Publications in this peer-reviewed journal are essential for advancing a more systematic and professional knowledge foundation. Peer-reviewed articles ensure the incorporation and preservation of the integrity of the research methodology. This document explains the ethical publishing practices essential to publishers, authors, peer reviewers, journal editors, and all members of societies involved in journal publication or funding.

Authorship and Contributorship Byline Authors

An author is generally characterized as an individual who has provided substantial intellectual contribution to published research. All individuals identified as authors should meet the criteria for authorship, and all who meet these criteria should be included in accordance with the established standards for authorship. In the fields of food and biotechnological research, the concept of authorship holds significant academic, social, and financial implications. The publishing house requires comprehensive disclosures regarding the specific contribution of each individual, particularly in relation to original research efforts. It is advisable for editors to establish explicit guidelines regarding authorship, which should include the identification of individuals accountable for the integrity of the complete work. 

While contributorship and guarantorship policies provide clarity regarding individual roles, they do not entirely address the criteria that determine authorship based on the quality and extent of contributions. The publisher has established three specific criteria that must be satisfied for authorship consideration:

1. Significant contribution to the conception/design of the study, to data collection, or data analysis/interpretation;
2. Involvement in drafting or critically revising the manuscript for important intellectual content;
3. Final approval of the version to be published.

Authors acknowledge both individual and collective responsibility for the content they produce. It is the responsibility of each author to ensure that any issues related to the accuracy or integrity

of any component of the work are comprehensively examined and addressed. 

In extensive, multi-center investigations, it is essential for the team to identify those who will be directly accountable for the manuscript; these individuals will be required to fulfill the criteria for authorship. It is essential for editors to request that authors complete disclosure forms, ensuring that the corresponding author distinctly identifies all contributors and the group name for accurate citation purposes. Additional members of the group may be recognized in the acknowledgments section.

Acquiring funding, overseeing general operations, or merely collecting data does not meet the criteria for authorship. It is essential that all authors listed adhere to the established criteria, and any individual fulfilling these criteria ought to be recognized as an author. Each individual should be prepared to assume public accountability for a portion of the content. 

In collaborative research publications, it is imperative that all individuals credited as authors fulfill the established criteria for authorship. It is essential for the team to reach a consensus on authorship and the delineation of contributor roles prior to the submission process. The corresponding author should be prepared to provide a rationale for the author list and its sequence. It is important to note that editors are not responsible for resolving disputes related to authorship.

It is essential for each author to thoroughly review and approve the final version of the manuscript prior to submission for publication. The corresponding author holds the responsibility for ensuring that all appropriate co-authors are included, while excluding any who may be considered inappropriate.

Before the submission of a manuscript, it is essential for authors to confirm the accuracy of the names and order of all contributors. Once a manuscript has been submitted to the Food Science and Applied Biotechnology international journal, changes to the author list are not permitted. It is important that all authors reach a consensus regarding the proposed author team and the submission of the work for evaluation by FSAB.

Contributors Listed in Acknowledgments

Individuals who played a role in the study but do not fulfill the criteria for authorship should be recognized in the acknowledgments section. This includes people who have contributed technical assistance, writing support, or general oversight, including roles such as a department chair. Editors may request that authors disclose any assistance received regarding study design, data management, or manuscript preparation, specifying the sources of this assistance and the funding entities involved.

Organizations that have provided significant yet non-author contributions may be recognized under classifications such as “participating investigators”. Their responsibilities, including offering guidance, evaluating the proposal, gathering data, or overseeing patient care, need to be articulated clearly. Given that inclusion in the acknowledgments could suggest approval of the findings, it is essential that individuals listed provide written consent to be recognized.

FSAB policies for articles reporting in vivo experiments 

It is essential for authors to adhere to FSAB policies and their specific definitions, particularly in the context of articles that report in vivo experiments related to animal research for meat or milk production. It is imperative that they comply with the following recommendations: 

Present a document containing an Ethics Statement that outlines the specifics of the ethical review permits, including any reduced licenses such as those pertaining to the Act on Scientific Animal Procedures, as well as the national or institutional guidelines governing the care and use of the animals involved in the research.

In the Materials and Methods section, it is essential that a comprehensive experimental design is presented including: 

1. The number of control and experimental groups of animals;
2. The methodology employed for the randomization of subjects in group allocation and the assessment of outcomes (e.g., if applicable, specify the individuals who were blinded and the timing of this blinding);
3. The experimental unit employed (whether it consists of a single animal, a group of animals, or a cage containing animals).

To demonstrate the intricate study designs implemented by the authors, it is advisable to utilize a timeline or flow chart. For each experiment or experimental group (including control groups), detailed and accurate information must be provided regarding all procedures performed. This should include:

Authorship and Changes to the Author List

Authorship should reflect substantial contributions to the research. To qualify, each author must:

1. Contribute significantly to the conception, design, data collection, or analysis;
2. Participate in drafting or revising the manuscript;
3. Approve the final version;
4. Agree to be accountable for the work.

Those who do not meet all criteria may be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section.

Changes in Authorship

Any changes to the author list (addition, removal, or rearrangement) must be approved by the Editor before acceptance. The corresponding author must provide:

• A written explanation for the change.
• Written consent (via email or signed letter) from all authors, including those affected.

Changes will not be made without the full consent of all listed authors.

Contributors and Group Work

In large or multidisciplinary studies, the roles of each contributor or center should be clearly described. When contributors do not meet the authorship criteria, they may be listed as Contributors or Recognized Persons.

If authors contributed equally, this may be noted, and alphabetical order may be used.

Authorship Misconduct

Misrepresentation of authorship or affiliation is considered scientific misconduct. Such cases will be investigated following COPE guidelines and may lead to rejection, retraction, or notification to institutions.

Competing Interests and Conflicts of Interest 

The Academic Publishing House of the University of Food Technologies in Plovdiv maintains a policy regarding the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, which is adhered to by the authors, assessors, and Editor-in-Chief. If a secondary interest (e.g., financial gain) influences professional judgment regarding a primary interest (e.g., validity of the research), a potential conflict of interest or bias may arise.

Transparent disclosures are necessary to allow readers to determine whether an author's relationships and activities are pertinent to the content of the work. A commitment to transparency is demonstrated by the author's full disclosure, which helps preserve trust in the scientific process.

Financial relationships, including employment, consulting services, stock or option ownership, honoraria, patents, and paid expert opinions, are frequently regarded as potential conflicts of interest and are likely to undermine trust in the journal, the authors, and science as a whole.  Academic competition, concurrency, personal relationships, or intellectual beliefs are additional potential interests that may be perceived as conflicts. Authors are prohibited from concluding agreements with research sponsors, whether for profit or not. These relationships obstruct the authors’ access to all research data, as well as their capacity to independently prepare and publish manuscripts whenever and wherever they choose, to analyze and interpret data. The principle of academic freedom is violated by policies that predetermine the location of authors' research publication. The journal requests that authors submit confidential agreements. The UFT Academic Publishing House will impose severe penalties on individuals who intentionally fail to disclose relationships or activities that are specified on the journal's disclosure form, which constitutes malfeasance.

The funding statement should exclusively include direct support for the task described in the manuscript. Support for an individual's contribution to the study should be reported as such. Direct total funding of the work should be distinguished from total institutional support for the  time spent by an author on the project. 

Therefore, authors are required to provide an appropriate funding statement, such as: "This study was funded by ...."

There is a potential competing interest when a researcher, author, editor, or reviewer has a financial or personal interest or any belief that could affect their objectivity, or inappropriately affect their actions. Such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties.

The most evident examples of conflicts of interest include financial attachments, e.g.:

• Employment, stock ownership, government grants, and patents are examples of direct compensation;
• Consulting work, fees, mutual fund holdings, and paid expert testimony are examples of indirect compensation.

Undeclared financial interests can severely undermine confidence in a publication, its authors, and science itself.

Personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion can also give rise to competing interests; for instance, a scientist who has:

• a relative who works for a company whose product is being evaluated by the researcher;
• a self-serving share in research results (e.g., potential promotion/career advancement based on results);
• personal beliefs that are in direct conflict with the topic they are researching.

Not all relationships involve legally competing interests; prospective or actual conflicts can exist.

The institution's Ethics Commission and the Editor-in-Chief of the journal should be notified of any relationships that might constitute a conflict of interest, even if the person is not aware that the relationship could influence his or her judgment. In this regard, the Editorial Board may require a cover letter and/or a footnote in the manuscript to this effect. The journal may use the disclosures as a basis for editorial decisions and may publish them as essential to the manuscript evaluation by readers. Similarly, the journal may decide not to publish a manuscript because of a declared conflict of interest.

All potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed in writing to the publisher prior to the appointment of the editor, and must be updated as new conflicts emerge. The publisher is responsible for disseminating these declarations within the journal.

The Editor-in-Chief is prohibited from engaging in decisions concerning articles authored by themselves, those written by family members or colleagues, or articles that pertain to products or services in which the Editor has a financial stake. All submissions of this nature will adhere to the established procedures of the journal. It is essential that peer review is carried out independently from the author, editor, and their affiliated research organizations. Furthermore, a definitive statement affirming this independence should be included in any published article.

Handling of Complaints and Appeals

The Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the publisher, implements a transparent procedure to address appeals regarding specific editorial decisions.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the record published. This involves a thorough review and evaluation of any reported or suspected instances of misconduct related to research, publication, reviewers, or editorial matters. The Editor-in-Chief collaborates with the publisher or society to address and resolve these issues.

Along with the publisher (or society), the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for investigating and evaluating any allegations or suspicions of unethical behavior in the areas of research, publishing, reviewer and editorial conduct. This ensures full protection of the authenticity of the record published.

Normally, these measures will involve contacting the manuscript author and carefully evaluating the complaint or claims submitted. Additionally, this may lead to engaging in further communication with the relevant institutions and research organizations. The Editor is expected to use the publisher's systems effectively to identify and address instances of misconduct, including plagiarism.

The Editor-in-Chief will provide compelling evidence of misconduct and collaborate with the publisher (and/or society) to make arrangements for the timely publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or any other appropriate means of rectifying the record, as deemed necessary.

Reviewers’ Objectivity and Competing Interests

Objective evaluations should be carried out. Reviewers should be conscious of any personal inclinations they may possess and consider them when assessing a paper. Readers should prioritize the content of the paper; personal criticism of an author is not permissible.

Consequently, the journal will implement double-blind peer review.

Reviewers should consult the Editor-in-Chief before reviewing a paper in which they may be involved in any conflicts of interest due to competing interests, cooperative relationships, or connections between authors, enterprises, or institutions related to the paper. 

 

Reviewers should refrain from suggesting that authors include their own or their colleagues' citations for any reason other than genuine scientific interest. Additionally, they should not do so in order to improve their own or their colleagues' citation count or profile.

Experimental Animals, Procedures, and Study Design

Animal and Housing Details

Clearly describe the animals used, including species, strain, sex, age (mean, median or range), weight (mean, median or range), source, genetic status (e.g., knockout, transgenic), genotype, immune status, and any previous treatments or procedures. 

Include housing information such as facility type (e.g., cages, tanks, stables), bedding, number of animals per unit, tank shape/material (for aquatic animals), and environmental conditions (e.g., light/dark cycle, temperature, humidity, water quality, food and water access, and enrichment).

Welfare Monitoring

Summarize welfare assessments and interventions before, during, and after the experiment, including monitoring protocols, use of anesthesia/analgesia, stress-reduction measures, and humane endpoints, where applicable.

Procedural Details

Provide comprehensive information on all experimental procedures for each group (including controls), addressing:

• How: Administration method (form, dose, route, site), anesthesia and analgesia (including monitoring), surgical techniques, euthanasia methods, and any specialized equipment used (include supplier names).
• When: Specify the timing of key procedures (date and time, where relevant).
• Where: Indicate the setting (e.g., home cage, behavioral testing area, lab).
• Why: Justify methodological choices such as type and dose of anesthetic or route of administration.

Experimental Design and Group Allocation

State the total number of animals used, as well as the number per group. Describe how animals were assigned to groups (e.g., randomization, matching), and outline the order of treatment and evaluation.

Sample Size and Replication

Explain how sample sizes were determined, including any power calculations. Report the number of independent experimental replicates.

Outcomes and Statistical Analysis

Clearly define the primary and secondary outcomes assessed (e.g., cell death, molecular markers, and behavioral changes).

Detail the statistical methods used for analysis, including:

• The unit of analysis (e.g., single animal, group).
• Techniques used to test assumptions (e.g., normality, variance homogeneity).
• Statistical tests applied for each outcome.

Ethical Approval

Include a statement of Institutional Review Board or Animal Ethics Committee approval at the end of the manuscript. For example:

“All experimental procedures were conducted in accordance with the guidelines of [Institution/Authority]. The study protocol was approved by [Name of Committee], under protocol number [XXXX].”

Data Sharing and Reproducibility

The Academic Publishing House of the University of Food Technologies in Plovdiv collaborates with librarians, the research community, funders, and other stakeholders to establish policies that will benefit customers and elucidate its stance on critical issues. 

While the Academic Publishing House of the University of Food Technologies in Plovdiv plays a supportive, investing, and encouraging role in academic communication, it is ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practices are adhered to in its publications.

The Academic Publishing House of the University of Food Technologies in Plovdiv has established regulations and procedures to aid editors, assessors, and writers in fulfilling their ethical obligations. We are in the process of developing guidelines for the management of moral issues, errors, and corrections in collaboration with other publishers and professional organizations.

The prevalent opinion in the academic community is that the Editor-in-Chief has the sole responsibility and autonomy to decide on the papers approved for publication in the journal. Therefore, the Editor-in-Chief needs to consider journal regulations and any applicable laws concerning libel, copyright infringement, or plagiarism when making a decision. The significance of the academic archive as a permanent, historical record of the transactions of scholarship follows from this premise. Published articles will be kept as close to their original form as is considered practical. In very rare cases, however, an article that has been published may need to be withdrawn or deleted due to circumstances beyond the publisher’s control. These measures are always applied with care and restricted to emergencies. Article versions, including those that have been withdrawn or otherwise deleted, will be preserved in our official archives.

This policy has been designed to respond to these issues and includes up-to-date recommendations from the academic and library sectors. This problem needs to be re-addressed regularly as standards develop and change; hence, we would encourage the scientific and library communities to provide the necessary input. Our belief is that the publishing and information sector would benefit from worldwide standards regulating these matters, and we intend to strongly support different information authorities towards this end.

Ethics of Publication

Research data supporting a publication may be requested from authors for editorial review or to meet the journal's open data standards.  If possible, authors should make their data accessible to the public, and they should also be willing to keep their data for a fair amount of time following publication. For further information, authors should consult the journal's Author Guidelines.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism may take various shapes and forms, from direct copying to paraphrase, and can include elements like:

• using someone else’s data without permission;
• using someone else’s terms and phrases without permission;
• using someone else’s ideas and concepts without permission.

The significance of plagiarism changes depending on factors such as:

• How much of someone else’s work has been plagiarized (a few lines, a few paragraphs, a few pages, or the whole article)?
• Reusing language, paraphrasing, considerable copying, and copying in full are all forms of plagiarism.
• Which part of the paper (the inputs, methods, or outcomes) has been copied?

Authors have to establish their work within the larger body of knowledge on a subject and give proper credit to the work of other scholars on whose discoveries their own have been based.

For more information about our plagiarism policy please refer to:

https://www.ijfsab.com/index.php/fsab/Plagiarism_policy

Authors who publish their articles in the publications of the Academic Publishing House of the University of Food Technologies in Plovdiv must first obtain the necessary consent documents, licenses or permissions for the use of texts or illustrations from other authors before submitting the manuscript.

Authors are responsible for preserving all written consents and, upon request by the Academic Publishing House of the University of Food Technologies in Plovdiv, they must provide the original document or a certified copy, or evidence that such consents have been obtained.

Checking for Plagiarism

The iThenticate plagiarism detection technology will be used to compare all papers published in order to ensure they have not been plagiarized.

Authors should only discuss their adaptations in detail in the Materials and Methods section, referring readers to the source articles for the procedures.

The Editor-in-Chief should maintain the confidentiality of all journal submissions and all communication with reviewers unless the authors and reviewers agree otherwise. When investigating possible research misconduct, the publisher and the journal's Editor-in-Chief may agree to share restricted information with the editors of other journals, subject to the principles of publication ethics. The reviewers' anonymity should be protected by the Editor-in-Chief under all circumstances.

An editor may not use any previously unpublished materials mentioned in a submitted work for his or her own research without the author's permission. The peer review procedure provides access to secret information or ideas that must be protected and not used for personal gain.

Simultaneous Submission

Authors are responsible for ensuring that their work has not been previously published or is not under consideration for publication in another journal. It is unethical to submit or resubmit the same work for publication more than once.

• Duplicate or multiple publication may occur when two or more articles without full crossreferencing share essentially the same hypotheses, data, discussion points, and/or conclusions.

Therefore, our journal requires authors to complete a Cover Letter according to the template when submitting their manuscript, a Title Page (for Editors) with the names and affiliations of the authors (Title page - Submission file 1) - Download template, Download Sample Title Page and an Anonymous manuscript according to the template Anonymous Manuscript (for Reviewers and Editors) – Submission file 2 – Download Sample Anonymous Manuscript 

Submission Preparation Checklist and Author Guidelines

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off the compliance of their submission with all of the following items, and submissions that do not adhere to these guidelines may be returned to authors.

You can see the Submission Preparation Checklist form here:

https://www.ijfsab.com/index.php/fsab/about/submissions

The text should adhere to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines. For more information see: https://www.ijfsab.com/index.php/fsab/about/submissions#authorGuidelines.

The authors should declare that they are not aware of any competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in the paper. 

Fair Play in the Publication Process

The Sector Editor and/or Editor-in-Chief will examine submissions strictly on the basis of their intellectual substance, regardless of the authors' gender, sexual orientation, religion, color, nationality, or political beliefs.

The Editor-in-Chief must take into consideration the requirement for adequate, inclusive, and varied representation when making nominations to the Editorial Board.

The editorial principles of the journal favor transparency and accuracy in reporting.

The Editor-in-Chief should make sure that both the reviewers and the authors are fully aware of what is expected of them.

The electronic submission method and emails to the Editor-in-Chief should be used for all correspondence.

Journal Metric Management Ethics

The Editor-in-Chief of a journal is prohibited from manipulating the journal's impact factor or other metrics in order to enhance the publication rating. It is not appropriate for an editor to require that references be provided for papers published in the journal (or any other journal) unless there are compelling scientific justifications for doing so. Additionally, it is not appropriate for an editor to require that writers make references to articles written by the editor or to items and services in which the editor has a financial interest.

Reviewers’ Confidentiality

We follow a strict policy of maintaining the privacy of all submissions. Reviewers may not share any details of a manuscript or review with any other parties without the editor's explicit approval.

To protect everyone's anonymity while giving proper credit to everyone who has contributed, reviewers should consult the Editor-in-Chief on the manner of handling this issue in advance.

Reviewers may not use any unpublished material revealed in a submitted work without the authors’ permission. Peer-reviewed materials are considered private and should not be used for personal gain.

Awareness of Ethical Concerns

A reviewer should be aware of any possible ethical issues in a manuscript and bring them to the Editor-in-Chief’s notice, particularly any significant resemblance or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper that the reviewer has personal information about. Any claim that an observation, derivation, or argument has previously been published should be backed by a reference.

Image Integrity

Any alteration of an image such as emphasizing, concealing, repositioning, removing, or adding visual elements is strictly prohibited. However, adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are permissible, provided they do not compromise the clarity or integrity of the original content. Enhancing an image for better visibility is acceptable, but any modifications that go beyond this may be considered a breach of scientific ethics and will be treated accordingly. 

Image Manipulation

Digital image editing has become a fast, easy, and perilously tempting process with the help of tools such as Photoshop. Some researchers may be tempted to make seemingly minor changes to their data; however, these manipulations are considered scientific fraud when they misrepresent the original image. These types of alterations are not only unethical but also dangerous, as editorial teams are trained to detect them using image analysis software. Scientific misconduct covers fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, regardless of whether they occur during the research process or in the reporting of findings. For example, the digital manipulation of an image to display a band on a gel that was not initially present or the reconstruction of portions of an image to generate fraudulent results are considered forms of falsification or even fabrication. The severity of the misconduct is contingent upon whether the manipulation alters the interpretation of the data; however, all such actions comprise a misrepresentation of the original findings.

Consequences of Manipulation

Modifying images to make figures cleaner or more persuasive may hide valuable information, such as the presence of trace molecules, subtle localization patterns, or unexpected interactions. These hidden details may hold significant scientific value.

No specific feature of an image may be selectively enhanced, hidden, shifted, removed, or inserted. When assembling figures from multiple images (e.g., parts of different gels, exposures, or fields), this must be clearly indicated through dividing lines in the figure and explained in the legend. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color are allowed only if applied uniformly across the entire image, and must not conceal or remove existing data. Non-linear adjustments (such as gamma corrections) must be disclosed in the figure legend. We also encourage authors to include details about the software or hardware used to process image files in the legends.

Blots and Gels

Major Violations

Removing a band from a blot, even if considered a non-specific background band, is falsifying data. Likewise, inserting a band, even if one believes the corresponding molecule is indeed present in the sample, is equally unethical. Duplicating a band and pasting it into the same or a different position is strictly forbidden.

Using the same control panel (e.g., loading controls) in multiple figures to represent different experiments is another clear case of data misrepresentation.

Subtle Manipulations

Adjusting the intensity of a specific band in a blot also violates the fundamental rule that “no specific feature may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced.”

While it is acceptable to apply uniform brightness or contrast adjustments to the entire image, these should not eliminate key features such as background signal. For example, even the strongest blot bands usually appear against some level of gray background. Excessively enhancing contrast to the point of removing that background can raise red flags during peer review.

Original, unedited images should be included as supplementary material or deposited in a repository in accordance with the policy of the journal.

Clinical Trial Transparency

The Academic Publishing House of the University of Food Technologies in Plovdiv declares that clinical trials are not within the scope of the international journal FSAB. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the journal.

Hazards for Human or Animal Subjects

Authors should state clearly in the publication whether there are any exceptional hazards associated with the use of substances, techniques, or equipment in the research.

Authors whose work required the use of human or animal subjects should include a statement in their manuscripts attesting to the fact that all necessary procedures were implemented following all applicable laws and institutional guidelines and approved by the relevant institutional committee(s). A statement that informed permission was acquired from all human participants should be included in the paper. People's right to privacy must be respected at all times.

The author of any study involving human subjects is responsible for ensuring that the research was conducted in conformity with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki – Declaration of Helsinki reccomendations of the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566407/pdf/11357217.pdf)

Authors of studies conducted with experimental or farm animals, birds or fish must strictly comply with the requirements of the relevant national legislation relating to animal welfare and humane treatment during their killing, such as: 

• EU Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes in the European Union (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:276:0033:0079:en:PDF) – for authors from the European Union;

• Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/14/contents) – for authors from the United Kingdom;

• the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (https://olaw.nih.gov/policies-laws/phs-policy.htm) and if applicable, the Animal Welfare Act in the United States (https://www.nal.usda.gov/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare-act)  – for authors from the United States  or others for authors from other countries. 

Intellectual Property

Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources

Authors should cite publications that have influenced the reported work and provide context for the work within the greater scholarly record. Information obtained in private conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties may not be used or disclosed without the source's express written consent.

Plagiarism may take various forms, such as presenting someone else's work as one's own, quoting extensively from someone else's work without providing a proper citation or taking credit for the findings of someone else's study. Plagiarism, in all of its many forms, is dishonest and must not be tolerated.

Citing unpublished data, obtaining permission to reuse figures and tables

The onus of securing permission to reprint content from published works is on the authors. Use of any unpublished data belonging to other scientists requires their permission as well.

Copyright Transfer Agreement

Copyright Transfer Agreements (Download) are required of writers whose work is accepted for publication. The Open Access Option specifies whether or not other parties may use openaccess articles.

Open Access and Charging

Authors have the option of publishing their work in an open-access format via the Academic Publishing House of the University of Food Technologies in Plovdiv. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) applies to all articles published in this journal.

With Online Open, the author, institution or funder owes a publication fee for the article to be viewed in open access, making it immediately and easily accessible to everyone.

Post-publication Discussions and Corrections

Since the Academic Publishing House of the University of Food Technologies in Plovdiv places a premium on researchers' and librarians' continued faith in the reliability of its electronic archive, it has considered the following three strategies for ensuring the completeness and accuracy of the scholarly record.

Article Withdrawal

Articles in Press and Early View are reserved for pre-publication drafts of a piece that may not be completed or may have been submitted twice by mistake. There is a small chance that the publications violate professional ethical rules in some way. Articles in Press or Early View (articles accepted for publication but not yet formally published and thus lacking the complete volume/issue/page information) that contain errors or are discovered to be accidental duplicates of other published article(s) or that violate the publishing ethics guidelines of our journal in the editors’ opinion (such as multiple submissions, false claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of existing work or similar) will be rejected. Articles that have been withdrawn have their original content (HTML and PDF) replaced by a page (PDF file) stating, indicated with a watermark, that the article has been withdrawn in accordance with the Policy of the Academic Publishing House of the University of Food Technologies in Plovdiv on Article in Press or Early View Withdrawal, along with a link to the most up-to-date version of that policy.

Article Retraction

Multiple submissions, false claims of authorship, plagiarism, and other forms of data fraud fall within this category. Sometimes mistakes made during the submission or publishing process need a retraction. It has always been a rare but not unprecedented occurrence in the academic world for an essay to be retracted after being published at the urging of scholars. The Academic Publishing House of the University of Food Technologies in Plovdiv has implemented the best practices established by several library and academic groups for handling article retractions. It is appropriate to do the following:

• a retraction notes titled "Retraction": [article title]" signed by the author(s) and/or the editor is published in the paginated part of a subsequent issue of the journal and listed in the contents list;
• a link is made to the original article in the electronic version;
• the original article is kept unchanged save for a watermark on the PDF file indicating on each page that it has been "retracted.";
• the PDF version of the document is removed.

Article Removal: Legal Limitations

The removal of an article from the internet database is allowed under exceptional circumstances. This will only happen if the article is libelous or breaches other parties’ legal rights; or if it is, or there is a good reason to believe that it will be, the subject of legal processes, such as a court order; or if adherence to the advice in the article might seriously endanger someone's health. The information (Title, Authors) will be preserved, but a screen will replace the content to explain why the article has been taken down due to legal issues.

Article Replacement

The authors of the original article may want to withdraw the incorrect original and replace it with a revised version in situations when the article, if adhered to, might pose a major health risk. In such cases, standard retraction processes will be applied and a formal notice of the retraction will be posted in the relevant database.

Notification of Fundamental Errors

Should authors find an important error or inaccuracy in their published article, it is their responsibility to promptly inform the journal editor or publisher thereof, and to work with the editor towards removing or updating the manuscript, if required. Authors should cooperate with the editor and provide proof, if necessary, if a third party informs the editor or publisher that a published work includes an error.