Open Access Policy

All research articles published in Microbiota in Health and Disease are fully open access: immediately freely available to read, download and share. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium (not for commercial use), provided the original work is properly cited. Articles can be freely downloaded from our website and no subscription and/or login is required.

A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in CLOCKSS repository.

Copyright and Licensing

For all articles published in Microbiota in Health and Disease, the copyright is retained by the Publisher. Microbiota in Health and Disease applies the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) license to articles. If you submit your paper for publication to our journal, you agree to have the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license applied to your work as follows:

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.

NC) NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

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.

Description of Peer Review

Microbiota in Health and Disease adopts single-blind peer review. Reviewers are anonymous unless they want to identify themselves by including their names in the review in our submission system. Selected reviewers need to declare the absence of a conflict of interest in order to proceed with the review process.

All contributions are initially handled by the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who, together with Associate Editors (AE), evaluates the manuscript by verifying whether it meets the journal’s aims; the decision may then be peer-reviewed or rejected. To facilitate either authors or peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet the editorial criteria are sent for formal review.

Those papers judged by the editors as weak or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).

After this step, the EiC or an AE assigns the manuscript to 2 or 3 reviewers, among the editorial board members or external reviewers experts in the field. To be selected, reviewers must not have published papers in the last 5 years with none of the manuscript’s authors, must belong to different institutions from authors, and must not have any conflict of interest with the manuscript’s content.

Following the recommendations from the reviewers, the EiC, or an AE, will evaluate them and have final authority on acceptance, revision or rejection. In the final editorial decision, the Editors evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and other information not available to either party can be considered.

Editors may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. Reviewers’ criticisms are taken seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, Editors may consult the other reviewers to determine whether she/he is applying an unduly critical standard.

Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and our choice is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and our own previous experience with reviewers’ assessment. Reviewers should bear in mind that these messages contain confidential information, which should be treated as such.

Submission by the author at the same institution as one of the editors. A paper submitted by an author for which there is a potential conflict with who is at the same institution as one of the editors will be handled by one of the other editors. The other editor will select referees and make all decisions on the paper. Submission by a family member of the editor or by an author whose relationship with the editor might create the perception of bias. A paper submitted by a family member of one of the editors, or by an author whose relationship with one of the editors might create the perception of bias (e.g., in terms of close friendship or conflict/rivalry), will be handled by another editor. The other editor will select referees and make all decisions on the paper. If in doubt, the editors will consult with the Journal editor.

Submission by an Editor

A paper submitted by a member of the Editorial Board will be handled by one of the other Editors who does not have a conflict of interest and who is not at the same institution as the submitting Editor. The other Editor will select referees and make all decisions on the paper.

Submission by Authors at the Same Institution as One of the Editors

If an author submits a paper and there is a potential conflict of interest due to their affiliation with the same institution as one of the Editors, the manuscript will be assigned to an Editor with no conflict of interest. The alternative Editor will oversee the selection of referees and make all decisions regarding the paper.

Similarly, if a paper is submitted by a family member of an editor or by an author whose relationship with the editor could give rise to a perceived bias (e.g., due to close friendship or conflict/rivalry), the manuscript will be managed by another Editor. This Editor will choose the referees and make all decisions.

Authors’ Appeals

Rejected articles can only be submitted in case all concerns raised by reviewers are fully addressed. In these cases, authors have to submit the manuscript as a new submission along with a detailed Cover letter, underlining all amendments and reviewers’ previous concerns. Under no circumstances will an article be reconsidered if it was rejected due to major problems.

The journal accepts appeals only when authors can provide specific responses to the reviewers’ comments that led to the rejection, along with any new information or data. It is essential to support your appeal with strong evidence or new data addressing the feedback given by the editor and reviewers.

Confidential Process

Microbiota in Health and Disease editors treat the submitted manuscript and all communication with authors and referees as confidential. Editors, authors and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer-review process on submitted manuscripts. The peer-review process is confidential and conducted anonymously; the identities of reviewers are not released. Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts. Correspondence with the journal, referees’ reports and other confidential material must not be published, disclosed or otherwise publicized without prior written consent. It is our policy to keep their names confidential and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. We cannot, however, guarantee to maintain this confidentiality in the face of a successful legal action to disclose identity.

AI in Peer-Review

Instructions for Reviewers

Peer-review is the cornerstone of the scientific process, ensuring that only high-quality research with significant scientific merit reaches publication, thereby fostering trust within the scientific community. By meticulously scrutinizing the methodology, data analysis, and interpretation presented in manuscripts, reviewers contribute significantly to maintaining the standards of excellence expected in scientific research.

Reviewers should adhere to the basic principles as established by COPE.

As per journal policies, the peer-review is conducted for transparency on the Publishing Manager. Therefore, the reviewers are asked to create an account in the system to receive an official invitation to review an article. Following the invitation to review, reviewers will receive the article abstract to understand the aims, key points, and conclusions of the manuscript and decide whether to accept the review.

Before starting the review, please evaluate the following issues:

• Does the article match my expertise? If not, you can refuse the review and suggest a possible reviewer who is an expert in the field.
• Do I have enough time to review the manuscript?
• Are there any potential conflicts of interest to declare? For more information, please check the section “COI: Application to Reviewers and Editors”.

Reviewers have four options to provide an overall feedback on the article:

• Accepted: The paper is suitable for publication in its current form.
• Revised: Minor revisions must be addressed by the authors for the paper to be considered for publication.
• Revised Major: The manuscript presents severe criticisms that must be addressed by the authors. The paper’s corrections will be re-evaluated by the reviewers, who will decide whether to accept the article or reject it.
• Rejected: The article presents significant flaws that cannot be addressed.

When reviewing the article, please give due consideration to the following items:

• Topic and originality:

Is the topic of the paper aligned with the aims and scopes of the Journal? Does the study bring any innovation to the medical field? Are there other similar studies in the literature? Does the study reach the qualitative standard of the Journal? Are the findings of sufficient scientific significance to warrant publication? Does sufficient literature evidence support the outcomes?

• Overall organization, clarity and methodology

Title: Does the title clearly describe the article?
Abstract: Does the Abstract reflect the content of the article?
Introduction: Does the introduction outline the author’s objectives and clearly articulate the problem under investigation? Typically, the introduction should provide a succinct summary of pertinent research to offer context and elucidate how the author’s findings either challenge or expand upon existing literature.
Methodology: Does the author accurately describe the data collection process? Is the chosen methodology appropriate for addressing the research question? Is there adequate information provided for replication? Does the article detail the procedures followed in a logical manner? If novel methods are employed, are they sufficiently elucidated? Was the sampling method appropriate? Are equipment and materials adequately described? Does the article specify the type of data collected and provide precise measurement descriptions?
Results: Have the authors effectively communicated their research findings in written form? Are the results presented clearly and in a logical sequence? Consideration should be given to the appropriateness of the statistical analyses conducted. Are the statistical methods accurate? If statistical analysis is unfamiliar, please notify the editor when submitting your report.
Discussion/Conclusions: Are the claims made in these sections substantiated by the results and deemed reasonable? Have the authors discussed how the results align with expectations and previous research? Does the article support or challenge existing theories? Does the conclusion articulate how the research contributes to advancing scientific knowledge? Have the study’s limitations been adequately addressed and analyzed?

• Figures and tables

Are figures readable and of high quality? Are data adequately reported in tables? Are the data reported in figures and tables coherent with those reported in the manuscript?

• References

Are references appropriate, relevant, and recent? Are there too many self-citations?

• Conflict of interest

Is there any real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that the authors must declare?
Disclosed potential COIs should include any relevant commercial or other source of funding for either author(s) or the sponsoring institution, the associated department(s), or organization(s).
Potential competing interests include consultancies, employment, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications and registrations, and grants or other funding.

• Ethics statement and informed consent

When reporting experiments on animals and human subjects, the authors should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed. Moreover, for studies on human subjects, all investigators should ensure that the planning, conduct, and reporting of human research are in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration as revised in 2013. Please evaluate the ethics statements and data availability statements to ensure their sufficiency.
According to the study’s design, is informed consent from patients required? If so, can the statement be considered valid?
Please note it is mandatory to provide the authors with thorough and detailed comments in order to improve the manuscript and reach the qualitative standard of the Journal. Comments should be articulated thoughtfully to ensure that the author comprehends the necessary actions for enhancing their paper, rather than solely highlighting its deficiencies. In case reviewers suspect misconduct, they should not independently investigate, but promptly inform the editors about this suspect.

In order to streamline the feedback preparation process, a checklist that summarizes some of the abovementioned considerations is provided on Publishing Manager, the journal’s online system to manage the peer-review process. This allows reviewers to easily indicate the improvements authors should address and bear in mind the evaluation parameters.

Authors are requested to provide a list of changes and a point-to-point reply letter to reviewers’ comments when revising their article. The editor may evaluate the revised version if only minor revisions were requested, or it may be sent back to the original reviewers. Subsequently, you will be prompted to confirm whether the revisions are deemed satisfactory or if more revisions are required.

Authorship

Submission to Microbiota in Health and Disease is taken by the journal to mean that all the listed authors have agreed on all of the contents, including the author list and author contributions statements. The corresponding author is responsible for having ensured that this agreement has been achieved, that all authors have agreed to the submission, and and is also in charge of managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors before and after publication.

According to the ICMJE recommendations, authorship is based on 4 criteria:

1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
2. Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content;
3. Final approval of the version to be published;
4. Agreement 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.

The author list should include all appropriate researchers and no others. Anyone designated as an author must fulfill all four authorship criteria. Individuals who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgement section.

Microbiota in Health and Disease encourages transparency by publishing author contributions statements since the Journal is not in a position to investigate or adjudicate authorship disputes before or after publication. Such disagreements, if they cannot be resolved amongst authors, should be brought up to the relevant institutional authority. The primary affiliation for each author should be the institution where the majority of their work was done. If an author has subsequently moved, the current address may also be stated.

Corresponding Authors’ Responsibilities

The corresponding author is solely responsible for communicating with the journal and with managing communication between co-authors. Before submission, the corresponding author ensures that all authors are included in the author list, its order has been agreed by all authors, and that all authors are aware that the paper was submitted.

At submission, the corresponding author must include written permission from the authors of the work about the mention of any unpublished material included in the manuscript. The corresponding author must clearly identify at submission any material within the manuscript that has previously been published elsewhere by other authors (for example, figures) and provide written permission from those authors and/or publishers for the re-use of such material.

After acceptance, the proof is sent to the corresponding author, who shares it with all co-authors and deals with the journal on their behalf; the journal will not necessarily correct errors after publication if they result from errors that were present on a proof that was not shown to coauthors before publication. The corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of all contents in the proof, in particular, that names of coauthors are present and correctly spelled, and that affiliations are correct. The name and e-mail address of the corresponding author are published in the paper.

The corresponding author of a published paper has the responsibility to promptly inform the journal if aware of any part that requires corrections. Any published correction requires the consent of all co-authors, therefore, the requests for corrections should be accompanied by a signed agreement by all authors. In cases where one or some authors do not agree with the correction statement, the corresponding author must include correspondence to and from the dissenting author(s).

If the corresponding author fails to meet these responsibilities, such as not responding to important emails or not assisting with journal-related requests, the journal reserves the right to communicate directly with all authors to resolve disputes or issues. For example, if an author requests modifications to the article, the corresponding author must provide consent within a reasonable timeframe. If this does not occur, the journal may, in exceptional cases, consider the request from another author, provided it is supported by a letter signed by all co-authors.

Changes to Authorship

Authors should carefully review the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide a final list at the time of the first submission. Any changes to the author list, such as deletions, additions, or rearrangements, can only be made before the manuscript is accepted and must be approved by the Editor-in-Chief.

To request for authorship changes, the corresponding author must submit an official request at submission.microbiota@verduci.it, explaining the reason for such change. This must be accompanied by written confirmation from all authors agreeing to the modification, including confirmation from the author being added or removed, if applicable.

Data and Materials Availability

A core principle of publishing is to facilitate the replication and further development of the claims made by authors in their published work. Authors are required to promptly provide readers with access to materials, data, code, and relevant protocols, with minimal restrictions. This policy is intended to promote transparency and ensure the reproducibility of published results. The corresponding author, or another designated author, is generally expected to be responsible for ensuring the availability of data and materials unless otherwise indicated.

All original research manuscripts must include a data availability statement. For studies where no new data were generated, such as reviews, the following statement should be included: “No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data Availability is not applicable to this article.”

The data availability statement should cover the following aspects:

Access to both primary datasets generated in the study and referenced datasets must be provided. If applicable, publicly available accession codes or unique identifiers should be included.

– For clinical trial data, authors must follow ICMJE guidelines, including details on sharing de-identified participant data, specific datasets, related documents, timelines, access criteria, and the sharing mechanism.

– Third-party data must be available for peer review upon request, subject to the terms of a data use agreement and in compliance with ethical and legal requirements.

• For proprietary data, authors are responsible for securing agreements with third-party data providers to ensure the availability of datasets under the conditions outlined in the data availability statement.
• When using administrative data, such as government or organizational data, authors must comply with local legal and regulatory requirements for data usage.
• If third-party data cannot be shared, this must be clearly stated in the data availability statement.
• Including large datasets as supplementary material is discouraged. Instead, authors are encouraged to make data available via repositories.

Data Retention

Authors are required to retain the data used in their publication for at least 10 years. In cases of research or publication misconduct, the journal reserves the right to request access to these data.

Data Citation

Datasets deposited in repositories should be formally cited in the reference list of the article, including details such as authors, title, repository name, and an identifier or accession number.

Ethics, Institutional Review Boards, and Informed Consent

Clinical studies must include a reference to the appropriate Ethics Committee/Institutional Review Board (IRB) and have an appropriate Consent Form approved by the Ethics Committee/IRB before enrollment of the research subjects in the study. Appropriate review process and approval should also be documented for all pre-clinical experimental studies submitted. When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the Ethical Standards of the Responsible Committee on Human Experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Declaration of Helsinki as revised in 2013.

If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the local, regional or national review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. Approval by a responsible review body does not preclude editors from forming their own judgment whether the conduct of the research was appropriate. All research on humans subjects must have approval from the IRB (Institutional Review Board) or from equivalent local Ethics Committees.

For non-interventional studies (e.g., surveys, cross-sectional studies, etc.), all participants must be fully informed about anonymity, how the data will be used, the reason for the research, and if there are any associated risks. As with all research involving humans, ethical approval from an appropriate ethics committee or an official IRB exemption must be obtained before conducting the study. The journal retains the authority to ask authors for documentation, such as the approval/exemption letter, survey questionnaire, and informed consent procedure/form.

Ethics Committee approval (including acceptance number and date of approval) is deemed necessary for retrospective observational studies. Should specific Ethics Institutions/Universities have different guidelines, Authors must furnish the directives outlined by the Ethics Committee of the respective institution, confirming that Ethics Committee approval is not mandated for retrospective observational studies.

If the authors have submitted the approval request to the Ethics committee and the committee determines that no approval is required, the name of the ethics committee granting this exemption should be mentioned in the ‘Institutional Review Board Statement’ or ‘Ethics Approval Statement,’ accompanied by a comprehensive explanation of the ethical approval waiver. 

Informed Consent

Appropriate consents, permissions and releases must be obtained in case authors wish to include case details or other personal information or images of patients in their publication. This is to comply with all applicable laws and regulations concerning the privacy and/or security of personal information, including, but not limited to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679.

Patients have the right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent. Identifying information, including names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that an identifiable patient be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should disclose to these patients whether any potential identifiable material might be available via the Internet as well as in print after publication.

Some Considerations

• Images of patients or research subjects should not be used unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and explicit permission has been given as part of the consent.
• If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, authors should provide assurances that such alterations do not distort scientific meaning.
• Formal consents are not required for the use of entirely anonymized images from which the individual cannot be identified – for example, x-rays, ultrasound images, laparoscopic images, etc.
• If consent has not been obtained, it is generally not sufficient to anonymize a photograph simply by using eye bars or blurring the face of the individual concerned.

Animal Ethics

Research involving animals should adhere to globally recognized standards and to the ARRIVE guidelines for documenting experiments involving live animals. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether institutional and national standards for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed, but in questionable matter, the Editors reserve the right to reject papers. This statement is mandatory for acceptance and publication of the manuscript. Authors should ensure that the experimental conditions and procedures of their research minimize any harm to animals.

Animal species/strain, sex, source (vendor name, location), age range, weight and any additional data should be indicated. Please note that we encourage the use of both male and female animals. The use of a single sex should be scientifically justified.

The project identification code, date of approval, and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board should be stated in the “Ethics Approval” statement. Research procedures must be carried out in accordance with national and institutional regulations. Statements on animal welfare should confirm that the study complied with all relevant legislation.

Publication Ethics and Recommendations

Microbiota in Health and Disease disapproves any kind of malpractice or unethical practice. The Journal follows the guidelines on Good Publication Practice as outlined in COPE and ICMJE. These guidelines aim to ensure that articles are published in a responsible and ethical manner and we expect that authors, reviewers and editors follow the best-practice guidelines on ethical behavior.

Some specific information about the responsibilities of authors, the journal and reviewers as follows:

• Authors and the Journal have to follow the Good Publication Practice: COPE and ICMJE guidelines during submission and during the whole manuscript assessment.
• Microb Health Dis, authors and reviewers have to guarantee confidentiality and do not have to share information about manuscripts, including peer-review, their content or status in the review process, criticism by reviewers, and the final decision about rejection or acceptance, to anyone other than the authors and reviewers.
• Microb Health Dis and reviewers have to ensure the processing of manuscripts timely. On the other hand, authors have to ensure a timely communication and availability to reply to concerns during review and publication process.
• The peer-review is the most critical assessment of the scientific process and should be followed in a rigorous matter.
• Integrity should be the standpoint for both authors and the journal. The Editorial decisions about acceptance or rejection of a manuscript should be based on the research’s originality, contribution to the scientific society, relevance to the topic of the journal and quality standards. Those decisions should not be jeopardized by commercial interests or personal relations.
• The spread of academic culture and scientific knowledge should also support diversity and inclusion for authors as well as reviewers, editorial board members and editorial staff.

Plagiarism

al submitted to Microbiota in Health and Disease must be original and not published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Authors who want to publish in our Journal must follow the guidelines on Good Publication Practice as reported in COPE and Council of Science Editors. According to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), plagiarism is defined as the act of using someone else’s words, ideas, or work without giving proper credit or obtaining permission, and presenting it as one’s own.

Microbiota in Health and Disease does not accept submissions that have already been published, whether in full or in part, or those that have been released as preprints and considers plagiarism an unethical practice. Authors are also required to indicate in the cover letter whether the article has been published as a preprint.

At submission, the journal conducts an early investigation using our anti‐plagiarism certificate software. Articles that are related to the suspected case of plagiarism or other unethical practice are checked accuracy by either the reviewer feedback or the Editor’s own observations. Our anti‐plagiarism software, however, will not identify “salami slicing”.

Duplicate Publication

Duplicate publication occurs when an author republishes a paper (or substantial parts of a paper) that has already been published elsewhere, without proper acknowledgment, permission, or justification. This can involve republishing the same data, text, or findings in multiple journals or submitting the same work to more than one journal simultaneously. Microbiota in Health and Disease considers this practice unethical.

If part of a contribution that an author wishes to submit to Microbiota in Health and Disease has appeared or will appear elsewhere, the author must specify the details in the cover letter accompanying the submission. The Journal will consider a submission if the main results, conclusions, or implications are not clearly evident in the other work, or if there are additional factors, such as the other work being published in a language other than English.

If an author of a submission is re-using a figure or figures published elsewhere, or that is copyrighted, the author must provide documentation that the previous publisher or copyright holder has given permission for the figure to be re-published. Microbiota in Health and Disease considers all material in good faith that their journal have full permission to publish every part of the submitted material, including illustrations.

Image Integrity and Manipulation

Images submitted with a manuscript for review should be minimally processed (for instance, to add arrows to a micrograph). Authors should retain their unprocessed data and metadata files, as editors may request them to aid in manuscript evaluation. All digitized images submitted with the final revision of the manuscript must be of high quality.

Positive and negative controls, as well as molecular size markers, should be included on each gel and blot – either in the main figure or an expanded data supplementary figure.

Cells from multiple fields should not be juxtaposed in a single field; instead multiple supporting fields of cells should be shown as Supplementary Information. Threshold manipulation, expansion or contraction of signal ranges and the altering of high signals should be avoided. If “pseudo-colouring” and nonlinear adjustment (for example “gamma changes”) are used, this must be disclosed. Adjustments of individual color channels are sometimes necessary on “merged” images, but this should be noted in the figure legend.

Improper image manipulation involves actions such as obscuring, enhancing, deleting, or adding new elements to an image. If there are doubts about the authenticity of an author’s figures, the Editor-in-Chief may request the original data and has the authority to reject the manuscript if figure manipulation is suspected. The journal uses accredited software to detect potential integrity issues in figures. By submitting their manuscript, authors acknowledge that their work may be screened for image duplication or manipulation.

Conflict of Interest (COI)

Significant conflicts of interest include but are not limited to:

• Funding: Research support (including salaries, equipment, supplies, reimbursement for attending symposia, and other expenses) by organizations that may gain or lose financially through this publication.
• Employment: Recent (while engaged in the research project), present or anticipated employment by any organization that may gain or lose financially through this publication.
• Personal Financial Interests: Stocks or shares in companies that may gain or lose financially through publication; consultation fees or other forms of remuneration from organizations that may gain or lose financially; patents or patent applications whose value may be affected by publication.

COI: Application to Authors

At the time of submission, Microbiota in Health and Disease policy requires that authors reveal any COI, including financial interests or connections, direct or indirect, or any other situations that could raise questions of bias in either the reported work or the conclusions, implications, or opinions stated. Disclosed potential COIs should include any relevant commercial or other sources 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 did not declare and that would emerge after publication and you had not declared it?

As an integral part of the online submission process, corresponding authors are required to confirm whether they or their co-authors have any conflicts of interest to declare, and to provide details of these. If the corresponding author is unable to confirm this information on behalf of all co-authors, the authors in question will then be required to submit the following COI form to the Editorial Office. It is the corresponding author’s responsibility to ensure that all authors adhere to this policy.

If the manuscript is submitted, COI information needs to be communicated in a statement within the work (e.g. The authors declare they have no conflict or financial interests).

In the event that a previously undisclosed potential competing interest for an author of a published paper comes to the attention of the editors, the journal will start an investigation as per COPE flowchart, reassessing the article to evaluate whether to apply for a retraction or publish an erratum.

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. Microbiota in Health and Disease 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.

Authors are required to specify sources of funding for the study and to indicate whether or not the text was reviewed by the sponsor prior to submission, i.e., 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-review of the paper, submitting authors are asked to disclose all relevant consultancies within the 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.

COI: Application to Reviewers and Editors

COI for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process – author, reviewer, and editor – has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, regardless of whether the judgment is affected. Financial relationships with industry (for example, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family, are usually considered the most important conflicts of interest. However, conflicts can also occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.

Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they believe it to be appropriate. As in the case of authors, silence on the part of reviewers concerning potential conflicts may mean either that such conflicts exist that they have failed to disclose, or that conflicts do not exist. Reviewers must therefore also be asked to state explicitly whether conflicts do or do not exist. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests. The Editors must be made aware of reviewers’ COI to interpret the reviews and judge for themselves whether the reviewer should be disqualified.

As per journal policies, the peer-review is conducted for transparency on Publishing Manager. The invitation letter to reviewers will include the following paragraph: If you know or think you know the identity of the author, and if you feel there is any potential COI in your refereeing this paper because of your relationship with the author (e.g., in terms of close friendship or conflict/rivalry) or for any other reason, please declare it. By accepting this invitation, it is assumed there is no potential COI. Standard policy will be not to use a referee if a COI has been declared, but the editors may use their discretion after consulting with one another.

COI: Application to Publishing Policy

Microbiota in Health and Disease thrives on its independence. Our strict policy is that editorial independence, decisions and content should not be compromised by commercial or financial interests, or by any specific arrangements with advertising clients or sponsors.

Advertising

Advertising is rarely allowed and appears only in the abstract book dedicated to the EHMSG annual meeting and has no influence on the editorial decisions or the journal aims.

Pre-Publicity

Authors of papers that contain taxonomy should be aware that it is possible for third parties to exploit the prior publication of nomenclature at any time between the online posting of a preprint and the print publication date in a journal. Microbiota in Health and Disease takes no responsibility for such assertions of priority in the case of manuscripts that it publishes if the content of those manuscripts has previously appeared in the public domain as online preprints or other forms of online posting.