Publication Ethics | Food Systems, Safety & Sustainability

Food Systems, Safety & Sustainability (FSSS) is committed to maintaining the integrity, reliability, transparency, and accessibility of the scholarly record. Authors, editors, reviewers, Guest Editors, Editorial Board members, and publisher personnel are expected to conduct themselves honestly, responsibly, independently, and professionally throughout the submission, peer-review, publication, and post-publication processes.

The journal does not tolerate fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, duplicate submission, redundant publication, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unethical research, deceptive use of artificial intelligence, or other conduct that undermines the integrity of scholarly communication.

Publication-ethics concerns are assessed according to the available evidence, the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the reliability of the scholarly record, applicable legal and ethical requirements, and the journal’s published policies. The journal may seek clarification from authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, funders, repositories, regulators, or other relevant parties where necessary.

Core principle: All submitted and published work must be honest, original, ethically conducted, transparently reported, and supported by verifiable evidence.

Scope: This policy applies before submission, during peer review, after acceptance, and after publication.

Editorial action: Concerns may result in clarification, correction, rejection, withdrawal, expression of concern, retraction, institutional referral, or another proportionate response.

1. Ethical Responsibilities

All participants in the publication process share responsibility for maintaining scholarly integrity.

Authors

Authors are responsible for:

the originality, accuracy, completeness, and legality of the submitted work;
the integrity of the research design, data, methods, analysis, images, references, and conclusions;
obtaining all necessary ethical approvals, permissions, registrations, licences, and informed consent;
ensuring that all listed authors satisfy the journal’s authorship criteria;
disclosing funding, competing interests, prior dissemination, related manuscripts, and relevant use of artificial intelligence;
preserving research records and providing supporting materials when reasonably requested;
responding honestly and promptly to editorial questions or integrity concerns; and
notifying the journal when a significant error is discovered in submitted or published work.

Editors

Editors are responsible for:

evaluating manuscripts fairly, independently, and consistently;
protecting the confidentiality of submissions and peer review;
selecting appropriately qualified and independent reviewers;
declaring and managing conflicts of interest;
avoiding discrimination based on irrelevant personal or institutional characteristics;
responding appropriately to suspected misconduct or significant error;
maintaining editorial independence from commercial and financial considerations;
documenting significant editorial decisions and investigations; and
taking proportionate action to protect the scholarly record.

Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for:

providing objective, evidence-based, constructive, and timely assessments;
accepting assignments only where they possess suitable expertise;
disclosing relevant conflicts of interest;
maintaining manuscript confidentiality;
not using unpublished information for personal, professional, academic, or commercial advantage;
not delegating reviews without prior editorial approval;
not uploading confidential material to unauthorised artificial-intelligence systems;
avoiding coercive or irrelevant citation requests; and
reporting suspected ethical or integrity concerns confidentially to the editor.

Publisher

Panorama Scholarly Group supports the journal by maintaining appropriate publishing infrastructure, editorial independence, transparent policies, preservation arrangements, and procedures for handling corrections, retractions, complaints, appeals, and research-integrity concerns.

The publisher must not improperly influence the acceptance or rejection of an individual manuscript for financial, commercial, institutional, political, or personal reasons.

2. Originality

Submitted manuscripts must represent original scholarly work. Authors must distinguish clearly between:

their own original contributions;
material derived from previously published sources;
work previously disseminated by the same authors;
third-party data, methods, images, instruments, or intellectual property; and
content produced or materially assisted by artificial-intelligence systems.

Originality does not require that every concept, method, or dataset be entirely new. It requires that the manuscript make a genuine scholarly contribution, represent its novelty accurately, acknowledge prior work appropriately, and not mislead readers concerning the source or status of its content.

3. Plagiarism

Plagiarism includes presenting another person’s words, ideas, methods, data, images, results, translations, arguments, or creative work as one’s own without appropriate attribution.

Prohibited conduct includes:

verbatim copying without quotation and citation;
close paraphrasing that reproduces the structure or expression of a source without adequate attribution;
appropriation of ideas, hypotheses, methods, or analytical frameworks;
copying tables, figures, photographs, maps, diagrams, or datasets without permission or acknowledgement;
submitting another person’s manuscript under different authorship;
publishing a translation of an existing work as an original publication without disclosure and authorisation;
using material obtained through confidential peer review, grant review, employment, supervision, or private communication; and
using artificial intelligence to conceal or rephrase plagiarised material.

Accurate citation alone may not be sufficient where substantial text has been copied without quotation or where the new manuscript does not provide an independent scholarly contribution.

4. Similarity Screening

Submitted manuscripts may be examined using similarity-detection software, reference-analysis tools, image-analysis tools, manual review, or other research-integrity procedures.

A similarity percentage is not treated as automatic proof of plagiarism or as the sole basis for an editorial decision. Editors consider:

the source and nature of the overlap;
whether the material is quoted and attributed;
whether the overlap concerns standard methodological language;
the extent and location of the copied material;
whether the overlap affects originality or copyright;
whether previous work by the same authors has been disclosed; and
whether the manuscript may mislead readers about its novelty.

The journal may request revision, clarification, source documents, or an explanation. Serious or intentional plagiarism may result in rejection, retraction, institutional notification, or another appropriate action.

5. Text Recycling and Self-Plagiarism

Authors must not reuse substantial portions of their own previously published text, data, analysis, figures, or conclusions without appropriate citation and disclosure.

Limited overlap may be acceptable where:

standard methodological language cannot reasonably be expressed in a materially different way;
the earlier source is cited;
the reuse does not infringe copyright;
the overlap does not conceal redundant publication; and
the new manuscript provides a substantial and clearly identifiable contribution.

Substantial reuse in the Introduction, Results, Discussion, or Conclusion normally requires stronger justification than limited methodological overlap.

6. Duplicate Submission

A manuscript must not be submitted simultaneously to FSSS and another journal, book, edited collection, conference proceeding, or publishing platform that conducts a competing publication process.

The corresponding author must confirm that:

the manuscript is not under active consideration elsewhere;
all authors have approved submission to FSSS;
any closely related manuscripts have been disclosed; and
the journal will be notified promptly if the submission status changes.

Duplicate submission may result in administrative closure or rejection. The journal may contact another publication or the authors’ institutions where coordinated investigation is necessary.

7. Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Authors must not publish substantially the same study, dataset, analysis, findings, or conclusions in more than one publication without transparent disclosure and legitimate scholarly justification.

Redundant publication may involve:

republishing the same article under a different title;
submitting an altered or translated version without identifying the original publication;
reusing substantially the same dataset and conclusions without explaining the relationship between publications;
concealing a prior report, conference paper, chapter, or article;
presenting a previously published analysis as a new study; or
dividing one coherent study into multiple minimally differentiated papers.

Secondary publication may be considered only where it is ethically and legally justified, approved by the relevant editors and copyright holders, transparently labelled, and clearly linked to the primary publication.

8. Fragmented or “Salami” Publication

Authors should not divide a single research project into multiple manuscripts where each paper provides only a minor, incomplete, or artificially separated contribution.

Multiple publications from the same project may be legitimate where:

each manuscript addresses a distinct and substantial research question;
the relationship among the manuscripts is disclosed;
overlapping methods and datasets are cited transparently;
results are not duplicated or selectively divided to exaggerate productivity; and
readers can understand the complete research context.

9. Preprints and Prior Dissemination

Posting a manuscript on a recognised non-commercial preprint server does not normally prevent submission to FSSS.

Authors must disclose:

the preprint title;
the server or repository;
the persistent identifier or URL;
the relationship between the preprint and submitted manuscript; and
any relevant comments, revisions, or public discussion affecting interpretation of the work.

After publication, authors should update the preprint record to include the complete citation and DOI of the Version of Record.

Prior presentation as a thesis, dissertation, conference abstract, poster, presentation, institutional report, working paper, or policy document does not automatically prevent submission, but the prior dissemination must be disclosed and the journal submission must provide a substantial scholarly contribution.

10. Fabrication

Fabrication means inventing data, observations, participants, samples, interviews, experiments, images, references, results, or other research material and presenting it as genuine.

Examples include:

inventing participant responses or laboratory measurements;
creating non-existent experimental results;
reporting fictional fieldwork, interviews, organisations, or case studies;
generating synthetic data and presenting it as empirical data without disclosure;
inventing references, quotations, ethical approvals, grant numbers, or registry records;
creating false images or documentation; and
using artificial intelligence to produce fictitious evidence.

Fabrication is considered serious research misconduct.

11. Falsification

Falsification includes manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, data, images, methods, analyses, or records so that the research is represented inaccurately.

Examples include:

altering or omitting data to obtain a preferred result;
changing inclusion or exclusion criteria after examining outcomes without disclosure;
selectively removing observations or experimental runs;
misrepresenting sample sizes or response rates;
altering dates, locations, participant characteristics, or laboratory conditions;
misreporting statistical analyses or model performance;
concealing adverse events, null findings, or contradictory evidence;
misrepresenting the provenance of data or materials; and
altering images in a way that changes their scientific meaning.

12. Selective Reporting

Authors must report findings completely and must not suppress, omit, recategorise, or emphasise results solely according to whether they are favourable, statistically significant, commercially useful, politically convenient, or consistent with a preferred conclusion.

Authors should disclose:

prespecified primary and secondary outcomes;
all material changes to the protocol or analysis plan;
exploratory and post hoc analyses;
negative and null findings relevant to the research question;
missing data and exclusions;
adverse or unintended outcomes;
sensitivity and robustness analyses; and
limitations and uncertainty affecting interpretation.

13. Data Integrity and Research Records

Authors must maintain accurate and sufficiently complete records of the research.

Relevant records may include:

raw and processed data;
laboratory notebooks;
survey instruments and interview guides;
transcripts and coding records;
statistical code and software configurations;
model parameters and training procedures;
image files and acquisition metadata;
sampling and chain-of-custody records;
ethics approvals and consent documentation;
protocols and registrations;
permissions and licences;
quality-control records; and
documentation of material research decisions.

The journal may request relevant records where necessary to evaluate the manuscript or investigate an integrity concern. Authors should respond within a reasonable period and explain any legitimate restriction on disclosure.

Failure to provide material supporting evidence may affect editorial assessment, particularly where the reliability of the work cannot otherwise be established.

14. Data Availability and Reproducibility

Authors must provide a Data Availability Statement. Where legally, ethically, and practically possible, supporting data, code, protocols, models, and research materials should be deposited in a trusted repository.

Restrictions may be justified where data involve:

personal privacy or confidentiality;
ethical-consent limitations;
Indigenous, traditional, or community-governed knowledge;
commercially confidential information;
legal or contractual restrictions;
food-security, biosecurity, or public-safety risks;
protected locations or endangered resources; or
third-party ownership.

Restrictions must be described honestly. Authors must not claim that data are available when access cannot reasonably be provided under the stated conditions.

15. Image Integrity

Images must accurately represent the original data or observation.

Authors must not:

add, remove, move, duplicate, or conceal image features;
splice images without clear separation and explanation;
apply selective enhancement to only part of an image;
alter contrast, brightness, colour, or sharpness in a way that changes interpretation;
reuse the same image to represent different samples, conditions, experiments, or time points;
present stock, illustrative, simulated, or AI-generated images as experimental evidence;
remove relevant background or artefacts without disclosure; or
misrepresent scale, orientation, magnification, or acquisition conditions.

Adjustments applied uniformly to an entire image may be acceptable where they improve clarity without changing the underlying information. Material processing must be described in the manuscript.

The journal may request original, unprocessed image files and associated metadata.

16. Statistical and Analytical Integrity

Statistical, qualitative, computational, economic, environmental, and modelling analyses must be selected and reported honestly.

Authors must not:

select analyses solely to obtain a preferred result;
misrepresent exploratory analysis as prespecified analysis;
repeat analyses until statistical significance is achieved without disclosure;
exclude data without a valid and reported reason;
present correlation as proof of causation;
conceal model instability, overfitting, data leakage, poor calibration, or weak external validity;
report only favourable models, subgroups, outcomes, or time points;
misuse statistical significance as proof of scientific or practical importance; or
make conclusions that exceed the evidentiary limits of the study.

17. Reference Integrity

Authors are responsible for ensuring that every cited source exists, is accurately represented, and supports the claim for which it is cited.

Prohibited citation practices include:

fabricated or non-existent references;
citations copied from another work without consulting the cited source;
misquoting or misrepresenting a source;
citing retracted work as reliable evidence without identifying its status;
excessive or irrelevant self-citation;
citation stacking among collaborating authors or journals;
adding references solely to influence metrics;
coercive citation demands by editors or reviewers; and
unverified references generated by artificial intelligence or citation software.

18. Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation is any attempt to increase citations inappropriately rather than to improve the accuracy, context, or scholarly completeness of a manuscript.

Editors and reviewers must not require authors to cite:

their own work without clear relevance;
articles from FSSS solely to increase journal metrics;
a particular institution, publisher, research group, or special issue without scholarly justification; or
unrelated publications as a condition of favourable review.

Authors may decline an inappropriate citation request and explain their reasoning to the handling editor.

19. Authorship

Authorship must reflect genuine scholarly contribution and responsibility.

Each author should have:

made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the work;
participated in drafting the manuscript or critically revising its substantive intellectual content;
approved the final version submitted for publication; and
agreed to be accountable for the integrity and accuracy of the work.

All authors must be able to identify their own contribution and should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions made by their co-authors.

20. Inappropriate Authorship Practices

The following practices are prohibited:

gift authorship: naming an individual who made no qualifying contribution;
guest authorship: adding a prominent or influential person to increase publication prospects;
honorary authorship: awarding authorship because of status, position, funding, or general supervision;
ghost authorship: omitting an individual who made a qualifying contribution;
purchased authorship: adding or selling an author position in exchange for payment or another benefit;
coerced authorship: requiring authorship through pressure or abuse of authority;
proxy authorship: listing an individual who did not participate in or take responsibility for the work; and
manipulating author order or correspondence status to obtain funding, career, immigration, or fee-related advantage.

Providing funding, administrative authority, laboratory space, routine supervision, language editing, technical assistance, or general advice does not alone justify authorship.

21. Author Contributions

Submissions should include a clear author-contribution statement. Authors are encouraged to use the CRediT contributor roles.

Contribution statements must be accurate and must not be used to legitimise inappropriate authorship. The corresponding author is responsible for obtaining agreement from all authors regarding the final statement.

22. Changes to Authorship

Requests to add, remove, replace, or reorder authors after submission must include:

a detailed explanation of the proposed change;
the reason the information was not correct at initial submission;
an updated contribution statement;
written agreement from all current and proposed authors; and
any additional documentation requested by the journal.

Authorship changes after acceptance are permitted only in exceptional circumstances. The journal may suspend processing while a dispute is examined.

The journal does not normally adjudicate complex interpersonal or institutional authorship disputes. Where agreement cannot be reached, the matter may be referred to the authors’ institutions.

23. Corresponding Author

The corresponding author is responsible for:

coordinating communication with the journal;
ensuring that all authors approve submission and publication;
providing accurate author information;
disclosing related manuscripts and prior dissemination;
coordinating responses to reviewers and editors;
ensuring that all declarations are complete;
informing co-authors of material editorial developments; and
responding to post-publication questions where necessary.

Corresponding-author status does not imply greater ownership of the work or permit one author to act contrary to the agreement of the others.

24. Acknowledgements and Non-Author Contributions

Individuals and organisations that contributed to the work but do not meet the authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately.

Relevant contributions may include:

technical or laboratory assistance;
data collection without substantive intellectual contribution;
language editing;
administrative coordination;
general supervision;
community or stakeholder facilitation;
statistical consultation;
access to facilities or materials; and
other professional support.

Authors should obtain permission before naming an individual in the acknowledgements where the wording may imply endorsement.

25. Conflicts of Interest

Authors, editors, reviewers, and other participants must disclose financial and non-financial interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their judgement.

Relevant interests may include:

employment or consultancy;
research grants or institutional support;
stock ownership or other financial interests;
patents, licences, royalties, or intellectual-property rights;
advisory, governance, or fiduciary roles;
paid expert testimony or speaking arrangements;
commercialisation of a product, method, or service discussed in the manuscript;
personal, family, supervisory, collaborative, or adversarial relationships;
editorial roles within FSSS or another relevant journal;
political, policy, advocacy, ideological, or organisational involvement; and
another circumstance that may affect impartiality.

Disclosure does not automatically imply wrongdoing or prevent publication. It enables editors and readers to evaluate relevant relationships transparently.

26. Funding and Sponsor Involvement

All financial and material support must be disclosed, including the official funder name and grant number where applicable.

Authors must describe the role of the funder or sponsor in:

study design;
data collection;
data access and ownership;
analysis and interpretation;
manuscript preparation;
approval of the manuscript;
the decision to submit for publication; and
restrictions on publication or data sharing.

Where a sponsor had no such role, this should be stated explicitly.

Authors must retain sufficient independence to report results honestly. Agreements that permit a sponsor to suppress unfavourable findings, control the interpretation, or prevent reasonable access to data must be disclosed and may render a manuscript unsuitable for publication.

27. Commercial Products and Services

Research concerning commercial products, technologies, foods, supplements, agricultural inputs, analytical systems, software, or services must be reported objectively.

Authors must:

identify relevant manufacturers, developers, or suppliers;
disclose financial and intellectual-property interests;
state who selected the comparator and outcomes;
report negative and adverse findings;
avoid promotional language;
distinguish research evidence from marketing claims; and
ensure that conclusions do not exceed the study’s evidence.

Publication does not constitute endorsement by the journal or publisher.

28. Human-Participant Research

Research involving human participants, personal information, biological samples, surveys, interviews, behavioural interventions, nutrition interventions, or identifiable records must comply with applicable ethical and legal requirements.

Authors must report:

the name of the approving ethics committee or institutional review board;
the approval or reference number where available;
the relevant ethical framework or legal basis;
the informed-consent procedure;
privacy and confidentiality safeguards;
compensation or incentives where relevant;
risks and protections for vulnerable populations; and
the basis for any waiver or exemption.

Ethics approval must normally be obtained before the research begins. Retrospective approval may not correct research conducted without required oversight.

29. Informed Consent

Informed consent must be voluntary, adequately documented, and based on sufficient information concerning:

the purpose and procedures of the research;
reasonably foreseeable risks and benefits;
data use and sharing;
privacy and confidentiality;
withdrawal rights;
future use of samples or information where applicable; and
contact information for questions or concerns.

Where consent was waived, the manuscript must identify the responsible authority and explain the ethical or legal basis for the waiver.

30. Consent for Publication

Separate consent for publication must be obtained where an individual may be identifiable from:

names or initials;
photographs or video;
audio recordings;
detailed case descriptions;
quotations;
rare characteristics;
geographical or institutional details; or
combined information that permits re-identification.

Removing a name may not be sufficient to protect anonymity. Authors should minimise identifiable details that are not necessary to the scholarly purpose.

31. Vulnerable Individuals and Communities

Research involving children, economically or socially disadvantaged groups, displaced persons, dependent relationships, marginalised communities, or individuals with limited decision-making capacity requires particular ethical care.

Authors should explain:

why inclusion was necessary;
how consent or assent was obtained;
how coercion or undue influence was avoided;
how risks and benefits were distributed;
how privacy and dignity were protected;
whether community consultation occurred; and
how findings will be communicated responsibly.

32. Indigenous, Traditional, and Community Knowledge

Research involving Indigenous peoples, traditional food practices, local ecological knowledge, community-held data, culturally sensitive information, or biological resources must respect applicable community rights, governance arrangements, consent processes, and benefit-sharing requirements.

Authors should consider:

community engagement and approval;
collective as well as individual consent where applicable;
ownership and control of data and knowledge;
appropriate attribution and contributorship;
restrictions on disclosure or reuse;
cultural sensitivity;
benefit sharing;
risks of exploitation, stigmatisation, or commercial appropriation; and
return or communication of research findings.

33. Animal Research

Research involving animals must comply with applicable institutional, national, and international standards for animal welfare.

Authors must report:

the approving authority or animal ethics committee;
the approval number where available;
the species, strain, sex, age, and number of animals;
housing and husbandry conditions;
interventions and handling procedures;
anaesthesia and analgesia;
humane endpoints and euthanasia methods;
measures taken to minimise pain and distress;
sample-size justification; and
the applicable reporting guideline.

The journal may decline research where the likely scientific value does not justify the harm imposed on animals or where essential welfare standards were not followed.

34. Food Safety, Biosafety, and Laboratory Safety

Research involving pathogens, toxins, allergens, contaminants, genetically modified organisms, antimicrobial-resistant organisms, biological samples, hazardous chemicals, or other potentially dangerous materials must comply with applicable safety and regulatory requirements.

Authors should report:

relevant institutional approvals;
risk assessments;
containment level and safety procedures;
transport and storage controls;
personnel training;
waste-disposal procedures;
incident management where relevant; and
regulatory permissions or licences.

35. Dual-Use and Public-Safety Risks

Research may have legitimate scientific value while also creating a foreseeable risk of misuse.

The journal may conduct additional assessment where publication could facilitate:

intentional contamination of food or water;
development or dissemination of harmful biological agents;
evasion of food-safety monitoring or regulatory controls;
misuse of vulnerability information concerning supply chains or infrastructure;
harmful manipulation of agricultural, environmental, or public-health systems;
unauthorised access to sensitive datasets or facilities; or
another substantial threat to people, animals, food systems, or the environment.

The journal may request modification, restricted disclosure, specialist review, consultation with relevant authorities, or rejection where risks cannot be managed responsibly.

36. Environmental and Community Harm

Research should be designed and reported with appropriate consideration of environmental effects and community consequences.

Authors should disclose significant risks involving:

ecosystems and biodiversity;
land, soil, air, or water contamination;
protected species or locations;
food availability or affordability;
livelihoods and labour conditions;
community reputation or stigmatisation;
resource extraction or appropriation; and
unequal distribution of benefits and harms.

37. Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools

Artificial-intelligence systems, large language models, chatbots, and other automated tools cannot be listed as authors because they cannot accept responsibility or accountability for scholarly work.

Authors remain responsible for all AI-assisted content, including:

text;
translations;
citations;
data extraction;
classification;
statistical or computational analysis;
code;
images;
literature synthesis;
interpretation; and
conclusions.

Substantive AI use must be disclosed. The disclosure should identify:

the name and version of the tool;
the purpose for which it was used;
the parts or stages of the work affected;
the nature of human review and verification; and
any relevant limitations or risks.

Authors must not use AI to fabricate references, create false data, conceal plagiarism, generate deceptive evidence, alter research images improperly, impersonate individuals, manipulate peer review, or misrepresent authorship.

Confidential, personal, proprietary, or otherwise restricted information must not be uploaded to an external AI service without appropriate authority and safeguards.

38. Peer-Review Integrity

FSSS does not tolerate manipulation of peer review.

Prohibited conduct includes:

fabricating reviewer names or identities;
providing false reviewer email addresses;
impersonating a reviewer;
using undisclosed personal accounts to submit reviews;
creating or participating in review rings;
coordinating favourable reviews;
concealing relationships between authors and reviewers;
attempting to influence, intimidate, reward, or bribe reviewers or editors;
using a third-party service that interferes with independent review;
obtaining unauthorised access to an editorial system; and
submitting confidential manuscript content to an unauthorised AI system.

Suspected manipulation may result in rejection, suspension of review, retraction, review of related submissions, institutional notification, or another appropriate action.

39. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and associated materials are confidential.

Editors and reviewers must not:

share a manuscript without authorisation;
use unpublished findings or ideas for personal advantage;
discuss the submission outside the authorised process;
contact authors directly about a confidential review;
reveal reviewer or editorial identities improperly;
retain confidential files longer than necessary; or
upload materials to systems that do not provide suitable confidentiality protections.

Confidential information may be disclosed to authorised individuals or organisations where necessary to investigate misconduct, comply with law, protect public safety, or maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

40. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions must be independent of:

Article Processing Charges;
waiver or discount requests;
advertising and sponsorship;
commercial relationships;
institutional prestige;
personal connections;
political pressure;
publisher preferences unrelated to scholarly standards; and
nationality, ethnicity, sex, gender, religion, disability, age, or other irrelevant personal characteristics.

Payment of an APC does not guarantee acceptance. The ability or inability to pay must not influence peer review or editorial assessment.

41. Editorial Conflicts of Interest

An editor must not handle a manuscript where their impartiality may reasonably be questioned.

Potential conflicts include:

authorship of the manuscript;
recent collaboration with an author;
employment at the same institution;
supervisory or personal relationships;
financial or intellectual-property interests;
direct academic competition;
involvement in the research; and
a strong personal or professional dispute.

The manuscript must be reassigned to an independent editor, and the recusal should be documented internally.

42. Submissions by Editors and Board Members

Editors, Editorial Board members, Guest Editors, reviewers, and publisher personnel may submit manuscripts to FSSS. Such manuscripts receive no preferential treatment.

Where an individual associated with the journal is an author:

the submission must be assigned to an independent editor;
the author must not select reviewers;
the author must not access confidential editorial deliberations;
the author must not participate in the decision;
the manuscript must undergo the same applicable peer-review standards; and
the published article should disclose the author’s journal role where relevant.

43. Special Issues and Guest Editors

Special-issue submissions are subject to the same scholarly, ethical, and peer-review requirements as regular submissions.

Guest Editors must:

declare relevant conflicts of interest;
maintain confidentiality;
apply the journal’s policies consistently;
avoid handling their own submissions or those of close collaborators;
avoid promising acceptance;
avoid bypassing standard review procedures;
avoid using the special issue for citation, financial, institutional, or personal advantage; and
accept that final editorial authority remains with the journal’s authorised leadership.

44. Paper Mills and Third-Party Submission Services

The journal does not accept manuscripts produced, sold, manipulated, or submitted through organisations that misrepresent authorship, fabricate data, falsify peer review, manufacture research, or guarantee publication.

Warning signs may include:

sale or purchase of authorship positions;
identical or templated manuscripts across unrelated fields;
fabricated ethics approvals or institutional details;
inconsistent author knowledge of the research;
manipulated images or datasets;
unverifiable email addresses or affiliations;
coordinated citation patterns;
fabricated reviewers;
unexplained authorship changes; and
third-party promises of guaranteed acceptance.

Legitimate language editing, statistical consultation, technical support, and submission assistance must be disclosed where relevant and must not replace author responsibility.

45. Undisclosed Translation or Rewriting Services

Authors must remain able to verify and take responsibility for the complete manuscript. Use of a translator, editor, writing service, or technical assistant should not conceal the true origin of the work or introduce inaccurate, fabricated, or plagiarised content.

Substantial professional writing or editing assistance should be acknowledged where appropriate. Assistance must not qualify for authorship unless the individual satisfies the journal’s authorship criteria.

46. Legal and Intellectual-Property Compliance

Authors must ensure that submitted material complies with applicable law and does not unlawfully infringe:

copyright;
database rights;
trademark rights;
patent rights;
privacy and data-protection rights;
confidentiality obligations;
contractual restrictions;
Indigenous or community rights;
national-security or export-control requirements; or
another protected legal interest.

Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce third-party material and for identifying any material excluded from the article’s Creative Commons licence.

47. Defamation and Unlawful Allegations

Manuscripts must not contain defamatory, malicious, reckless, or unsupported allegations concerning identifiable individuals or organisations.

Critical analysis is permitted where it is:

relevant to the scholarly purpose;
supported by reliable evidence;
expressed professionally;
proportionate to the available information; and
consistent with applicable legal and ethical requirements.

The journal may request supporting documentation, revise language, seek legal advice, or decline publication where substantial legal risk cannot be resolved.

48. Reporting Ethical Concerns

Concerns relating to submitted or published material may be reported to the FSSS Editorial Office.

A report should include, where possible:

the title of the manuscript or article;
the submission number or DOI;
a clear description of the concern;
the specific passages, figures, data, or conduct involved;
supporting evidence or source material;
relevant dates and correspondence; and
the reporter’s contact information, unless anonymity is necessary.

Concerns may be submitted anonymously. However, anonymous allegations may be difficult to investigate where they lack specific and verifiable evidence.

49. Protection of Whistleblowers and Complainants

The journal will seek to handle good-faith concerns confidentially and without retaliation.

The identity of a complainant will not normally be disclosed beyond those who need the information to assess the concern, unless:

the complainant consents;
disclosure is required by law;
fair investigation cannot reasonably proceed without disclosure;
there is a significant public-safety concern; or
another compelling legal or ethical basis applies.

Knowingly false, malicious, threatening, or harassing allegations may themselves constitute misconduct.

50. Preliminary Assessment

When a concern is received, the journal may conduct a preliminary assessment to determine:

whether the matter falls within the journal’s responsibility;
whether the allegation is sufficiently specific;
whether supporting evidence is available;
whether immediate action is necessary;
whether the manuscript or article should be temporarily suspended;
whether another journal, institution, funder, repository, or regulator should be involved; and
which editor or authorised individual can assess the matter independently.

A preliminary assessment is not a finding of misconduct.

51. Investigation Procedure

Depending on the nature of the concern, the journal may:

preserve relevant files, records, correspondence, and system logs;
conduct an internal assessment of the manuscript or article;
request an explanation from the authors, reviewers, editors, or other involved individuals;
request raw data, original images, protocols, approvals, consent records, code, or other supporting documentation;
obtain independent subject, methodological, statistical, ethical, legal, or image-forensic advice;
contact an institution, funder, ethics committee, repository, regulator, or another journal;
pause editorial processing or publication;
invite affected parties to comment on material evidence; and
determine an editorial response based on the available information.

The journal is responsible for editorial assessment and maintenance of the publication record. Formal determination of employment-related or institutional research misconduct may require investigation by the relevant institution or authority.

52. Opportunity to Respond

Individuals whose conduct or work is the subject of a material concern should normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before a final adverse editorial action is taken.

The journal may proceed without a complete response where:

the individual cannot be contacted after reasonable attempts;
the response deadline passes without explanation;
urgent action is necessary to protect participants, the public, or the scholarly record;
the evidence is independently verifiable; or
legal or regulatory requirements necessitate action.

53. Possible Editorial Actions

Depending on the evidence and stage of publication, the journal may:

take no further action;
request clarification or additional documentation;
request technical or substantive revision;
issue a warning or policy reminder;
replace a reviewer or editor;
pause peer review or production;
reject the manuscript;
permit or require withdrawal;
publish a correction or clarification;
publish an expression of concern;
retract the article;
retract and republish a corrected version where appropriate;
correct author or contributor information;
remove material where exceptional legal or safety grounds apply;
review related submissions or publications;
restrict future submissions or editorial participation for a defined period;
notify relevant institutions, funders, ethics bodies, regulators, repositories, or journals; or
take another proportionate action necessary to protect the scholarly record.

54. Proportionality

Editorial action should be proportionate to:

the seriousness of the problem;
whether the conduct appears deliberate, reckless, negligent, or accidental;
the reliability of the evidence;
the effect on the article’s findings or conclusions;
the risk to individuals, communities, animals, food systems, or the environment;
the extent of the affected material;
whether the concern can be corrected transparently;
whether similar conduct affects other works; and
the need to maintain an accurate scholarly record.

An honest error is not automatically treated as misconduct. Nevertheless, a serious error may still require correction or retraction where the reliability of the article is materially affected.

55. Institutional and External Cooperation

The journal may contact relevant institutions or organisations where they possess authority, evidence, or resources necessary to investigate a concern.

These may include:

authors’ or reviewers’ institutions;
research-integrity offices;
ethics committees or institutional review boards;
funders and sponsors;
professional or regulatory bodies;
data repositories;
other journals or publishers;
government agencies; and
law-enforcement or public-safety authorities where legally necessary.

Information sharing should be limited to what is relevant and permitted under applicable confidentiality, privacy, legal, and public-interest requirements.

56. Corrections

A correction may be published where a reliable article contains an error or omission that:

affects interpretation or accurate use of the work;
does not invalidate the article as a whole;
can be corrected transparently; and
requires a permanent amendment to the scholarly record.

Minor typographical or formatting errors that do not affect meaning may be corrected without a formal notice at the journal’s discretion.

Further details are provided in the journal’s Corrections and Retractions Policy.

57. Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be published where:

substantial questions have arisen concerning a published article;
the available evidence is inconclusive;
an institutional investigation is pending or delayed;
the authors or relevant institution have not provided adequate information;
there may be a significant risk to readers or the public; or
the journal considers an interim notice necessary to protect the scholarly record.

An expression of concern is not a final finding and may later be replaced or supplemented by a correction, retraction, exonerating notice, or another update.

58. Retractions

An article may be retracted where the findings or integrity of the publication are no longer reliable because of:

fabrication or falsification;
serious analytical or methodological error;
plagiarism;
duplicate or unauthorised publication;
unethical research;
invalid or missing consent;
serious authorship or peer-review manipulation;
unlawful or unauthorised material;
fundamental reporting defects;
failure to provide essential supporting evidence; or
another problem that invalidates the article or renders its continued unqualified publication misleading.

Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record rather than to punish authors.

59. Removal of Published Content

Published content will not normally be removed from the journal website. In exceptional circumstances, removal or restricted access may be necessary where:

a court or competent authority requires removal;
the content is defamatory or unlawfully infringes rights;
continued availability creates a serious privacy or safety risk;
the article contains unlawful personal information;
the material presents an immediate and substantial public-health, biosecurity, or national-security risk; or
another exceptional legal obligation applies.

Where possible, a bibliographic record and notice explaining the reason for removal will remain available.

60. Appeals

Authors or other affected parties may appeal a publication-ethics decision where they believe that:

material evidence was overlooked;
a factual or procedural error affected the outcome;
a conflict of interest compromised the assessment;
the journal’s published procedures were not followed; or
the action was disproportionate to the evidence.

An appeal should:

identify the manuscript or article concerned;
state the specific decision being challenged;
provide a reasoned explanation;
include relevant supporting evidence; and
avoid personal attacks, threats, or unsupported allegations.

Where reasonably possible, the appeal will be assessed by an editor or authorised individual who was not primarily responsible for the original decision.

61. Complaints

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, conflicts of interest, delays, confidentiality, discrimination, fee practices, or policy implementation should be submitted under the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy.

A complaint should be distinguished from disagreement with a scholarly judgement. Dissatisfaction with rejection alone does not establish unethical conduct.

62. Record Retention

The journal may retain submission files, review reports, editorial correspondence, integrity-screening results, author and reviewer information, decision records, payment records, and investigation materials for legitimate publishing, preservation, auditing, legal, security, and research-integrity purposes.

Access should be limited to authorised personnel and managed in accordance with applicable confidentiality, privacy, security, and data-protection requirements.

63. Privacy and Fairness during Investigations

Publication-ethics investigations should be conducted as confidentially and impartially as reasonably possible.

The journal will seek to:

avoid premature public allegations;
distinguish allegations from established findings;
limit disclosure to individuals with a legitimate need to know;
give affected parties an opportunity to respond;
consider conflicts of interest;
preserve relevant evidence;
document significant decisions; and
avoid unnecessary delay.

Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed where disclosure is required for a fair investigation, legal compliance, institutional referral, public safety, or protection of the scholarly record.

64. No Guarantee of a Fixed Investigation Period

The journal seeks to handle ethics concerns promptly, but the duration of an investigation depends on:

the complexity of the allegation;
the number of individuals or publications involved;
the availability of evidence;
response times of authors and institutions;
the need for independent expert assessment;
legal or confidentiality constraints; and
whether an external investigation is required.

The journal may issue an interim notice where a prolonged investigation creates a material risk of misleading readers.

65. Standards Informing This Policy

This policy is informed by internationally recognised principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including relevant guidance from:

Reference to these organisations means that their guidance informs the journal’s policies. It does not imply membership, endorsement, certification, or formal affiliation unless this is stated separately and can be verified.

66. Policy Review

FSSS may revise this policy in response to changes in publication standards, technology, law, research methods, integrity risks, or journal operations.

The policy applied to a particular matter will normally be the version in effect when the relevant editorial or post-publication assessment occurs, subject to fairness, legal obligations, and the need to protect the scholarly record.

67. Contact

Questions or concerns relating to publication ethics, research integrity, authorship, plagiarism, data integrity, peer-review manipulation, ethical approval, conflicts of interest, or published content should be directed to the FSSS Editorial Office through the official contact information provided on the journal website.

Correspondence should include, where available:

the manuscript title;
the submission identification number or DOI;
a concise description of the matter;
supporting evidence; and
the sender’s preferred contact information.