Aim and Scope
We aim to provide researchers, professors and students with up-to-date research in a broad range of areas, and to facilitate the global exchange and review of research, ideas and expertise among individuals in the scientific society. Science Era journals maintain the highest standards of peer review, with international editors on the editorial boards. Our goal is to facilitate the distribution and publication of scientific research all over the world.
Peer Review Process
All journals published by Science Era cooperate on the established basis of full and transparent peer review. All submitted research articles to any titles are subject to the highest standards of international peer review:
- At least two suitably qualified experts review each manuscript
- The journal’s Editor-in-Chief makes all publication decisions based on the reviews provided
- The international Editorial Board Members assist the Editor-in-Chief in decision making on specific submissions
- The international Editorial Board Members lend insight, advice, and guidance to the Editor-in-Chief
- Administrative support for the review process is provided by the Managing Editors and Editorial Assistants. They uphold the integrity of peer review while delivering rapid turnaround and maximum efficiency to all stakeholders including authors, reviewers, and editors alike
- We do not release referees’ identities to authors or to other reviewers unless a referee voluntarily signs their comments to the authors. Our preference is for referees to remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.
- Science Era deploys the Open Journal Systems (OJS) tracking system to support its peer review processes. This system has a long, successful track record with major journals and publishers globally.
- Science Era subscribes fully to the COPE code of conduct and best practice for journal editors ensuring that our editors are accountable for everything published in our journals.
Readers will always be informed about how the research is funded, and our relationships with authors, reviewers, and editorial board members will be influenced by COPE.
Reviewers primarily evaluate the originality, validity, and importance of the manuscripts, and provide detailed and evidence-based (with references) comments to help editors to make publication decisions (accept, revise or reject) and authors to make improvements.
The following points are considered during the review process.
- Is the manuscript suitable for the journal? Is it original and important?
The topic should be within the scope of the journal and should be of interest to the readers. Reviewers also need to judge the originality and importance of the manuscript.
- Is the study design appropriate and complete?
Any issues arising with regard to inclusion and exclusion criteria, blinding, sampling, interventions, baseline, endpoints, and follow-up should be pointed out and commented on. Reviewers should also assess if the details are sufficient for the authors’ counterparts to replicate the study.
- Are the results and conclusions well supported?
Reviewers should highlight if the data are incomplete, insufficient, or if there are errors, because the data may fail to lead to the results and thus the conclusions.
- Are there any problems regarding statistics?
The statistics reviewer needs to make sure there are no flaws or errors regarding statistical methods and analyses.
- Are there any ethical issues to be dealt with?
The authors should provide ethical approval from an appropriate ethics committee and informed consent from the subjects for any studies involving humans. Reviewers should question any disclosure of conflicts of interest that is unreasonably absent.
Reviewers should respect and observe the confidentiality of the manuscript.
Open Access Policy
All journals provide immediate Open Access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Science Era guarantees that all published material will be available in perpetuity. All Science Era journals are subscribed members to the Portico digital preservation service provided by ITHAKA, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the academic community use digital technologies to preserve the scholarly record and to advance research and teaching in sustainable ways.
Portico acts as an independent backup the repository for publishers’ online content. Membership of Portico demonstrates Science Era’s commitment to ensuring that valuable material previously published will always be available independent of Science Era’s existence.
journals utilize the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permit those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. see
The editor in chief makes the final decision regarding publication or rejection of the submitted articles without the interference of its owner or economic interests.
Conflicts of Interests
Conflicts of interest (sometimes referred to as competing interests or dual loyalties) are common, and some would say almost inevitable. Conflicts of interest are secondary interests (e.g., personal, commercial, political, academic or financial) that may influence judgments on a primary decision, in this case, what is published. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived. Financial interests may include employment, research funding, sponsorship, stock or share ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies, company support for staff commissioning/ funding/sponsoring of any element of the paper, any financial or potential financial benefit, or PR firm involvement.
Management of conflicts of interest
We take the view that any potential conflicts of interests (COIs) must be recognized and stated. If there is doubt about the existence of a conflict, it is preferable to err on the side of disclosure. Most COIs can be managed, as per the following procedures; however, there may be occasions when the COIs is so extreme as to make publication impossible.
This is not an exhaustive list of potential conflicts, rather an indication of the range of potential COIs:
- Potential Author COIs
Authors are asked to consider COIs in both the instructions to authors of our journals and then to declare in writing on a form.
- Instructions to authors – include the following: ‘Authors must declare any competing interests by completing our standard form. Conflict of interests/competing interests can be defined as factors which could influence the judgment of an author, reviewer or editors, and maybe personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial in nature. Put simply, they are interests which, if revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived’.
- COIs form – we require authors to disclose any potential COIs relevant to the publication of their manuscript.
- Potential Reviewer COIs
Editors of our journals will try to avoid inviting individuals to review who have potential COIs. Editors will also attempt to honor authors’ requests to exclude potential reviewers, provided that the reason for exclusion is a true COI and that rigorous and comprehensive review is possible if these individuals are excluded. At the time they are invited to review, individuals must disclose any COIs that could bias their opinions, and they must disqualify themselves from reviewing when appropriate. If a COI becomes apparent during the review process, the reviewer must contact the journal office and, when appropriate, ask to be recused. The following situations are considered conflicts and should be avoided:
- Co-authoring publications with at least one of the authors in the past 3 years
- Being colleagues within the same section/department or similar organizational unit in the past 3 years
- Supervising/having supervised the doctoral work of the author (s) or being supervised/having been supervised by the author(s)
- Receiving professional or personal benefit resulting from the review
- Having a personal relationship (e.g., family, close friend) with the author(s)
- Having a direct or indirect financial interest in the paper being reviewed
It is not considered a COIs if the reviewers have worked together with the authors in a collaborative project (e.g., EU) or if they have co-organized an event.
- Editorial Board Member COIs
Articles by Editorial Board members will be treated as usual for that category of article and undergo the same peer-review process. In this case, another editor would be appointed to manage the peer-review process. If no editor can be identified who does not have a COIs then a guest editor may be invited to manage the manuscript. Any guest editor must have a good understanding of the journal.
- Potential Editor COIs
Editors of our journals will not act as the decision-maker in articles with which they feel they have a COIs, such as working with the authors or performing competing research. If the editor has not worked with the author for more than six months, then they may be eligible to edit an article. Some conflicts will be insurmountable for editors, for example, personal friendships, which will not have a time expiry. Knowledge of an author or being an acquaintance is not enough on its own to mean that the editor cannot manage the article. Editors should err on the side of not taking articles with which they may have a conflict of interest and discuss with the Editor-in-Chief any concerns about their own conflicts, so a decision can be made about the most suitable editor for the article.
For additional guidance and information on the topic of conflict of interests and competing interests please refer to the ICMJE recommendations on author responsibility document.
Print and Online Advertising is open to consideration in Science Era journals subject to the specific individual journal policies. All sponsorship, advertising or funding must be approved by Science Era first before being sent to the relevant journal’s editor-in-chief for final approval. Science Era reserves the right to refuse sponsorship or advertising from any source.
All Science Era journals are subject to our core advertising standards, which are:
- Advertising is not allowed to influence editorial decisions — editorial and advertising sales administration are completely separate operations within
- All advertisers must comply fully with legal requirements relating to trade descriptions and medicines.
- Adverts will respect the dignity of all persons and avoid causing offense on the grounds of gender, marital or civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability or race.
- Any scientific information in marketing communication will be presented in an accurate manner. Scientific terminology will be appropriate, clearly communicated, and be capable of being readily understood by the audience to whom it is directed.
- The positioning of adverts promoting specific products in proximity to articles discussing such products will be avoided where possible.
- In all situations, it will be clear for readers to distinguish between editorial content and advertising.
- Online adverts will not be placed based on user behavior.
To make a specific inquiry please feel free to contact our sales team: email
Disclosure of Funding Sources
Journals authors are required to declare what support they received to carry out their research. Declaring funding sources acknowledges funders’ contributions, fulfills funding requirements, and promotes greater transparency in the research process.
- What to declare?
Each author must individually declare all sources of funding received for the research submitted to the journal. This information includes the name of granting agencies, grant numbers, and a description of each funder’s role. If the funder has played no role in the research, this must be stated as well.
Authors are not required to provide the complete list of every single grant that supports them if the grant is not related to the research published
- Funding statement
A Funding Statement is included in the metadata of each published article. The Funding Statement includes the funding information declared by the authors.
Inaccurate information about funding discovered after publication may require correction.
- How to declare?
Funding information is entered into the online submission system.
- Funding from tobacco companies
Science Era will not consider for publication manuscripts in which any of the research costs or authors' salaries have been funded, in whole or in part, by a tobacco company.
Authors can opt to retain their copyright and publish with Science Era under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The CC-BY license permits commercial and non-commercial re-use of an open-access article.
Indeed, Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This license also permits commercial and non-commercial re-use of an open-access article.
Infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, or the like. Occasionally a retraction will be used to correct errors in submission or publication. Standards for dealing with retractions have been developed by several library and scholarly bodies, and this best practice is adopted for article retraction by Science Era:
- A retraction notes titled “Retraction: [article title]” signed by the authors and/or the editor is published in the paginated part of a subsequent issue of the journal and listed in the contents list.
- In the electronic version, a link is made to the original article.
- The online article is preceded by a screen containing the retraction note. It is to this screen that the link resolves; the reader can then proceed to the article itself.
- The original article is retained unchanged save for a watermark on the .pdf indicating on each page that it is “retracted.”
- The HTML version of the document is removed.
Article Removal: Legal limitations
In an extremely limited number of cases, it may be necessary to remove an article from the online database. This will only occur where the article is clearly defamatory or infringes others’ legal rights, or where the article is, or we have good reason to expect it will be, the subject of a court order, or where the article, if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk. In these circumstances, while the metadata (Title and Authors) will be retained, the text will be replaced with a screen indicating the article has been removed for legal reasons.
In cases where the article, if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk, the authors of the original article may wish to retract the flawed original and replace it with a corrected version. In these circumstances, the procedures for retraction will be followed with the difference that the database retraction notice will publish a link to the corrected re-published article and a history of the document.
Erratum & Corrigendum
In the instance where errors are introduced to the article by the publisher, an erratum will be published to the original article. All publisher-introduced changes are highlighted to the author at the proof stage and any errors are ideally identified by the author and corrected by the publisher before final publication.
Should the author wish to publish to a change to their article that at any time after acceptance a corrigendum will be published. Authors should contact the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, who will determine the impact of the change and decide on the appropriate course of action.
Letters to the Editor/Opinions
We accept short and decisive observations related to articles previously published, or views expressed in our journals.
Withdrawal is an action that takes the manuscript out of the review process and places it back into the author's dashboard. In General, we do not suggest article withdrawal, since it wastes valuable manuscript processing time, money and works invested by the publisher.
-Pre-Review: is a period that an author(s) submit(s) her/his article until to be sent for review.
-Peer-Review: is a period that manuscript submitted completely into the website and included in the review process.
-Review – Final Decision: is a period from the acceptance of an article until to be sent for publication if the article meets the journal standards.
-Post-Publication: when a paper is published (online and/or hard copy).
-Pre-Review: The author(s) can withdraw their papers at this step without paying any charges and/or posting compelling reasons.
-Peer-Review: The authors must have compelling reasons and pay 300 Euro as the withdrawal penalty.
-Review – Final Decision: The authors must have compelling reasons and pay 500 Euro as the withdrawal penalty.
-Post-Publication: Withdrawing at this step is not possible at all.
Appeals and Complaints
Science Era adheres to COPE guidelines regarding appeals to editorial decisions and complaints. All authors have the right to appeal the rejection of their manuscript, and authors can appeal directly by contacting the relevant journals. Please check individual journal’s ‘Manuscript Preparation’ pages for more information.
All complaints can be made directly to the relevant journal editorial office who will be happy to outline the complaint procedure in full.
- the information that we collect;
- how we use this information, why we store and why we retain it; and
- how you can request that your information is updated, corrected, or deleted.
Per the General Data Protection Regulations 2018, you have the following rights:
- the right to be informed
- a right of access – you have the right to access the information we hold about you. This is called a subject access request and must be made to using the e-mail address set out below.
- the right of rectification – should you feel that we hold incorrect or incomplete information about you, please contact email to amend/update the data as desired.
- the right of erasure (right to be forgotten) – please see the section on right to erasure.
- the right of data portability
- the right to restrict processing – we will always respect a request by you to stop contact by any or all methods of communication or for any specific purpose.
- the right to object – we are registered with the Data Commissioner’s Office, and it is your right to complain with them.
We follow the following principles to protect your privacy and to comply with GDPR:
- we do not collect more information than is necessary
- we do not use your data for purposes other than those specified
- we do not keep your data if it is no longer needed
- we do not share your data with third parties
- we use the appropriate technical measures to ensure that your data is securely stored on our system
Why we collect personal data
We collect data so that we may provide you with a reliable and efficient service which enables us to contact you when you apply for a job opportunity advertised on our website. The data we collect may be used for the following purposes:
- To provide your details (including your CV and other information provided to us) to the recruitment staff in Science Era where you have submitted such information in response to job vacancies displayed on our website.
- Your data may be used to compile shortlists of relevant candidates for certain vacancies and may be shared with staff in Science Era who are involved in the recruitment process. We do not use any automated decision-making process to shortlist candidates for a particular vacancy.
- To carry out our obligations arising from any contracts entered between you and us.
Types of data Science Era collects from our website http://compuscript.com
Personal data relates to a specific individual who may be identifiable from that data. This can include:
- Contact information such as name, email address and phone number
- Job title, employment history, qualifications, a copy of your CV, past and current remuneration
[Note: Information submitted by you relating to your education, employment history, other work-related information (include rate or salary information) and any other information provided to us on a CV will be stored.]
- Survey results from Freelance editors
- Any other employment-related data
Other third-party sources of data
If collecting information from a third party, we will seek your consent in advance or otherwise make you aware of the collection and the reasons for it. This information may include:
- Professional references
- Results of competency tests
- Subjective feedback on performance
Where your data is stored
Your data will be stored within our database. This system is cloud-based, but we ensure that all necessary data protection protocols are in place.
Cookies are used to collect information about how visitors use our website, for example, which pages visitors go to most often. These cookies do not collect information that identifies a visitor.
All information these cookies collect is aggregated and is therefore anonymous. It is only used to compile reports to help us improve our website. Information collected by these cookies cannot tract your browsing activity on other websites.
We do not store any sensitive personal data (as defined in the General Data Protection Regulation 2016 Article 9) unless it has been provided by you as a part of the application or screening process. In this case, it will only be stored with your specific consent.
Right to erasure
If you exercise your right to erasure, we will retain all that information which we are legally obligated to retain (such as employment contract data or financial payment), for the period that is set out by that legal obligation. We may also keep your name and the bare minimum of contact details so that we do not contact you or re-enter your details inadvertently in the future.
Mode and place of processing the data
At Science Era, we take appropriate security measures to prevent unauthorized access, disclosure, modification, or unauthorized destruction of the data.
The data processing is carried out using computers and/or IT-enabled tools, following organizational procedures and modes strictly related to the purposes indicated. In some cases, the data may be accessible to certain types of persons in charge, involved with the operation of the site (administration, legal, system administration) or external parties (such as third-party technical service providers, mail carriers, hosting providers, IT companies, communications agencies) appointed, if necessary, as Data Processors by the Owner. The updated list of these parties may be requested from the Data Controller at any time.
The data is kept for the time necessary to provide the service requested by the user, or stated by the purposes outlined in this document, and the user can always request that the Data Controller suspend or remove the data. Please contact email in this regard.
There is no fee or any kind of charge for publication in Science Era. Clearly, there is no journal charge (any article submission or processing charges).
Ethical Publishing Practice
All our journal stakeholders and authors are required to observe high standards with respect to publication ethics as set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
Science Era subscribes fully to the COPE code of conduct and best practice for journal editors ensuring that our editors are accountable for everything published in our journals. Our readers will always be informed as to how the research is funded and our relationships with the authors, reviewers, and editorial board members will be guided by COPE recommendations
It is important that appropriate credit is awarded to the authors of a manuscript. In accordance with ICMJE guidelines, to qualify as an author, a researcher should make substantive intellectual contributions to each of the following aspects of a publication:
- Concept and design of the study, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data.
- Critically drafting or revising of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
- Final approval of the version to be published. Each author should participate sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not justify authorship.
- Be accountable for all aspects of the work by ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Science Era follows the COPE guidelines for changes in authorship.
Changing the author list after submission requires agreement from all authors. This includes additions, deletions, and changes in order. Authors wishing to make changes to authorship will be asked to complete our change of authorship form. Please note that changes to authorship cannot be made after acceptance of a manuscript.
If the change is deemed to be appropriate, the corresponding author must receive and provide to Science Era the consent to the change from all the authors, including any being added, deleted, or reordered.
Authorship issues identified after publication may result in a correction. In the case of an authorship dispute, Science Era will not arbitrate. If the authors are unable to resolve the dispute themselves, we will raise the issue with the authors’ institution(s) and abide by its guidelines.
A sample of our Authorship Form is available for download here.
Science Era endorses ORCID and encourages every author, editor, and reviewer to register and use their ORCID. We participate in the auto-update feature implemented by Crossref such that when a paper is published, the authors’ ORCIDs (where we have them) are deposited and subsequently used to update each author’s ORCID record.
In the near future, Science Era will begin requiring corresponding authors to provide their ORCID when submitting a manuscript.
Corresponding Author Responsibilities
The corresponding author takes responsibility for, and speaks on behalf of all authors.
- Ensure that the manuscript is in full adherence to all Science Era Editorial Policies and Publication Ethics.
- Ensure that all authors have access to the final version of the manuscript that is submitted to the journal, and agree to the author list and author contributions.
- Ensure that all authors have seen the final draft of the manuscript before it is published.
- Provide to Science Era written confirmation that all authors consent to any requested changes in the manuscript’s authorship.
- Continue to be the point of contact for queries about the published paper.
- Inform all co-authors of any matters arising and ensure such matters are dealt with promptly.
Editor and reviewer requirements
Editors should be aware of the author list and author affiliations when they invite reviewers to review a manuscript in order to reduce the likelihood of inviting individuals with potentially competing interests that would disqualify them from participating in the peer-review process.
Editors and reviewers should contact to Science Era with any concerns about the author list or if they identify any potential competing interests that should be declared or that mean they should recuse themselves from the process.
All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an ‘Acknowledgements’ section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help or writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support.
Research articles and non-research articles (e.g., Opinion, Review, and Commentary articles) must cite appropriate and relevant literature in support of the claims made. Excessive and inappropriate self-citation or coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite is strongly discouraged.
Authors should consider the following guidelines when preparing their manuscript:
- Any statement in the manuscript that relies on external sources of information (i.e., not the authors' own new ideas or findings or general knowledge) should use a citation.
- Authors should avoid citing derivations of original work. For example, they should cite the original work rather than a review article that cites an original work.
- Authors should ensure that their citations are accurate (i.e., they should ensure the citation supports the statement made in their manuscript and should not misrepresent another work by citing it if it does not support the point the authors wish to make).
- Authors should not cite sources that they have not read.
- Authors should not preferentially cite their own or their friends’, peers’, or institution’s publications.
- Authors should avoid citing work solely from one country.
- Authors should not use an excessive number of citations to support one point. Ideally, authors should cite sources that have undergone peer review where possible.
- Authors should not cite advertisements or advertorial material.
“Text recycling” or “self-plagiarism” as it is sometimes called occurs when an author reuses passages of text from his/her own previously published work in a new submission. As all Science Era’s journals are members of CrossCheck’s plagiarism detection initiative, all instances of text recycling can be detected. When such instances are detected the COPE Guidelines on text recycling will be followed.
All manuscripts submitted to Science Era journals should be original and not under consideration by another publication. Apart from causing potential problems from an ethical and international copyright law perspective, the duplicate publication of original research is problematic in a medical context as it can result in inadvertent double-counting of data or inappropriate weighting of the results of a single study, which can distort the available evidence. In instances where substantial parts of the text in the submission may overlap, we ask our authors to be open and let us know of any concerns when they submit their manuscripts.
In the event that we become aware of violations of publication ethics after the article has already been published, then the article may warrant retraction with or without the author’s explanation or approval. In any such event, our journals will adhere to the COPE flowcharts when dealing with suspected violations.
All Science Era journals are members of CrossCheck’s plagiarism detection initiative and use plagiarism detection software. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Registration of Systematic Reviews
The prospective registration of systematic reviews is welcomed, and we encourage all authors to register their systematic reviews in a suitable registry (such as PROSPERO). The registration number should be included in the last line of the manuscript abstract.
Human and Animal Testing
All human or animal studies should be approved or exempted by the appropriate institutional human and/or animal subject review committee, or if no formal ethics committee is available, they should ensure they are in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013. This approval or exemption should be stated in the Methods section of the article.
When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed. Further guidance on animal research ethics is available from the International Association of Veterinary Editors’ Consensus Author Guidelines on Animal Ethics and Welfare.
Research and Publication Misconduct
Any allegations of potential research or publication misconduct will be investigated in adherence with the COPE guidelines on how to deal with cases of suspected misconduct.
Editors and Journal Staff Conduct
Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts will excuse themselves from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential conflicts related to articles under consideration. All other editorial staff members who participate in editorial decisions are obliged to provide editors with a current description of their financial interests or other conflicts (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and excuse themselves from any decisions in which a conflict of interest exists. The editorial staff will not use information gained through working with manuscripts for private gain. Editors will publish regular disclosure statements about potential conflicts of interests related to the commitments of journal staff. Guest editors will follow these same procedures.