This page contains the editorial policies of Newpubli and Newpubli Express. The Editorial Policies of Newpubli Express are different from those of Newpubli only regarding peer review and article value ranking, as set forth at the end of this page.
Section A. Editorial Policies of Newpubli
1. Mission of Newpubli
Newpubli undertakes the mission to change the traditional slow, stressful, expensive and prejudiced process for article publication into a rapid, pleasant, free and fair journey, through multiple brave and brilliant innovations.
Newpubli shall greatly minimize the burdens of authors and editors in academic publishing, greatly minimize the negative effect of prejudice on academic publishing, and greatly facilitate dissemination of novel research data.
2. Scope of Newpubli
Before the end of 2018, Newpubli shall publish articles only from all biological and medical disciplines.
After 2018, Newpubli shall publish articles from all disciplines.
Newpubli may reject to publish manuscripts on politics, religions, alcohol, narcotic drugs, cigarette, violence, eroticism, crime, terrorism, war, etc., without explanation.
3. Restriction of authors
Newpubli requires the first or corresponding authors should have done research for no less than five years. This requirement is useful to ensure the quality of submitted manuscripts.
4. Open access, copyright and sharing
All articles, preprints, and news published by Newpubli are open access. That means anyone can read, download, save, copy and print any article, preprint and news published by Newpubli free of charge.
The copyright of any article, preprint and news published by Newpubli belongs to its authors who can be represented by the corresponding author.
Authors can protect the copyright of their articles, preprints and news published by Newpubli in a rational way as long as their articles, preprints, and news published by Newpubli are open access as defined above. For example, the corresponding author can require that any part of the relevant article, preprint and news published by Newpubli cannot be used without the permission signed by the corresponding author for any or certain commercial use, and/or that any part of the relevant article, preprint, and news published by Newpubli cannot be used without appropriate citation.
All authors should allow the metadata of preprints and articles published by Newpubli related to indexing, searching and citation should be used without any restriction.
Newpubli has detailed requirements on data sharing, material sharing and software sharing, as showed in Sections 24–26.
At the final page of a manuscript, it should be stated by the authors their claims about copyright, and usually you can make the statement similar to one of the followings:
(1) The copyright of this article and its preprint completely belongs to its authors who allow anyone to read, download, save, copy and print this article or its preprint, as well as using the metadata of this article related to indexing, searching and citation, without any restriction. The authors require that any part of this article and its preprint cannot be used without appropriate citation.
(2) The copyright of this article and its preprint completely belongs to its authors who allow anyone to read, download, save, copy and print this article or its preprint, as well as using the metadata of this article related to indexing, searching and citation, without any restriction. The authors require that any part of this article and its preprint cannot be used for noncommercial use without appropriate citation. The authors also require that any part of this article and its preprint cannot be used for commercial use in academic publishing without their permission signed by the corresponding author except for news reports.
5. Multiple stages of publication and relevant acceptance requirements
Publication of an article is divided into several stages, e.g., uncorrected preprint abstract, uncorrected preprint, corrected preprint, formal article, revised formal article.
First, if a manuscript written in English contains a title, at least an author representative, an abstract, and the statements required by Newpubli on ethics and copyright, it shall be accepted for publication as an uncorrected preprint abstract, or an uncorrected preprint if its full text has been submitted.
Second, an uncorrected preprint shall be accepted as corrected preprint when Newpubli Editorial Team have found that it has met the following six criteria: the first or corresponding author has done research for no less than five years; the manuscript is well written in English; the manuscript is in the required format; the manuscript is mainly based on novel data, novel inferences, and/or novel views; the manuscript has met the ethical requirements of Newpubli; the manuscript has met the copyright requirements of Newpubli.
Third, when the corrected preprint has obtained a value rank through peer review, it shall be accepted for formal publication as an article.
6. Peer review of Newpubli
The peer review process is divided into five stages in Newpubli.
(1) The first stage of peer review is optional, and it is insensitive and only for providing detailed advice on manuscript revision by at least one expert invited by the authors. The invited experts can be the supervisor, classmates or friends of the authors. They should have much experience in the relevant field and English expression, and they can be properly rewarded by the author side in a rational way (e.g., through payment, some service or authorship). Although this stage of peer review is optional, it is very useful to improve the value of manuscripts, and so its significance should be well recognized by all authors, especially for those who are not good at scientific writing.
(2) The second stage of peer review is also optional and only for examination in grammar and format. It is conducted by one editing company which is selected by the corresponding author from those having been accredited by Newpubli or another well-known editing company. The editing company will be paid by the corresponding authors. The editing companies do not have any financial relationships with us (Newpubli Corporation and Newpubli). This stage of peer review can further ensure that each article is well written.
(3) The third stage of peer review is conducted by Newpubli Editorial Team after the optional second peer review, to judge whether the preprint is ready to be rated by outer peer review experts according to the six criteria mentioned above related to authorship, writing, format, novelty, ethics and copyright.
(4) The fourth stage of peer review is sensitive and mainly for value rating, as set forth below, by experts invited by Newpubli Editorial Team. The ratings given by the peer reviewers are hidden in the online database and blind to everyone. This ensures that the rating is a type of secret ballot to minimize prejudice of the peer review. Many experts from different affiliations are invited by journal Newpubli Editorial Team to ensure at least five of them accept the invitation and provide the rating to further minimize prejudice of the peer review. The median of the ratings of the experts shall be calculated as the first value rank that is designated as the peer review rank (abbreviated as the PR-Rank) of the relevant preprint. The calculation is also useful to minimize prejudice of the peer review. The PR-Rank is calculated automatically by software and cannot be changed by anyone.
(5) The fifth stage of peer review is done after an article has been formally published by Newpubli, and the peer review is given by any registered readers who want to make comments online on the article. Authors may be requested by Newpubli Editorial Team to respond to some of the comments.
Totally, these five stages of peer review are useful to minimize the time between submission and publication, minimize the review burden of each reviewer, minimize prejudice of reviewers in selecting and rating articles, ensure the peer review quality, and disseminate the relevant novel research results among the most interested researchers.
None of the stages of peer review is of any significance for Newpubli to reject a manuscript except that the manuscript is found to be of ethical flaws. This can greatly minimize the negative effect of peer review on academic publishing.
Newpubli shall not reject a manuscript only because some reviewers commented that it is of limited value or technically unreliable. This is because of multiple reasons: the comments may be wrong; a manuscript of limited value or technically unreliable can also provide some interesting novel research data or opinions for readers, and this is useful to solve the academia problem that useful information on many topics is deficient; a manuscript of limited value or technically unreliable shall likely be rated with a low PR-Rank, and readers can search, select and read only the articles whose PR-Ranks are greater than a certain threshold, to avoid another academia problem: deluge of information on many other topics.
7. Article value ranking in Newpubli
Newpubli uniquely provides four value ranks for each article published by the journal. When a manuscript has been published as a preprint by Newpubli, at least five experts invited by a Newpubli editor shall rate the manuscript to calculate the PR-Rank. A total of nine categories of PR-Ranks (1–9) are set in Newpubli, and articles whose PR-Ranks are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are largely as valuable as those published in some journals whose IFs are 0–0.5, 0.5–1.5, 1.5–2.5, 2.5–3.5, 3.5–4.5, 4.5–5.5, 5.5–10.5, 10.5–20.5 and ≥20.5, respectively, as rated through the peer review. The median of the ratings of peer reviewers is calculated and taken as the PR-Rank of an article. The PR-Rank can rate the value of an article in a direct, fair, rapid and clear way. This is distinct from the post-publication metrics provided by the fourth generation of journals reflecting article value in a late, unclear and complicated way. Additionally, if an article published by Newpubli has been cited during the first one, two and five years after publication, for example, for 2, 5 and 12 times, respectively, then the second, third and fourth ranks of this article will be 2 (=2/1), 2.5 (=5/2) and 2.4 (=12/5), respectively. These three ranks can provide additional data for reflecting the value of an article. For example, if an article published by Newpubli is of a low PR-Rank, but its second, third and fourth ranks are all high, this indicates that the article is likely of high value and its PR-Rank is likely an underestimation. The second, third and fourth ranks are designated as the one-year rank (OY-Rank), the two-year rank (TY-Rank), and the five-year rank (FY-Rank), respectively.
8. Sub-journals of Newpubli
Newpubli uniquely has nine sub-journals which formally publish articles whose PR-Ranks are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, respectively, namely those articles which are rated through peer review to be largely as valuable as the ones published in some journals whose impact factors are 0–0.5, 0.5–1.5, 1.5–2.5, 2.5–3.5, 3.5–4.5, 4.5–5.5, 5.5–10.5, 10.5–20.5 and ≥20.5, respectively.
9. Two-stage of publication
When a Newpubli editor has found that a manuscript has met the above six requirements, the manuscript shall be accepted and published soon as a preprint. Consequently, a manuscript can be published within days rather than months after submission. When the PR-Rank of the preprint has been available, the preprint will be formally published by Newpubli.
10. Impact factors of Newpubli
We hope that Newpubli will appear in the Journal Citation Reports and receive its impact factor (IF) in the future. Moreover, the IF of each sub-journal of Newpubli shall be estimated using the standard method, so that articles published by each sub-journal of Newpubli can be rated not only by the article-based PR-Rank, OY-Rank, TY-Rank and FY-Rank, but also by the traditional method using IFs.
In effect, The IFs of the nine sub-journals of Newpubli are designed to be 0–0.5, 0.5–1.5, 1.5–2.5, 2.5–3.5, 3.5–4.5, 4.5–5.5, 5.5–10.5, 10.5–20.5 and ≥20.5, respectively.
11. Comments of readers
Registered readers of Newpubli can make comments on a preprint or article published by Newpubli anonymously or using their real names. Some of the comments shall be responded by authors and/or Newpubli Editorial Team.
12. Acknowledgement of contributors
Newpubli credits the contribution of all contributors. It quantifies the contribution of readers and authors of Newpubli as well as the reviewers invited by the journal. Authors, readers and reviewers have the opportunities to be awarded by Newpubli. Awarded authors, readers and reviewers shall have the opportunities to be academic editors of Newpubli. Besides, the journal will also properly acknowledge donors who provide financial support for Newpubli.
13. Open access publication payment
Newpubli Corporation is not for profit and of low cost partially due to active participation of authors in peer review and editing. Therefore, author need not pay ANY fee for open-access publication. Although authors need not pay any fee for open-access publication, they are hoped to actively participate in the peer review of the journal.
14. Confidentiality of submissions
Newpubli requires editors and reviewers to treat all submitted manuscripts in strict confidence before they have been published by Newpubli as preprints.
15. Publication ethics required by Newpubli
Newpubli requires that authors should be aware of, and comply with, best practice in publication ethics specifically with regard to plagiarism, falsification, competing interests, authorship, dual submission, human rights, animal welfare, biosecurity, and dual use of research. Some requirements of Newpubli on publication ethics in these respects are given below.
Newpubli also requires the first paragraph of the Ethics subsection within the section of Statement should declare as follows.
The authors declare herein that they have not conducted plagiarism, falsification or dual submission as for this article, and that they have been aware of and comply with the ethical requirements of Newpubli on authorship, human rights, animal welfare, biosecurity and dual use of research.
Newpubli will vigorously investigate allegations of publication misconduct in Newpubli both before and after publication. Newpubli reserves the right to contact authors’ institutions, funders or regulatory bodies if needed. If Newpubli finds conclusive evidence of misconduct, Newpubli will take steps to correct the scientific record, which may include issuing a correction or retraction.
Newpubli will provide opportunities for authors to respond to allegation of misconduct, as Newpubli recognizes that wrong allegation of misconduct is harmful to authors and the academic society.
16. How to avoid plagisrism
16. How to avoid plagisrism
If an author used any data, idea or any piece of writings of someone else without proper citation in an article, then the author conducted plagiarism which is similar to stealing, except the relevant information is common knowledge. To avoid plagiarism, when the author finds any kinds of information for writing an article, the author should make the record of the source of each piece of information, so that he or she will be able to make proper citation.
If an author used any data of others in his or her article without written permission, no matter whether the data have been published, is a serious type of plagiarism.
If an author claimed that an idea, opinion or conclusion is novel in his or her article, the author should read enough references to exclude that the idea, opinion or conclusion has not been proposed previously by other people, to avoid plagiarism.
When an author writes the sections of introduction and methods of an article, albeit the author need not provide any citation for some common knowledge in the sections, the author should not copy language word for word from another source for more than two sentences without proper citation.
When an author uses a piece of information which can be found from multiple sources in an article, the author can cite only one or more of the sources to avoid plagiarism.
If some reviewers or readers have identified plagiarism in an article, Newpubli will issue a formal correction or retraction of the whole article, as appropriate. If the plagiarism is too serious, Newpubli may retract all the articles that the relevant author has published in Newpubli, and block his or her account in Newpubli.
17. How to avoid falsification
If an author used some data or figures to support the conclusion of an article, and one or more of the data or figures were not exactly produced by the methods stated in the article, then the author conducted falsification.
If some reviewers or readers have identified falsification in your article, Newpubli will issue a formal correction or retraction of the whole article, as appropriate. If the falsification is too severe, Newpubli may retract all the articles that the relevant author has published in Newpubli, and block his or her account in Newpubli.
18. Authorship in Newpubli
All authors listed in a manuscript will be contacted by Newpubli through email at submission to ensure that they are aware of and approve the submission of the manuscript, its content, and its authorship.
The contributions of all authors listed in a manuscript must be described clearly in the manuscript.
A person should have qualify for authorship if he or she has made substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, or drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and has agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.
When a large, multicenter group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who take direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship defined above, and editors will ask these individuals to complete journal-specific author and conflict-of-interest disclosure forms. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the preferred citation and identify all individual authors as well as the group name. Newpubli generally lists some or all the members of the group in the Acknowledgments.
Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship.
Contributions that fall short of authorship should be mentioned in the Acknowledgments section of the paper.
If the list of authors of a manuscript is necessary to be changed after the initial submission of a manuscript to Newpubli, the corresponding author must provide a clear reason for the change to clarify that the change is appropriate and in keeping with the guidelines given above.
19. Declaration of competing interests
A competing interest is anything that interferes with, or can be considered to interfere with, the objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of articles. Authors, affiliations of the authors, sponsors of the work, reviewers, editors, and publishers can all have competing interests in a research article which may influence the presentation and peer review of the article. Declaration of competing interests allows readers to better evaluate the related article.
Newpubli requires all editors, reviewers, and readers must declare their own competing interests and, if necessary, avoid rating the value of the related article.
Newpubli also requires all corresponding authors should declare whether any competing interests exist in their articles within the section of Statements, and the authors must list all funders of the relevant work, and declare whether any funder was involved in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, writing of the paper, and/or decision to submit for publication. If the funder was involved, the involvement must be described explicitly.
Newpubli might decide not to publish an article if Newpubli believe the competing interests declared by the authors might have compromised the objectivity or validity of the research, analyses, or interpretations in the article. Failure to declare competing interests at submission can result in immediate rejection of the paper, and if a competing interest comes to light after publication, Newpubli will issue a formal correction or retraction of the whole article, as appropriate.
20. Biosecurity and dual use research
Newpubli recognizes that certain research with legitimate scientific purpose may be misused and pose a threat to public health and/or public property, and such research is called dual use research. For example, if some man-made viruses are created through reverse genetics in order to reveal the molecular mechanism of the virulence of a virus, these man-made viruses can pose a great threat to public health or domestic animals if they escape from the laboratory, and this research is a typical dual use research. Newpubli may reject to publish articles with data of dual use research. If a manuscript contains any data of dual use research, the author should disclose this risk in the first paragraph of the Ethics subsection within the section of Statements at the end of an article.
21. Studies involving human participants
For any manuscript reporting on any studies involving human participants, the second paragraph of the Ethics subsection within the section of Statements at the end of an article must specify the relevant study has been formally approved by the authors’ institutional review board or equivalent entity, and that board must be named in the manuscript. All clinical investigation must have been conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent must have been obtained from each human participant, except that lack of the consent has been explained. Newpubli requires authors to submit a sample of the consent form.
For research involving humans categorized by race/ethnicity, age, disease/disabilities, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, or other socially constructed groupings, authors should make explicit the definitions of the categories, justify their choices of the categories, make explicit their methods of categorizing human populations, and explain whether and how they controlled for confounding variables such as socioeconomic status, nutrition, environmental exposures, etc.
Authors should indicate, as part of the Ethics subsection in the section of Statements, the ways in which the study participants’ privacy was preserved.
In addition, potentially stigmatizing labels should not be used on any participants.
22. Clinical trials
Manuscripts on clinical trials must adhere to the CONSORT reporting guidelines appropriate to their trial design, available on the CONSORT Statement website.
The methods section must include the name of the registry, the registry number, and the URL of your trial in the registry database for each location in which the trial is registered.
A copy of the trial protocol approved by the ethics committee and a completed CONSORT checklist should be provided as two Attachment files of the manuscript. Any deviation from the trial protocol must be explained in the paper.
Authors must explicitly discuss informed consent in their paper, and a copy of the patient consent form should be provided as another Attachment file of the manuscript.
The CONSORT flow diagram should be provided as one of the first figures of the manuscript.
23. Studies involving animals
For any manuscript reporting on any studies involving animals, the second paragraph of the Ethics subsection within the section of Statements at the end of an article must specify the relevant study has been conducted according to applicable national and international guidelines on animal welfare. The authors should obtain prior approval for use of animals from the relevant ethics committee of the author’s institution, and the committee name and permit numbers must be given in the manuscript at submission. For research involving non-human primates, the research must be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Weatherall (2006) report, The use of non-human primates in research. If ethics approval is not required by a specific committee, the article should include a clear statement of this fact and the reasons why ethical approval is not required in the Ethics subsection.
The following is an example of the second paragraph of the Ethics subsection.
This study was carried out in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of Nanjing Biomedical University. The protocol was approved by the Committee on the Ethics of Science of Nanjing Biomedical University (Permit Number: 2015-070802). All surgery was performed under sodium pentobarbital anesthesia, and all efforts were made to minimize suffering.
24. Field Studies
For any manuscript reporting on any type of field study, the second paragraph of the Ethics subsection within the section of Statements at the end of an article must specify: permits and approvals obtained for the work, including the full name of the authority that approved the study (if none were required, authors should explain why); whether any protected species were sampled; whether any observed targets are privately owned or protected; full details of relevant actions done by the authors to fulfill their legal and ethical duties to protect the rights of others or the public. The following is an example of the second paragraph of the ethics statement.
This study was conducted in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Animals of China Agricultural Institute. The feces samples, drinking-water samples and swab samples from poultry farms, backyard flocks and live bird markets, were all collected with permission given by multiple relevant parties, including the Ministry of Agriculture of China, China Animal Health and Epidemiology Center, the relevant veterinary section in the provincial and county or city government, and the owners of the birds. The feces samples were collected from the fresh feces in the ground. The drinking-water samples were collected from the water trough for a group of birds. Swab samples were collected by gently taking smears from the trachea and cloacae of the domestic fowls and then placed in a transport medium.
25. Disclosure ahead of publication
Authors may present and discuss their findings ahead of publication at scientific conferences, on preprint servers, in public databases, and in blogs, wikis, tweets, and other informal channels. However, Newpubli recommends authors not to contact the media or respond to such contact unless their article has been accepted for publication.
26. Related manuscripts submitted elsewhere
When a manuscript is submitted to Newpubli, its corresponding author should disclose whether there is a related manuscript under consideration (or accepted) for publication elsewhere. If the answer is yes, the copy of the related manuscript must be submitted as an attachment of the manuscript submitted to Newpubli. Editors and reviewers of Newpubli will consider the overlap between the manuscripts.
27. Data sharing
Any article published by Newpubli must include the section of Data Sharing Statement in the section of Statements which states that all data underlying the findings or conclusions described in the manuscript are fully available without restriction. Authors cannot refuse to share your data because of patent application or potential future publications. If restrictions on access to data come to light after publication, Newpubli reserves the right to post a correction or to retract the publication.
Newpubli requires that authors should share certain types of data through depositing in appropriate repositories, and the Data Sharing Statement must specify the repository where the data are deposited and list digital object identifiers or accession numbers for the relevant datasets. Particularly, gene sequences should be deposited in GenBank, EMBL or DDBJ, and microarray data should be deposited in ArrayExpress or GEO, and ecological data should be deposited in Dryad. Large, international databases are more likely to persist than small, local ones.
If your research involved human participants, you must handle and share the relevant data properly to protect the privacy of study participants, favorably according to established guidance and applicable local laws which you may find from the following websites:
28. Material sharing
If a material used in your article published by Newpubli is not commercially available, you should try your best to make it available to other researchers for noncommercial use. Newpubli also realizes that sometimes you cannot share some materials that you reported in your articles with other researchers because they are of great commercial value or great danger, or they are given to you by others, etc.
29. Software sharing
If a new software tool is central to an article published by Newpubli, the associated source code of the software, the documentation for running and installing the software, and a test dataset with associated control parameter settings should be submitted as attachments of the relevant manuscript.
30. Correction and retraction
Where appropriate, Newpubli publishes corrections, retractions and comments as quickly as possible, after the relevant article has been published formally by Newpubli.
If Newpubli knows that some places of an article published by Newpubli should be corrected, the corrections shall be made directly in the article which will be re-posted online. Meanwhile, the corrections and the relevant dates shall be published as comments of the relevant article to document the correction. Moreover, on the first part of the article, there shall be a notice in the section of “Article History” like this “Article corrected: 17-12-2015; 25-12-2015”.
Readers are encouraged to post comments on typographical errors and other problems.
If an article published by Newpubli is found to be of validity or ethical flaws, the article may be retracted by Newpubli. Newpubli shall notify the managers of some websites which has hosted the article that the article has been retracted by Newpubli.
31. Scoring system and awards
Authors, reviewers and readers of Newpubli can obtain scores and be awarded through rational methods to properly quantify their contribution. For more information in this respect, please view the relevant guides in the home page of Newpubli.
Section B. Editorial Policies of Newpubli Express
The Editorial Policies of Newpubli Express are different from those of Newpubli only regarding peer review and article value ranking, as set forth below.
1. Peer review of Newpubli Express
Newpubli Express is of no peer review. Additionally, it can publish articles transferred from Newpubli without showing their PR-Ranks.
2. Article value ranking of Newpubli Express
Newpubli Express is different from other journals without peer review mainly in that it gives automatically each published article three value ranks, namely the OY-Rank, TY-Rank and FY-Rank, based on the times of being cited after publication. For example, if an article published by Newpubli Express has been cited by 2, 7 and 15 times within the first one, two and five years after publication, the OY-Rank, TY-Rank and FY-Rank of the article is 2 (=2/1), 3.5 (=7/2), and 3 (=15/5), respectively. These three value ranks can reflect the value of an article in a simple, clear and fair way, although they can not reflect the value in a timely way as they are not available until the relevant article has been published for one, two and five years, respectively.
(Last update: 18-02-2016)
© 2017 Newpubli Corporation