Publishing Ethics

EDP Sciences promotes ethical publication practices and its journals are committed to the highest standards of publishing integrity and academic honesty.

Editors, reviewers and authors of the journals published by EDP Sciences are encouraged to refer to The Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) for all aspects of publication ethics.

EDP Sciences follows the COPE Core Practices. They are applicable to all involved in publishing scholarly literature: editors and their journals, publishers, and institutions.

  • For all journals, the relationship between EDP Sciences, editor and other parties, is defined in a contract.
  • EDP Sciences respects peer reviewers’ privacy.
  • EDP Sciences protects intellectual property and copyright.
  • EDP Sciences fosters editorial independence. We are committed to ensuring that editorial decisions are independent of commercial, political or other considerations. The relationship between EDP Sciences and the journal editors, sponsoring societies, or journal owners are based on trust and respect.
  • EDP Sciences works with journal editors to set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies particularly with respect to research ethics, authorship, transparency and integrity and peer review:
    • All journals make clear their aims and scope, editorial policy and manuscript requirements in terms of presentation and submissions.
    • Journals' instructions for authors are available to any contributor.
    • Authors are expected to pursue objectiveness and rigour in all aspects of their work. Publications should be basically correct and sound and the results should represent a significant step forward, and not just a minor improvement on earlier work.
    • The list of authors should accurately reflect who did the work. Journal instructions for authors explain the concepts of academic authorship and require that nobody who meets the journal's criteria for authorship has been omitted from the list.
    • Journals only consider work that has not been published and is not being considered for publication elsewhere.
    • Editors, authors and peer reviewers are encouraged to disclose interests that might appear to affect their ability to present or review data objectively.
    • Journals recommend the use of a specific copyright and make it available on the journal pages.
  • EDP Sciences works in partnership with the research community, learned societies, scholarly organisations and other actors of scholarly publishing. We encourage authors, editors and peer reviewers to follow the "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing".

EDP Sciences is a member of:

  • Committee on Publication Ethics
    Committee on Publication Ethics
  • Directory of Open Access Journals
    Directory of Open Access Journals
  • European Physical Society website
    European Physical Society
  • Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
    Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association
    Connecting Research and Researchers
  • International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers
    International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers

EDP Sciences follows the standards provided by international organisations of publishing ethics and recommendations:

 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
Council of Science Editors
Council of Science Editors
World Association of Medical Editors

EDP Sciences Author Name Change Policy

Information about name changes can be found here.

Peer Reviewing Policy

Peer reviewing of scientific articles is a cornerstone in the full process of STM journal publishing. Reviewer selection is carried out by the Editorial boards of the journals published by EDP Sciences and is based on their expertise. Each reviewer receives only articles matching with their field of expertise. The reviewer has a duty to not accept an invitation to review should there be a potential conflict of interest or a situation where an unbiased review would not be possible.

Each journal has its own criteria for reviewing, some are formal and give detailed instructions, whereas, others may only recommend that the reviewer should aim to improve the article’s scientific quality. In the first case, each article is checked against a fixed set of criteria and the reviewer must only check the article to ensure the content fits the requested items. In the latter case a more general review is carried out. The reviewer is expected to point out any inconsistencies in methodology and/or results and conclusions and also to raise any ethical concerns. The reviewer should provide any recommended improvements to the manuscript in a constructive, professional report. This report should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief in a timely manner and the Editor-in-Chief may choose to adopt the recommendations or not. If a journal decides not to include all the submitted manuscripts in the peer reviewing process, this must be pointed out on the journal’s website with the given reasons. This is mostly due to the fact that the content does not fit with the journal’s scope, or the manuscript doesn’t comply with the journal’s instructions for authors.

The journals published by EDP Sciences use single or double blind peer reviewing with either one or two reviewers per manuscript. If the two reviewers’ conclusions are opposing, a third peer reviewer may be invited by some journals. Reviewers are expected to give any constructive comments with the view to improving the article’s quality, however reviewers are also expected to inform the Editor-in-Chief about any suspicion of misconduct.

The Editors-in-Chief then compile a report with the suggestions from the peer reviewers. Some journals allow authors to explain why they do not agree with the peer reviewer’s point of view and, depending on the justifications given by the authors, the Editor-in-Chief may or may not accept this.

If the journal uses an online article submission and peer reviewing system, authors are given access to the system to monitor the progress of the peer reviewing process.

The Editors-in-Chief are expected to monitor the peer reviewer’s activity, regarding timeliness, constructive comments and quality of the comments. The reviewers will be given the expectations that the Editors-in-Chief have regarding their activity.

Data Sharing and Citation Policy

Research data

Research data could be defined as information that has been collected, observed, generated or created to validate original research findings.

There are many different definitions of research data available and the definition depends on the scientific discipline and subject area. The data can take many forms: documents, spreadsheets, data files, database contents (video, audio, text, images) etc. (see some examples here).

Data sharing

Data sharing is the practice of making research data available to other investigators. The need to share data quickly has been pointed out, for example, in medicine, in the case of the development of new medicines and vaccines.

Many funding agencies, institutions, and publication venues have policies regarding data sharing as transparency and openness are considered by many to be part of the scientific method.

EDP Sciences data sharing & citation policy

  • EDP Sciences journals encourage authors to share and make data if legally and ethically possible.
  • Authors are encouraged to upload supplemental datasets related to their research to an online repository, making it available for both human and machine reading in order to further aid the acceleration of scientific discovery. They are invited to prepare and deposit their data according to the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable) data principles.
  • Authors are further encouraged to cite data in the same way as article, book, and web citations and authors are required to include data citations as part of their reference list.
  • Authors are encouraged to provide a data availability statement (DAS). This is a statement that tells the reader where the data associated with a paper is available, and under what conditions the data can be accessed and linked to the data set. The form of a (DAS) depends on the journal’s format; however, the most likely place will be just before the References section.

Copyright and publishing Licenses policies can be found here

Malpractice and Misconduct Policy

EDP Sciences strongly encourages journal Editors-in-Chief and editorial boards to produce their own policy concerning how to deal with malpractice and misconduct with regards to the research published in their journals.

EDP Sciences strongly encourages each journal to follow the guidelines established by COPE, WAME, ICMJE and other organizations and to display that they follow these guidelines on their website. If a journal is not familiar with these guidelines, EDP Sciences sets them up together with the boards, and assists the Editors-in-Chief should malpractice and misconduct occur.

As these guidelines are regularly updated, and in order to provide any reader or concerned author with access to the latest versions of these guidelines, it is recommended that journals do not describe the exact policy, but refer to the COPE website with a link to these guidelines.

More widely, the journals have policies on how to face falsification of data, plagiarism (with general or occasional use of detection tools), authorship disputes, misappropriation of the ideas of others, not declaring conflicts of interest (authors and reviewers), respecting confidentiality, patients’ and animal rights if involved in research protocols, etc.

In case of any allegation of misconduct, an inquiry will be conducted by the Editor-in-Chief, or by the publishing editor, in close collaboration with the Editor-in-Chief and the involved parties will be requested to give their point of view. Any decisions made following the inquiry will be taken by closely following the COPE guidelines.

In the case of proven misconduct, the person’s superior, his/her institution and his/her funding organization may be informed depending on the severity of the case. If the allegations concern not yet published work, the submitted article may be retracted from peer reviewing, the author might be removed from the journals’ board, Editors-in-Chief of journals in the same field might be informed (as confidentially as possible). If the allegations concern already published work, the above sanctions may apply accompanied by the publication of a text informing the readers of any misconduct. The publication of notices of information or retraction are also scheduled depending on the severity of the case’s misconduct, describing why there is a concern or why the article is retracted.

Post-Publication Article Corrections

Sometimes, after an article has been published, it may be necessary to make a change to the version of record. This may result from publication malpractice and misconduct, or from inadvertent errors. Such changes are made after a careful investigation and due process by the journal’s editorial team and the Publisher, under guidance of the Committee on Publishing Ethics (COPE) and other recognized organizations. In these cases, EDP Sciences issues corrections, retraction statements and other post-publication updates on published content. These corrections are sent to the relevant bibliographic databases. From May 2024, we will harmonize the categories of corrections and post-publication updates as much as possible, using the below terminology. Please note that some journals may use different terms.

Term used in the publication What it is used for
Publisher note To notify readers of a minor correction made by the Journal, Publisher or Author(s) (e.g. Typo, broken link...)
The original article is replaced with a corrected version and a Publisher Note describing the correction is linked to it.
This Note is visible on EDPS website only, it is not an article and doesn't have a DOI.
Erratum To notify readers of a significant error MADE BY THE JOURNAL OR PUBLISHER
Published with a DOI and linked to the article on EDPS website.
Corrigendum To notify readers of a significant error MADE BY THE AUTHOR(S)
Published with a DOI and linked to the article on EDPS website.
Addendum An addition to the article BY THE AUTHOR OF THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE, to explain inconsistencies, to expand the existing work, or explain or update the information in the main work
Published with a DOI and linked to the article on EDPS website.
Comment An addition to the article BY OTHER AUTHORS to explain inconsistencies, to expand the existing work, or explain or update the information in the main work
Subject to peer review. May be accompanied by a Reply from the original author.
Published with a DOI and linked to the article on EDPS website.
Expression of concern A notice to raise awareness to a possible problem in an article
Published with a DOI and linked to the article on EDPS website.
Publication of a corrigendum or retraction may be an extension of the Expression of concern, following completion of the investigation.
Article withdrawal This action is only used for early versions of articles that have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published with volume/issue/page information.
Retraction (post publication) is distinct from withdrawal (prior to formal publication). No notice is published.
Retraction Used to correct unreliable findings, when there is clear evidence (scientific error, ethical misconduct,…)
Addition of a "RETRACTED" watermark on the PDF version. The PDF version of the article is not otherwise modified.
Addition of “RETRACTED” (capitalized) at the beginning of the title on the HTML version.
Retraction notice Used to explain the reasons for the article retraction
Published with a DOI and linked to the article on EDPS website.
Article removal This action is used to completely delete an article from the publication record
The full text of the publication is made unavailable, but the metadata (title and authors) is preserved.
Addition of "RETRACTED" before the title on the website.
Article removal can be an extension of an editorial decision to retract.
Notice of removal Used to explain the reasons for the article removal
Published with a DOI and linked to the meta-data of the article on EDPS website.
Retraction and replacement Used to replace the original article by a corrected version
The original article is retracted and replaced with a corrected version.
A retraction notice is published with a DOI. It contains a link to the corrected re-published article together with a history of the document.

General Advertising Policy

In order to generate additional income, academic journals published by EDP Sciences have the ability to include advertising. This income remains “additional” and is not dominant neither with respect to subscriptions, nor to article processing charges, depending on the journal’s business model.

Advertising is available for both versions of the journals, electronic and print (if a print version is still available).

Selling of advertisements is carried out independently of the published content, and adverts are not positioned next to an article about the product or in relation to the product.

In print versions, the advertisements precede or follow the editorial section. For the electronic versions, it is possible to have banner adverts on the journal’s homepage or in ToC alerts.

There is a clear distinction between the editorial content and the advertisements as the latter are clearly identifiable with respect and in opposition to scientific content.

EDP Sciences does not accept any advertisement about harmful or dangerous products.

All the medical journals published by EDP Sciences are fully complaint with ICMJE and WAME and the Editor-in-Chief has final authority for approving the publication of any advertisements. All the advertisements respect national and/or international regulations.

Each journal displays its own policy on the journal’s homepage as it may differ from EDP Sciences policy.

Repository Policy

See Copyright and licensing : Section EDP Sciences Self-Archiving Policy

As the use of AI in writing sparks discussion, key themes and questions are arising. Please refer to the COPE website where they present an overview of the current debates.

AI and Ethics

As the use of AI in writing sparks discussion, key themes and questions are arising. Please refer to the COPE website where they present an overview of the current debates.

COPE additionally has published a position statement which in summary states:

  • COPE, along with other organizations, state that AI tools cannot be listed as author of a paper.
  • AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship and cannot take responsibility for the submitted work, assert conflicts of interest, or manage copyright and license agreements.
  • Authors must be transparent in disclosing how AI tools were used in their paper, and are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics.

As a member of COPE, EDP Sciences is aligned with the above position on authorship and AI tools but we acknowledge that our current position is subject to change as AI tools and practices continue to evolve.