directive 2010/63/EU on animal experiments or the National Research Council Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, and authors should clearly state in the manuscript that these guidelines have been followed. The sex of the animals and, where appropriate, the influence (or association) of sex on the results of the study should be stated.
Special topics
Special Issue topics are determined by the Neotropical Biodiversity Editorial Team and are usually published annually. Submissions for special issues follow the same process and guidelines for authors as submissions for any issue. Prospective authors are encouraged to review all submission guidelines and follow the process outlined. Special issue topics are determined by the editorial team and a call for special issue submissions is usually included in the current year's special issue publication.
Appointment of guest editors
Guest editors for special issues are selected based on their expertise, academic reputation and previous editorial experience. Potential guest editors may be nominated by the journal's Editorial Board, by current editors, or on their own initiative. Nominations are reviewed by the journal's Editorial Board and approved by the Editor-in-Chief. Guest Editors are responsible for defining the scope of the special issue, writing the call for papers, managing the submission of manuscripts, overseeing the peer review process, ensuring quality and originality, and making final decisions on manuscript acceptance in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief.
Initiating special issues
To initiate a special issue, a detailed proposal must be submitted, including the topic, objectives, target audience, potential guest editors and a timetable. The proposal will be reviewed and approved by the journal's Editorial Board and the Editor-in-Chief. Once approved, the call for papers is announced and promoted through various channels. A clear timetable for manuscript submission, peer review and publication are established to ensure that the special issue fits into the journal's regular publication schedule.
Editorial and review process
Manuscripts for special issues are submitted through the journal's online submission system and are initially screened by guest editors to ensure that they fit the scope and meet basic quality standards. Manuscripts then undergo a double-blind peer review process in which reviewers are selected based on their expertise. Authors revise their manuscripts based on the reviewers' comments and resubmit them for further review if necessary. Guest editors recommend acceptance or rejection of manuscripts, with final approval by the Editor-in-Chief. Accepted manuscripts will be formatted, proofed and published according to the journal's guidelines. The special issue is promoted through the journal's distribution channels, and post-publication metrics and comments are monitored to inform future special issues.
Publication schedule and review process
Submissions to Neotropical Biodiversity are accepted on a rolling basis and should follow the requested submission types and the full author guidelines detailed in the author instructions. Regular issues are published once a year, and special issues are published according to institutional needs, as detailed in the special issues production section. Submissions will be considered for publication in an upcoming issue as soon as they are deemed ready for publication, not necessarily based on the date of submission. All issues of Neotropics Biodiversity, including special issues, follow the same editorial and peer-review process and adhere to the guidelines outlined here. We encourage you to submit your articles.
Reporting standards
Research should be reported in a way that supports verification and reproducibility, so we encourage authors to provide comprehensive descriptions of the rationale, protocol, methodology and analysis of their research.
Use of third-party material
Authors must obtain the necessary permissions to reuse third-party material in the article. The use of brief text excerpts and other types of material is generally permitted on a limited basis for the purposes of criticism and review, without the need for formal permission. If authors wish to include material in their article for which they do not hold the copyright and which is not covered by this informal agreement, they must obtain written permission from the copyright holder prior to submission. For more information on requesting permission to reproduce copyrighted material, please email neotropical.biodiversity@ikiam.edu.ec.
Use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in writing
Authors incorporating AI and AI-assisted technologies into their writing process should do so with the intention of improving readability and language, rather than replacing essential authoring tasks such as generating scientific, educational or medical knowledge, drawing scientific conclusions or making clinical recommendations. The use of this technology must always be under human supervision and control, and all work must be carefully reviewed and edited. AI may produce content that appears authoritative but may be incorrect, incomplete or biased. Authors are ultimately responsible for the content they produce.
Authors should be open about their use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in their manuscripts, and a statement to that effect will be included in the published work. This transparency fosters trust between authors, readers, reviewers, editors and contributors, and ensures compliance with the terms of use of the relevant tools or technologies.
Authors should refrain from attributing authorship to the AI or including it as a co-author. Authorship carries with it responsibilities and tasks that can only be performed by humans. Each author is responsible for answering questions about the accuracy or completeness of any part of the paper, and for approving the final version of the paper and consenting to its submission. Authors are also responsible for ensuring the originality of the work, that the listed authors meet the criteria for authorship, and that the work does not infringe the rights of others.
Use of AI in peer review
To protect authors' rights and research confidentiality, this journal does not currently allow the use of GenAI or AI-assisted technologies such as ChatGPT or similar services for peer review (see our GenAI reviewer policy). We are actively evaluating compatible AI tools and may revise this policy in the future.
GenAI Reviewer Policy
The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the journal's peer review process.
This policy has been prompted by the rise of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies* and is intended to provide greater transparency and guidance to authors, editors and reviewers. Elsevier will closely monitor developments in this area and will adjust or refine the policy as necessary. The following guidelines are specifically for reviewers.
When a researcher is invited to review the work of another, the manuscript should be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers should not upload a submitted manuscript, or any part of it, into a generative AI tool, as this may violate the confidentiality and proprietary rights of the authors and, if the document contains personally identifiable information, may violate privacy rights.
This confidentiality requirement extends to the peer review report, as it may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, reviewers should not upload their peer review report to an AI tool, if only to improve language and readability.
Peer review is at the heart of the scientific ecosystem and Elsevier is committed to the highest standards of integrity in this process. Reviewing a scientific manuscript is a responsibility that can only be undertaken by humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by reviewers to assist in the scientific review of an article, as the critical thinking and original assessment required for peer review are beyond the scope of this technology and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The content of the review report is the responsibility of the reviewer.
The Neotropical Biodiversity AI policy for authors states that authors may use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process prior to submission, but only to improve the language and readability of their article, and with appropriate disclosure, according to our instructions in the Elsevier Guide for Authors (opens in new tab/window). Reviewers will find this information at the end of the article, in a separate section before the reference list.
Please note that Neotropical Biodiversity owns proprietary AI technologies that comply with the RELX Responsible AI Principles (opens in new tab/window) , e.g. those used in the screening process to perform completeness and plagiarism checks and to identify appropriate reviewers. These proprietary or licensed technologies respect the confidentiality of authors. Our programmes undergo rigorous bias assessment and comply with privacy and security requirements.
Neotropical Biodiversity is adopting new AI-based technologies to assist reviewers and editors in the editorial process, and we continue to develop and adopt proprietary or licensed technologies that respect the confidentiality and privacy rights of authors, reviewers and editors.
*Generative AI is a type of artificial intelligence technology that can produce different types of content, such as text, images, audio and synthetic data. Some examples are ChatGPT, NovelAI, Jasper AI, Rytr AI, DALL-E, etc.
