Publication Ethics

1. Our commitment

The Journal of Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Computational Science (JNPCS) is committed to integrity and transparency in scientific publishing. Editorial decisions are made on scientific merit only. JNPCS follows the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the recommendations of the ICMJE, and encourages authors to use the reporting guidelines of the EQUATOR Network.

The journal is published by SiaCore. The publisher supports the journal but does not take part in, or influence, editorial or scientific decisions about individual manuscripts.

2. Authorship

Authors must have made a substantial contribution to the work, helped draft or critically revise it, approved the final version, and agree to be accountable for it (ICMJE criteria). Everyone who meets these criteria must be listed; contributors who do not are named in the Acknowledgements.

• Every submission includes an Author Contributions statement. The CRediT taxonomy is recommended.
• All listed authors must have read and approved the submitted version and agree to be named.
• Changes to the author list after submission require a written request signed by all authors and are approved by the editors.
• ORCID iDs are encouraged for all authors.

3. Research ethics, consent and registration

• The Materials and Methods section must begin with an ethical approval statement, naming the approving body and reference where applicable.
• Studies involving people require informed consent, or a justified waiver by the ethics committee. Identifying details of patients and participants must be removed or published only with explicit consent.
• Studies involving animals must follow applicable national and institutional guidelines, which must be stated.
• Clinical trials must give their registration number in the Declarations.
• The editors may ask for evidence of approval and may decline manuscripts that do not meet accepted ethical standards.

4. Competing interests and funding

Authors, reviewers and editors must disclose any financial or personal relationship that could be seen as influencing their work or judgement. Authors declare competing interests and all funding sources in the Declarations section; if there are none, the manuscript says so.

Reviewers declare conflicts before accepting an invitation and decline when a conflict exists. Editors who are authors of a submission, or who have a conflict with it, are excluded from handling it: they lose access to its files, reviews and decision.

5. Peer review and confidentiality

Submissions are screened by the editorial office and handled by an editor. Suitable manuscripts are sent for independent expert review. Final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief (or an editor to whom decisions have been formally delegated). The identity of reviewers is not disclosed to authors, and where blind review applies the identity of authors is withheld from reviewers. See For Reviewers for the process and reviewer duties.

• Manuscripts and reviews are confidential. They must not be shared, discussed or used by reviewers or editors for any purpose other than the review.
• Reviewers’ confidential comments to the editor are never shown to authors.
• Every editorial decision, its date and the person who made it are recorded in the manuscript history.

6. Plagiarism, duplicate publication and image integrity

Plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, image manipulation and redundant (duplicate) publication are serious misconduct. The editorial office may screen submissions with similarity-checking tools. Authors must disclose related manuscripts, prior publication, preprints and conference abstracts at submission and cite them appropriately.

Suspected misconduct is investigated following COPE guidance, and authors are given the opportunity to respond before any action is taken.

7. Data availability and reproducibility

Every article includes a Data Availability Statement describing how the data supporting the results can be accessed, with links and persistent identifiers where data are public. If data cannot be shared, the reasons must be explained. Primary and secondary data used in the research should be available to the editors and reviewers on request. Sharing code and detailed protocols in public repositories is encouraged.

8. Use of artificial intelligence

• Authors must disclose any use of artificial intelligence in creating parts of the manuscript, stating which parts, which tool and which version. AI tools cannot be listed as authors, and authors remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy and references.
• Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, reviews or other confidential material to AI tools that store or reuse the content. Any permitted use of AI in an assessment must be disclosed to the editor, and the reviewer remains responsible for the opinion given.

9. Corrections, expressions of concern and retractions

Published articles are the permanent record. Authors review the final version before publication, and publication is only possible after their approval. After publication, substantive changes are made only through a visible notice:

• Correction: for errors that affect interpretation but not the validity of the conclusions.
• Expression of concern: while a serious concern is being investigated.
• Retraction: when findings are unreliable because of misconduct or honest error, or when the work is redundant or unethical. The article stays available, clearly marked as retracted, with the reason stated.

Earlier versions of an article are retained in the journal’s records.

10. Complaints, appeals and misconduct allegations

Authors may appeal a decision by writing to the editorial office with a reasoned explanation and, where relevant, new evidence. Complaints about editorial conduct and allegations of misconduct may be sent through the Contact page, marked as confidential. They are handled by an editor who is not involved in the matter, or by the Editor-in-Chief, and may be referred to the publisher. Where a matter cannot be resolved internally, COPE procedures may be followed.

11. Expected behaviour

Everyone taking part in the journal — authors, reviewers, editors and staff — is expected to be courteous and professional. Abusive or harassing behaviour towards any participant may lead to the person’s involvement with the journal being ended.