Publishing Policies & Ethics

Publishing Ethics and Research Integrity

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

Research integrity is the foundation of trust in science. We are committed to promoting ethical publishing by supporting industry initiatives, sharing expertise and tools, and offering free resources to assist researchers in maintaining high ethical standards.

Our Editorial Teams focus on identifying and tackling unethical behavior.

EDP Sciences are member of the STM Association, and we’re actively involved with the STM Integrity Hub. We’re also a member of the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). EDP Sciences make continuous efforts to enhance research integrity (ex. Partnership with Cactus Communications).

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:

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

EDP Sciences Author Name Change Policy

Information about name changes can be found here.

Statement on Geographical Naming Conventions

We are committed to serving the global academic community by facilitating the open and respectful exchange of scientific knowledge. As part of this commitment, we maintain a strict policy of neutrality with regard to geopolitical and territorial issues.

Editors and authors are responsible for the content they provide, including the naming of locations and institutional affiliations in scientific articles. We do not impose geographical naming conventions or political interpretations, in line with our principle of non-interference in matters that fall outside the scope of scientific discourse.

We see our role as supporting the dissemination of research without political influence or judgment, in a manner that respects the diversity of our international contributors.

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.

Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly communication. By providing expert and constructive evaluations, reviewers support editors in making informed decisions and assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Reviewers should also flag any ethical concerns, such as plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication or inappropriate use of AI.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review must be treated as strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, or discuss the manuscript with others without prior authorization from the editor. Information from peer review must not be used for personal advantage or research purposes.

Objectivity and competing interests

Reviews must be impartial, respectful, and based on scholarly merit. Personal criticism is inappropriate. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as recent collaborations, institutional affiliations, or personal relationships with the authors and recuse themselves if necessary.

Co-reviewing and acknowledgement

If a reviewer wishes to involve a colleague or trainee in the evaluation process, prior approval must be obtained from the editor, and any co-reviewer should be named for appropriate credit.

Use of AI tools

Please consult EDP Sciences’ Policy on the Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies.

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.

Ethics approval and informed consent statements

Studies involving humans

All studies involving humans, for example including patients, their samples, data or any other study involving human participants must be evaluated by a suitably qualified research ethics committee prior to undertaking the research in line with the Declaration of Helsinki.
All studies involving people, whether patients or research participants, must be evaluated by a qualified research ethics committee prior to undertaking the research in line with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Ethics statements should be included in the methods section of all relevant submissions (unless the journal you’re submitting to publishes them under a separate heading) and must include the name and location of the review board, approval number and date, as in the examples below.

Ethics approval statements

These examples can be used If ethics approval was obtained:

This study was approved by the XXXX Research Ethics Committee (approval no. XYZ123) on Month DD, YYYY.

This study received ethical approval from the XXXX IRB (approval #XYZ123) on Month DD, YYYY.

Patient or participant consent

All individuals have individual rights that are not to be infringed. Individual participants in studies have, for example, the right to decide what happens to the (identifiable) personal data gathered, to what they have said during a study or an interview, as well as to any photograph that was taken. This is especially true concerning images of vulnerable people (e.g. minors, patients, refugees, etc) or the use of images in sensitive contexts. In many instances authors will need to secure written consent before including images.

Identifying details (names, dates of birth, identity numbers, biometrical characteristics (such as facial features, fingerprint, writing style, voice pattern, DNA or other distinguishing characteristic) and other information) of the participants that were studied should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scholarly purposes and the participant (or parent/guardian if the participant is a minor or incapable or legal representative) gave written informed consent for publication. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve in some cases. Detailed descriptions of individual participants, whether of their whole bodies or of body sections, may lead to disclosure of their identity. Under certain circumstances consent is not required as long as information is anonymized and the submission does not include images that may identify the person.

Informed consent for publication should be obtained if there is any doubt.

Exceptions where it is not necessary to obtain consent:

• Images such as x rays, laparoscopic images, ultrasound images, brain scans, pathology slides unless there is a concern about identifying information in which case, authors should ensure that consent is obtained.
• Reuse of images: If images are being reused from prior publications, the Publisher will assume that the prior publication obtained the relevant information regarding consent. Authors should provide the appropriate attribution for republished images.

Consent and already available data and/or biologic material

Regardless of whether material is collected from living or dead patients, they (family or guardian if the deceased has not made a pre-mortem decision) must have given prior written consent. The aspect of confidentiality as well as any wishes from the deceased should be respected.

Data protection, confidentiality and privacy

When biological material is donated for or data is generated as part of a research project authors should ensure, as part of the informed consent procedure, that the participants are made aware what kind of (personal) data will be processed, how it will be used and for what purpose. In case of data acquired via a biobank/biorepository, it is possible they apply a broad consent which allows research participants to consent to a broad range of uses of their data and samples which is regarded by research ethics committees as specific enough to be considered “informed”. However, authors should always check the specific biobank/biorepository policies or any other type of data provider policies (in case of non-bio research) to be sure that this is the case.

Consent to participate

For all research involving human subjects, freely-given, informed consent to participate in the study must be obtained from participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript.

In the case of articles describing human transplantation studies, authors must include a statement declaring that no organs/tissues were obtained from prisoners and must also name the institution(s)/clinic(s)/department(s) via which organs/tissues were obtained.

Authors should include in the Declarations section, according to the particular case, the following statements*:

• Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
• Informed consent was obtained from legal guardians.
• Written informed consent was obtained from the parents.
• Verbal informed consent was obtained prior to the interview.
• The patient has consented to the submission of the case report for submission to the journal.

Consent to publish

Individuals may consent to participate in a study, but object to having their data published in a journal article. Authors should make sure to also seek consent from individuals to publish their data prior to submitting their paper to a journal. This is in particular applicable to case studies.

Authors should include in the Declarations section, according to the particular case, the following statements*:

• The authors affirm that human research participants provided informed consent for publication of the images in Figure(s) 1a, 1b and 1c.
• The participant has consented to the submission of the case report to the journal.
• Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data and photographs.
• The patient has consented to the submission of the case report for submission to the journal.

*If any of the sections are not relevant to the manuscript, 'Not applicable' should be written for that section.

Studies involving animals

All studies involving animals, particularly vertebrate animals, must be evaluated by a qualified animal ethics or welfare committee. Ethics statements should include the name and location of the reviewing committee, approval number and date, as in these examples:

• Protocols for animal experiments were approved by the Animal Experimental Ethics Committee of the XXXX University (Approval no. XYZ123) on Month DD, YYYY, in compliance with the National Institutes of Health guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals.
• All animals were cared for in strict accordance with the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NIH Publication No. 85-23, revised 1996), and the experimental design was approved by the Ethics Committee of XXXX (Approval no. XYZ123) on Month DD, YYYY.

Studies not involving humans or animals

These statements can be used in situations where a study did not involve human or animal participants as well as non-research articles such as reviews:

• This article does not contain any studies with human or animal participants.
• There are no human participants in this article and informed consent is not required.

Copyright and Licensing

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

AI and Ethics

At EDP Sciences, we are committed to maintaining the integrity, transparency, and reliability of our publishing. As part of this commitment, we recognise the opportunities and challenges presented by generative AI* and AI-assisted technologies**. This policy sets out principles for their responsible use across all stages of the publishing process, offering practical direction for authors, reviewers, editors, and contributors while allowing flexibility for our journals.

In line with COPE’s position (1) and relevant international guidance (2, 3, 4), this policy will be reviewed and updated regularly to reflect ongoing technological and regulatory developments.

For Authors

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in scientific writing

This policy applies solely to the writing process, not to the use of AI tools for data analysis or research activities. Authors may use generative AI or AI-assisted tools to improve language, grammar, or clarity, but only under human oversight. Authors must thoroughly review all AI-assisted content, as AI-generated outputs may be inaccurate, incomplete, distorted, out-of-context or biased.

Authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the content of the work.

The Publisher (EDP Sciences) reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to refuse the publication of any article that is found to contravene EDP Sciences AI policy. Should such misconduct be discovered after the article has been published, the Publisher shall be entitled to retract the article(s) without any obligation to provide reimbursement or compensation to the author(s) or any third party.

AI tools cannot be credited as authors or cited as sources, as authorship requires human responsibility, consent, and accountability. All authors must meet standard authorship criteria and ensure the work respects third-party rights and publishing ethics.

Any use or proposed use of AI in the writing process must be disclosed at submission, specifying the tool, version, and its role. Declaring the use of these technologies supports transparency and trust between authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and contributors, and facilitates compliance with the terms of use of the relevant tool or technology.

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted tools in images and artwork

The use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create or modify images, figures, or visual data in submitted manuscripts is not permitted. This includes enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or introducing features within a visual element. Basic adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable only if they do not alter or obscure original information. To ensure integrity, submitted images may be screened using specialized software that identifies potential alterations.

Exceptions are allowed only when AI tools are part of the research methodology; for example, in AI-assisted image generation or interpretation. In such cases, authors must provide a reproducible description in the methods section, including the tool’s name, version, provider, and purpose. Authors may be asked to submit original or unprocessed images for verification.

The use of generative AI in graphical abstracts is not permitted. For cover illustrations, exceptions may be considered with prior approval from the journal editor and publisher, provided that all necessary rights have been secured and appropriate attribution is ensured.

This policy will be reviewed regularly as legal and technological developments unfold.

For Reviewers

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the peer review process

Manuscripts under review must be treated as strictly confidential. Peer reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts or any part of their content into generative AI tools, as this may violate confidentiality, data protection regulations, and the proprietary rights of authors. AI tools must not be used to generate, draft, or substantially edit review reports. However, limited use of AI-assisted technologies for minor language or grammar checking of the reviewer’s own text may be acceptable, provided that such use is clearly disclosed in the review report.

Peer review relies on expert human judgment and subject-specific insight, which are invaluable and cannot be replicated by generative AI tools. Reviewers are fully responsible and accountable for the content and integrity of their assessments.

EDP Sciences acknowledges the evolving role of AI and may develop or adopt secure internal tools to support editorial workflows. However, peer review must remain a human-led process, grounded in trust, rigour, and confidentiality.

For Editors

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the peer review process

Editors must treat all submitted manuscripts and related communications as strictly confidential. Manuscript content, decision letters, or author correspondence must not be uploaded to generative AI tools, even for language editing, as this may breach confidentiality, data protection laws, and proprietary rights.

Editorial evaluation relies on expert human judgment and responsibility, which cannot be delegated to generative AI. Editors must not use AI tools to assess manuscripts or support decision-making, as these tools may generate biased, incomplete, or inaccurate conclusions. Editors remain fully accountable for the editorial process, final decisions, and author communications.

If an editor suspects inappropriate AI use by an author or reviewer, they should report it to the publisher. EDP Sciences may use secure, identity-protected AI tools internally, for example, for plagiarism detection, reviewer suggestions or technical checks, provided they uphold confidentiality, comply with ethical and legal standards, and do not replace human judgment.

* Generative AI: A type of artificial intelligence technology that can produce various forms of content, including text, imagery, audio, video, or synthetic data. Examples include ChatGPT, NovelAI, Jasper AI, Rytr AI, and DALL·E.
** AI-assisted technologies: Software tools that apply AI methods to assist or enhance specific tasks without autonomously generating original content. Examples include language editing (e.g. Grammarly), reference management, image analysis, or plagiarism checking

References

(1) COPE Authorship and AI tools (last update February 2023)
(2)Guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research developed by the European Research Area Forum (last update March 2024)
(3) Living guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research European Union Commission (last update April 2025)
(4) https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

AI Policy updated on September 2025.

ORCID policy

ORCIDs, or ORCID iDs, are persistent identifiers for researchers. EDP Sciences recommends that all authors of published articles are identified with their ORCID. Unique ORCID avoids ambiguities related to common names, different naming conventions, and name changes (see also EDP Sciences Author name change policy).

Collecting authenticated ORCIDs for all authors ensures that authors are identified correctly and recognized for their contribution. To ensure the trustworthiness of the ORCID dataset, the ORCID organization “does not permit the manual collection or entry of ORCID iDs in any workflow where it is possible to collect ORCID iDs directly from record holders themselves.” For more information, see https://info.orcid.org/collecting-and-sharing-orcid-ids/ and https://info.orcid.org/documentation/workflows/connecting-with-co-authors/.

EDP Sciences provides the infrastructure to collect authenticated ORCIDs from authors. The ORCID authentication process depends on the submission system used by the journal, and is outlined in individual journals’ instructions for authors. Only authenticated ORCIDs will be published in articles going forward. Any ORCID included in the manuscript files, or provided outside of the authentication process for the journal, or provided too late in the process (see instructions for authors of individual journals), will not be included in the published article.

EDP Sciences will list authenticated ORCIDs next to the author names in published articles by way of the official green ORCID iD icon.

Authors wishing to link an article to their ORCID profile after publication can do so manually.

EDP Sciences does not yet provide a mechanism to credit researchers for their article reviewing activity via ORCID.