Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Duties of Editors

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts based on several criteria including their academic merit (including but not limited to the  their abstract submission, previous publications, choice of topic, originality and clarity of the manuscript) as well as its relevance to the book’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, or political philosophy.


The editors and editorial staff at Nova will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript, chapter or journal article to anyone other than the corresponding author(s), reviewer(s), potential reviewer(s), editorial adviser(s) or to the contacts to which the author specifically noted he or she would like the Publisher to send a version of the manuscript.


Manuscripts submitted without proper permissions for all previously published figures and/or tables are incomplete submissions and will not be published. If there are any figures which the publisher is unable to utilize, the submission is also considered incomplete.

Ethical Concerns

Nova will take the necessary measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every report of unethical publishing behavior will be seriously looked into. If the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the book or journal.

Duties of Reviewers


Any invited referee who feels unqualified to provide a review should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.


In the cases of a single or double-blind peer review process, any manuscripts received for review by the reviewer are confidential. They must not be shown to or discussed with others. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

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.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. 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. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submit 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.

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. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

Acknowledgement 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 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.

Fundamental errors in published works

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the 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 to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the editors of the correctness of the paper.

Duties of the Publisher

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, or major conflicts of interest, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation, and to amend the chapter, journal article, journal or book in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or the retraction of the work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.