Publication Ethics
Food Science and Engineering Research aims to adhere to the guidelines and core practices set forth by several organizations, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, WAME). These guidelines and recommendations are designed to promote transparency, integrity, and best practices in scholarly publishing. By adhering to these standards, the journal aims to ensure that the research it publishes is of high quality and meets the ethical standards of the scientific community.

Authors are advised to use EASE Ethics Checklist for Authors to ensure that their manuscripts comply with ethical standards and practices.

All research involving human subjects must be reviewed and approved by a reviewer board, such as an institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee, before it is conducted. The name of the ethics committee that reviewed and approved the research, as well as the ethics committee approval number and date, should be included in the Methods section of the manuscript when it is submitted for publication. Additionally, the journal may require authors to provide a copy of the ethics committee approval as part of the manuscript submission process. This is to ensure that the research has been properly reviewed and approved, and to allow the journal to verify that the research meets the ethical standards required for publication.

For studies involving animals, it is required to obtain approval of research protocols from an ethics committee. The ethics committee should review the research protocols to ensure that they are in compliance with relevant guidelines and regulations, such as the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (8th edition, 2011) and the International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals (2012). These guidelines provide detailed information on how to conduct research involving animals in an ethical and humane manner, and are widely recognized as the standard for such research.

If a study is exempted from the ethics committee approval, the authors must present a statement from the ethics committee explaining the reason for the exemption. This is to ensure that the research was reviewed by an ethics committee and that the decision to exempt the study was made in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

If a manuscript is submitted to Food Science and Engineering Research without ethics committee approval, the journal will review the manuscript according to the COPE’s Research, Audit and Service Evaluations guideline. This guideline provides guidance on how to handle manuscripts that do not have ethics committee approval, and allows the journal to assess the risks and potential ethical concerns associated with publishing the research.

If the journal determines that the lack of ethics committee approval is a significant concern, the manuscript may be rejected after editorial review. This is to ensure that the journal maintains high ethical standards and only publishes research that has been properly reviewed and approved by an ethics committee.

For manuscripts concerning research involving human subjects, it is required to include a statement indicating that written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Informed consent should be documented in writing, and a copy of the informed consent form should be retained by the researchers for future reference.

In the case of research involving children under the age of 18, the parent or guardian of the child must provide informed consent on behalf of the child. This is because children are considered to be a vulnerable population and may not have the capacity to fully understand the risks and benefits of participating in research.

If the manuscript reports the findings of a survey or interviews, the author must confirm that the participants gave their informed consent to participate in the study and for their personal details to be recorded if that is the case. If quotations or other attributable statements are included, these must be deidentified, or the manuscript must state that the person agreed to be named in the manuscript.

Information on informed consent should be provided in the Methods section of the manuscript, along with any other relevant details about how the research was conducted.

It is the responsibility of the authors to protect the anonymity of study participants, and to ensure that the research is conducted in a way that respects their privacy and confidentiality. This is especially important for photographs that may reveal the identity of patients, as the publication of such photographs without proper consent could potentially violate the rights of the individuals depicted.

To protect the anonymity of patients in photographs, the authors should obtain signed releases from the patients or their legal representatives. These releases should indicate that the patients have given their consent for the publication of the photographs, and should specify any restrictions or conditions on the use of the photographs. Information on the publication approval for photographs should be provided in the Methods section of the manuscript.

Plagiarism and Ethical Misconduct
All submissions are screened by a similarity detection software (Crossref Similarity Check Powered by iThenticate) multiple times during the peer-review and/or production processes.

When you are discussing others' (or your own) previous work, make sure that you cite the material correctly in every instance.

Authors are strongly recommended to avoid any form of plagiarism and ethical misconduct that are exemplified below.

• Citation manipulation: The practice of manipulating the number of citations received by an author, journal, or other publication through various means, such as self-citation, excessive citation of articles from the same journal, or the inclusion of honorary citations or citation stacking.
• Self- plagiarism (text-recycling): The practice of using overlapping sections or sentences from the author's previous publications without properly citing them. This is considered to be a form of plagiarism, as it involves using someone else's work (in this case, the author's own work) without proper attribution.
• Salami slicing: The practice of using the same data from a research study in several different articles. This is considered to be unethical, as it involves reporting the same hypotheses, population, and methods of a study in multiple papers.
• Data Fabrication: The addition of data that never occurred during the gathering of data or experiments. This is considered to be a form of research misconduct, as it involves presenting false or misleading information as if it were real data.
• Data Manipulation/Falsification: The practice of manipulating research data with the intention of giving a false impression. This can include manipulating images, removing outliers or "inconvenient" results, changing data points, and other forms of manipulation. This is also considered to be a form of research misconduct, as it involves presenting false or misleading information as if it were real data.

In the event of alleged or suspected research misconduct such as plagiarism, citation manipulation, or data falsification/fabrication, the Editorial Board will follow the appropriate COPE flowcharts to ensure that the allegations or suspicions are handled in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner.

AUTHORSHIP
All individuals listed as an author should meet the authorship criteria recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The ICMJE recommends that authorship is based on the following four 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.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work they have done, authors should also be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work to ensure that the contributions of all authors are accurately and appropriately acknowledged. Authors may use CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) to provide information about individual contributions at the time of submission. It is expected that all authors agreed upon their individual contributions as shared by the corresponding author. The authors’ contribution statement will be published with the final article and should accurately reflect contributions to the work.

Furthermore, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors. This means that they should trust that their co-authors have conducted the research in an ethical and responsible manner, and that the data and results presented in the manuscript are accurate and reliable.

Individuals who do not meet all four of the authorship criteria should not be included as authors on the manuscript. However, they can still be acknowledged on the title page of the manuscript for their contributions to the research in order to recognize the contributions of these individuals and to provide transparency about who was involved in the research.

If the editorial board suspects a case of ghost, honorary or gift authorship, the submission will be suspended and the relevant COPE flowchart and COPE Policy on authorship and contributorship will be followed.

Change of Authorship
Any requests for changes to authorship, such as the removal or addition of authors, or changes in the order of authors, should be submitted to the editorial office with a letter stating the reasons for the change. The letter must be signed by all authors, including any who have been removed.

The journal’s Editorial Board will handle all requests for changes to authorship in a consistent and transparent manner, following the relevant COPE flowchart guidelines. These procedures are in place to protect the integrity of the research and the reputation of all involved authors.

Declaration of Interests
Authors must reveal any relationships or interests that may lead to an inappropriate influence or bias in their work. This should be done by disclosing any possible conflicts of interest through the online submission system while submitting their manuscript.

Food Science and Engineering Research also requires and encourages individuals involved in the peer review process of submitted manuscripts to disclose any existing or potential competing interests that might lead to potential bias.

The Editorial Board will handle cases of potential competing interests of editors, authors, or reviewers within the scope of relevant COPE flowcharts.

Financial Disclosure
Food Science and Engineering Research requires authors to disclose any financial support they received to conduct their research. This information should be included in the funding statement, which should be provided when the manuscript is submitted to the journal.

The funding statement should include the name of any granting agencies, the grant numbers, and a description of each funder's role in the research. If the funder had no role in the research, this should be stated in the funding statement as well. This information is important for readers to understand the potential biases and conflicts of interest that may exist in the research.

Post-Publication Correction Requests and Retractions
All post-publication correction requests are subject to editorial review. The editorial board will review the request and determine whether the correction is necessary and appropriate. The decision to publish a correction will be based on the nature of the error, its potential impact on the article, and the availability of supporting evidence. The editorial board may also consult with the authors, reviewers, and other experts as needed to make its decision. If the correction request is approved, the article will be corrected in the journal's archive.

The Editorial Board reviews cases following journal policies and COPE guidelines.

If misconduct allegations are made by whistleblowers directly, the Editorial Board will follow the relevant COPE’s flowchart. The journal will act in accordance with the COPE's flowchart on how to respond to whistleblowers when concerns are raised about a published article on a social media site.

In some cases, an ombudsperson may be assigned to resolve claims that cannot be resolved internally.

To investigate potential ethical misconduct, the editorial board may share information with other editors-in-chief to conduct investigations more efficiently and effectively. If communication with the editor-in-chief is necessary, the editorial board will follow the relevant COPE's recommendations.

If necessary, the journal may also contact institutions to inform them of suspected misconduct by researchers and provide evidence to support these concerns, following COPE guidelines in the process.

In the event of ethical misconduct concerns, the editors will investigate the case according to COPE guidelines. If the investigation verifies the concern, the editors may issue a retraction notice. The retraction notice will be published in the journal and the article's record will be updated to reflect the retraction. The article will remain in the archives of the journal, but it will be clearly marked as retracted. The article's record will also be updated in the relevant indexes to reflect the retraction.

Withdrawal Requests
Withdrawal requests for an article are reviewed by the editorial board of the journal. To request the withdrawal of an article, the authors must send a letter signed by all authors stating their request and the reasons for withdrawal to the journal editor. The editorial board will then review the request and make a decision based on the reasons provided by the authors. If the request is approved, the article will be withdrawn from the journal and the authors will be notified of the decision. It is important to note that authors should not submit their work to another journal for evaluation until the withdrawal request has been approved. This is to avoid any potential conflicts of interest or duplication of publication.

Appeals and Complaint
The editorial board of the journal is responsible for addressing appeals and complaints in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations of the COPE. If an author has an appeal or complaint, they should contact the editorial office directly to discuss their concerns. The editorial board will review the case and make a decision based on COPE guidelines.

The editor-in-chief has the final authority in the decision-making process for all appeals and complaints. In some cases, an ombudsperson may be assigned to resolve claims that cannot be resolved internally. It is important to note that the journal follows a fair and transparent process for handling appeals and complaints, with the goal of preserving the integrity of the scientific record.