Open Access Policy

All research articles published in CellR4 are fully open access and immediately freely accessible. Articles are posted online as soon as they have completed the production process in a fully citable form associated with a universal digital object identifier (DOI). Articles are published under the terms of a  Creative Commons license (see the Licensing section below) which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format (but not for commercial use), provided that the original work is properly cited. Articles can be freely downloaded from our website without need for journal subscription and/or login.

A complete version of the article and related supplementary material (including a copy of the permission, as stated above) is deposited in CLOCKSS repository in a suitable standard electronic format immediately after the publication in CellR4.

Editorial Process and Peer Review

All contributions are initially handled by the Editor-in-Chief (or by a handling Editor on behalf of the Editor-in-Chief), who conducts the first assessment of the manuscript by verifying whether it falls within the aims and scope of the journal. The subsequent decision may be peer-reviewing or rejecting the manuscript. Only the manuscripts that meet our editorial criteria pass this first step and undergo external and internal peer review. Papers judged by the handling Editor as weak or otherwise inappropriate are rejected without undergoing further external peer review (although this decision may be based on informal advice from experts in the field). After this step, the Editor-in-Chief or the Managing Editor assigns the manuscript to 2-4 internal and external peer reviewers. In order to be eligible for the peer review of the manuscript, reviewers must confirm that they did not co-author articles with one or more of the authors of the manuscript during the last 5 years, that they are affiliated with institutions different from those of the authors and that they do not have any conflict of interest in relation to the content of the manuscript. After receiving the comments and recommendations from peer reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief (or the handling Editor on behalf of the Editor-in-Chief) makes another evaluation of the manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments and retains final authority to either allow for manuscript revision or to reject the manuscript. In the final editorial decision, Editors evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments raised by each reviewer and of the authors’ replies. Editors may also take into account additional information which is not available to either party. Editors may also reassign the revised manuscript to additional reviewers (who were not involved in the first review) for further evaluation, particularly when reviewers disagree with each other, or when they may have misunderstood or misinterpreted crucial points of the manuscripts. Reviewers should bear in mind that manuscripts submitted to our journal contain confidential information, which should be treated as such.

Licensing

CellR4 applies a Creative Commons Attribution license (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License; CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)  to all articles published in the journal. If authors submit their paper for consideration of publication in our journal, they agree to have the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license applied to their work as follows:

1. BY) Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
2. NC) NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
3. SA) ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

No additional restrictions) You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.

Notices: you do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.

No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.

Conflicts of Interest (COI)

At the time of submission, CellR4 policy requires that authors disclose potential conflicts of interest (COI), including financial interests, direct and indirect connections, or any other situation that could raise questions of bias in either the reported work or its conclusions, implications, or related opinions. Potential COI to be disclosed include any relevant commercial or noncommercial source of funding for either author(s), or the sponsoring institution, the associated department(s) or organization(s). When considering whether you should declare a COI, please consider the following question: “Is there any arrangement that would embarrass you or any of your co-authors, which you did not declare and would emerge after publication?”.

As an integral part of the online submission process, Corresponding Authors are required to confirm whether they or their co-authors have any COI to disclose. If the Corresponding Author is unable to confirm this information on behalf of all co-authors, the other authors will then be required to send a completed COI form to the Editorial Office. It is the Corresponding Author’s responsibility to ensure that all authors adhere to this policy. Information on potential COI must be reported in the manuscript (see Instructions for authors).

COI in Industry-Sponsored Research

Authors whose manuscripts are submitted for publication must declare all relevant sources of funding in support of the preparation of a manuscript. CellR4 requires full disclosure of financial support as to whether it is from the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical or any other industry, government agencies, or any other source. This information should be included in the Acknowledgements section of the manuscript (see Instructions for authors). Authors are required to specify sources of funding for the study and to indicate whether the text was reviewed by the sponsor prior to submission (e.g., whether the study was written with full investigator access to all relevant data and whether the sponsor exerted editorial influence over the written text). This information should be included in the Cover letter. In addition to the disclosure of direct financial support to the authors or their laboratory and prior sponsor’s review of the paper, authors are required to disclose all relevant consultancies within 12 months prior to submission, since the views expressed in the contribution could be influenced by the opinions they have expressed privately as consultants. This information should be included in the Acknowledgments section of the manuscript. In the event that a previously undisclosed potential competing interest for an author of a published paper comes to the attention of the Editors and is subsequently confirmed by the authors, the undeclared interest will be published as an erratum in a future volume of the journal.

COI Policy: Reviewers and Editors

Reviewers must disclose to Editors any COI that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they deem it as appropriate. As in the case of authors, silence on the part of reviewers concerning potential COI may mean either that such COI exist but they have not been properly disclosed, or that COI do not exist. Reviewers must therefore also be asked to state explicitly whether COI exist or do not exist. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests. COI for a given manuscript exist when a participant in the peer review and publication process (e.g., author, reviewer, editor) has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, regardless of whether the judgment is affected. Financial relationships with industry (e.g., employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family, are usually considered the most important COI. However, COI can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion. External peer reviewers should disclose to Editors any COI that could bias their opinions of the manuscript and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they deem it as appropriate. The Editors must be made aware of reviewers’ COI to interpret the review reports and evaluate whether the reviewer should be disqualified from the peer review process. Additional details are available from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Annals of Internal Medicine 118, (8) 646-647.

Authors who wish to publish in CellR4 must follow the guidelines on Good Publication Practice as reported in COPE and Council of Science Editors. These guidelines aim to ensure that articles are published in a responsible and ethical manner.

Specific Policies

Submission by an Editor. A paper submitted by an Editor will be handled by one of the journal Editors who does not have any COI to disclose in relation to the review process and who is not affiliated with the same institution of the submitting Editor. The handling Editor will recruit and select reviewers and make all the decisions on the paper.

Submission by an author affiliated with the same institution of one of the journal Editors. A paper submitted by an author for whom potential COI exist (or who is affiliated with the same institution of one the Editors) will be handled by a handling Editor who does not have any COI to disclose in relation to the review process and who is affiliated with a different institution. The handling Editor will recruit and select reviewers and make all the decisions on the paper. The same policy will apply to articles submitted by a member of the Editor family or by an author whose relationship with the Editor may create the perception of bias (e.g., close friendship or conflict/rivalry). In the presence of any doubt on potential COI or sources of bias, the handling Editor will consult with the Editor-in-Chief.

Potential COI for reviewers. The invitation letter to reviewers will include the following paragraph: “If you know or believe to know the identity of one or more of the authors, and if you feel that there is any potential conflict of interest in your review of this paper due to your relationship with the author (e.g., in terms of close friendship or conflict/rivalry) or due to any other reason, please declare it. By accepting this invitation, it is assumed there is no potential conflict of interest to disclose.

Plagiarism and Other Types of Unethical Publication Practice

CellR4 disapproves any kind of malpractice and unethical publication practice. With regard to plagiarism or other types of unethical publication practice, Authors who wish to publish in our journal must follow the guidelines on Good Publication Practice as reported in COPE and Council of Science Editors. These guidelines aim to ensure that articles are published in a responsible and ethical manner.

Our journal uses certified plagiarism checker software (iThenticate® and Grammarly®) to verify the authenticity of articles and detect duplications from each article content online against billions of web pages. By submitting manuscripts to the journal, authors accept that their work will be checked for plagiarism from previously published articles.

First, we conduct a pre-emptive investigation using our certified anti‐plagiarism software. Articles that represent suspected case of plagiarism or other unethical practices undergo a careful check for accuracy by the reviewer(s) and Editors. Our anti‐plagiarism software, however, is not able to identify the so-called “salami slicing”. Therefore, it is imperative that each case is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. We do not advocate the use of one statement of actions to penalize the offender. Each case is considered separately and, as Editors, we will need to decide if the suspected case of plagiarism or unethical publication practice is a deliberate action on the part of the author or it is due to lack of understanding of the requirements of ethical writing. This can happen for new authors or some authors for whom English translation is difficult. An example of this is when there are no words/phrases in the author specific language that properly translate into English.