Publication Policies and Editorial Ethics of Insightia

Insightia is committed to high-quality open access publishing and ethical standards. The following policies outline our practices on open access, peer review, copyright, archiving, authorship, ethical clearance, data sharing, AI use, and other matters. These rules are modeled on international best practices (COPE, DOAJ, ICMJE, etc.) and help ensure transparency and integrity. The guidelines are presented in clearly defined sections below.

Open Access Policy

Insightia is fully open access: all articles are freely available online immediately upon publication with no subscription or paywall. This maximizes reach and impact. We publish under a Creative Commons license (e.g. CC BY 4.0), allowing any user to share and adapt the content provided the original authors and source are properly credited. (journals.plog.org)

• All published articles are accessible without registration or fee.
• The default license is CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution), which permits unrestricted reuse with attribution. Authors retain copyright and grant Insightia a non-exclusive right to distribute. (plog.org)

Peer-Review Policy

All manuscripts undergo rigorous, double-blind peer review. Submissions are sent to at least two independent experts in the field, who evaluate the work’s validity and quality. The Editor-in-Chief makes final decisions based on reviewer reports. The editor may consult additional advisory editors if needed to ensure a fair assessment.

• Double-blind review: Authors’ identities are concealed from reviewers and vice versa.
• Multiple reviewers: At least two qualified reviewers assess each manuscript.
• Editorial decision: The Editor-in-Chief or handling editor considers all reports and decides on acceptance, revision, or rejection.
• Appeals: Authors who dispute a decision may request an additional review; a third expert may be consulted before a final verdict.
• Confidentiality: Reviewers and editors keep manuscripts confidential and disclose no information before publication.

Licensing Policy

Insightia adopts a liberal Creative Commons license (typically CC BY 4.0) to maximize reuse. Under CC BY, readers and other publishers may copy, redistribute, transform, and build upon the work for any purpose (even commercially), as long as the original author and source are credited  (journals.plog.org). This approach aligns with open access principles by removing reuse barriers.

• CC BY license: All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (plog.org). This means free and unrestricted use is allowed with proper citation.
• Author rights: Authors retain copyright and can share their work (e.g. post on personal websites) under the same license terms.
• Secondary use: Other researchers and the public may reuse figures, data, and text (with attribution) to enable open scholarship and text/data mining (plog.org).

Archiving Policy

To ensure long-term preservation, Insightia participates in recognized digital archiving initiatives (neuroscijournal). For example, we deposit all journal content with preservation services such as LOCKSS/CLOCKSS, Portico, or PKP PN, which maintain secure backups and guarantee open access if the journal ceases (neuroscijournal). We also register Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) and share metadata (title, abstract, authors) via CrossRef and major indexing platforms (neuroscijournal).

• Digital preservation: Published articles are stored in redundant archives (e.g. LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, Portico) to safeguard against data loss (neuroscijournal).
• Metadata and DOIs: Article metadata and DOIs are maintained through CrossRef, ensuring discoverability in PubMed, Scopus, DOAJ, etc. (neuroscijournal).
• Self-archiving: Authors may self-archive their final published articles in institutional or subject repositories immediately upon publication, provided the DOI and CC BY license are included (neuroscijournal). Supplementary materials (datasets, code) can also be archived alongside the article for added permanence.

Authorship Policy

Insightia follows international authorship standards (e.g. ICMJE, COPE). Authorship credit is granted only to those who have made substantial intellectual contributions, as defined by: (1) significant work in conception/design or data collection/analysis; (2) drafting or critical revision of the manuscript; and (3) final approval of the published version (icmje.org). All listed authors must meet these criteria and agree to be accountable for the work.

• Criteria: Authors must satisfy ICMJE’s three authorship conditions (conception/design, drafting/revision, final approval).
• Originality: The manuscript must be original and not under consideration or published elsewhere.
• Credit: All contributors and sources (figures, data, text) must be properly cited or acknowledged. Ghost or gift authorship is not allowed.
• Disclosure: Funding sources and any conflicts of interest must be fully disclosed by the authors.
• Corrections: Authors are obliged to notify the editor promptly if any error or inaccuracy is found in their published article.

Ethical Clearance Policy

Research involving human participants, animals, or sensitive ecological materials must have prior ethical approval. Authors should obtain approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee, and the manuscript must include the approval reference number and date. For example:

• Experiments with humans or human-derived samples require IRB clearance and informed consent; authors must cite the institutional approval ID.
• Clinical studies should comply with WHO and SPIRIT standards for trial protocols. Trial registration numbers and ethics approval should be reported.
• Use of endangered plants/animals must follow CITES and conservation laws; permissions or ethical permits should be obtained.
• If no ethical approval was necessary (e.g. use of anonymous public data), authors should explicitly state this and justify why oversight was not required.

Failure to provide necessary ethical clearances (when applicable) may lead to desk rejection or retraction if discovered later.

Data Sharing Guidelines

Insightia supports open data to foster transparency and reproducibility. Data Availability Statements are required for all research articles. Authors must describe which datasets (and software/code) underpin their findings and where they can be accessed. Best practice is to deposit data in public repositories (e.g. Zenodo, Dryad, Figshare, institutional repositories) and cite them via permanent identifiers. Any restrictions (privacy, legal, etc.) should be noted in the statement.

• Data statement: Each article must include a clear Data Availability Statement describing how to obtain the underlying data.
• Public repositories: Authors are encouraged to archive raw data, code, and protocols in public repositories (Zenodo, OSF, Dryad, domain-specific archives) and link them in the paper. This ensures the “minimum dataset” needed to replicate results is accessible.
• Restrictions: If data cannot be shared (e.g. for ethical or legal reasons), the authors should explain the limitation clearly. Editors reserve the right to request necessary data for review.
• Supplementary files: Processed data, algorithms, or supplementary materials should be included with submission or available via repository to support the article’s conclusions.

These measures align with standards from leading publishers, which require authors to make their data available to readers (nature.com).

AI Policy

Insightia follows COPE and industry guidelines on the use of AI in manuscripts. AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT or other large language models) cannot be listed as authors, since they cannot take responsibility for content. If authors use AI assistance (for writing, analysis, figures, etc.), this must be transparently declared in the manuscript (typically in the Methods or Acknowledgements). For example, any text generated or substantially edited by an AI tool should be described and attributed to the tool.

• No authorship: AI tools do not satisfy authorship criteria (no accountability); they must not be named as co-authors.
• Disclosure: Authors must state how AI was used (e.g. “Text segments were generated by [ToolName] and edited by the author”); all final content remains the authors’ responsibility.
• Acceptable use: AI may be used for copy-editing (grammar, style) or data analysis assistance. Such routine use need not be disclosed. However, all substantive scientific content must originate from and be approved by the human authors.

By adhering to these rules, Insightia ensures transparency while embracing useful AI technology.

Editorial Responsibilities

The journal’s editors oversee the publication process with integrity. Key duties include:

• Rigorous review: Ensuring every submission is processed through double-blind peer review.
• Impartiality: Avoiding any conflict of interest; editors recuse themselves from decisions on work where they have a personal or financial stake.
• Confidentiality: Keeping all manuscript information confidential until publication.
• Ethical standards: Enforcing the journal’s policies (e.g. on plagiarism, authorship) and addressing complaints or appeals fairly.
• Communication: Keeping authors and reviewers informed promptly about decisions and expectations (e.g. review timelines).

Editors do not make decisions based on commercial or political pressure; publication decisions are based solely on scientific merit and compliance with ethical guidelines.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers serve as impartial advisers on submitted manuscripts. They must perform their reviews ethically and professionally:

• Confidentiality: Reviewers treat all materials as confidential, not disclosing any details outside the review process. They also keep their own identity hidden from authors (double-blind).
• Objectivity: Reviews should be fair, constructive, and courteous. Reviewers assess the work’s strengths and weaknesses without personal bias.
• Expertise: Reviewers accept only manuscripts within their area of expertise. They should decline or refer a review if unqualified.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict (personal, financial, or professional) that could bias their judgment. If conflicted, they should decline.
• Ethical duty: If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data fabrication, or other misconduct, they should alert the editor immediately.
• Timeliness: Reviewers should submit their reports within the agreed timeframe. If unable to do so, they must notify the editor promptly.

Following COPE’s Reviewer Guidelines, Insightia expects reviews to uphold the integrity of the scholarly record (cesa-scee.ca).

Special Issue Policy

Insightia may publish themed special issues under guest editorship, but these are held to the same standards as regular issues (following recent DOAJ recommendations).

• Editorial oversight: The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for all content, including special issues. Special topics must fit the journal’s scope.
• Peer review: All special-issue articles undergo the standard peer review process. They are clearly marked as part of a special issue.
• Guest editors: Guest editors are vetted by the editorial board. The Editor-in-Chief or appointed editors oversee the guest editors to ensure quality.
• Balance: Any papers written by a special issue’s guest editors themselves are treated as any submission: handled by independent reviewers, and cannot exceed 25% of that issue’s content.

These policies prevent abuse of special issues and maintain consistent quality (blog.doaj.org).

Plagiarism Policy

Insightia enforces strict anti-plagiarism measures to protect research integrity. All submissions are screened using plagiarism-detection software (e.g. iThenticate) before review. Manuscripts must not contain copied text, data, or figures without attribution.

• Unoriginal content: Any significant overlap with published work (text similarity beyond acceptable limits) is unacceptable. Manuscripts failing originality checks are rejected outright.
• Detection: Editors check each submission for plagiarism or duplicate publication. If plagiarism is found at any stage, the paper is rejected and/or withdrawn from consideration.
• Post-publication: If plagiarism or data falsification is discovered after publication, the article will be retracted and removed from the online archive. A public notice of retraction will be issued.
• Reporting: In serious cases, the journal may inform the authors’ institutions, funders, or professional bodies about the misconduct.

Insightia encourages the community to report suspected plagiarism. Contact the editorial office if you have concerns.

Article Retraction Policy

Retraction of a published article is a last resort, reserved for major violations of ethics or record integrity. Insightia follows COPE guidelines for retractions. Grounds for retraction include: confirmed plagiarism, falsified or fraudulent data, unethical research, or major errors that invalidate conclusions.

• Retention: Retracted articles remain accessible in the archive, but are clearly marked (e.g. with a watermark or header “Retracted”) to maintain the scholarly record.
• Notification: A formal retraction notice, explaining the reasons, is published. This notice is linked to the original article.
• Correction vs. Retraction: Minor errors may be corrected via erratum; retraction is reserved for issues that fundamentally undermine the work.
• Legal cases: In rare cases (e.g. libel or legal disputes), the publisher may remove an article entirely, but will issue an explanatory statement.

Editors will strive to handle retractions transparently and in accordance with best practices, protecting readers and authors alike.

Withdrawal Policy

Authors should carefully consider publication before submission. Withdrawing a manuscript after acceptance or during review is discouraged.

• Once a manuscript is formally accepted, any withdrawal request may incur an administrative fee to cover processing and reviewing costs.
• If authors cancel publication after paying the Article Processing Charge (APC), the fee will not be refunded.
• Withdrawing an accepted paper for reasons such as indexing concerns or duplicate submissions breaches ethics and will be treated seriously (no APC refund).

Submitting authors implicitly agree to publication if accepted. Excessive or abusive withdrawals may be noted in editorial records.

Waiver Policy

Insightia recognizes that publication fees can be a barrier for some authors. We offer APC waivers or discounts in accordance with fair criteria:

• Eligibility: Authors from low-income countries or those facing financial hardship may request a partial or full waiver of fees.
• Limits: Typically, waivers are granted on a case-by-case basis (e.g. one waived article per author per year) and must be requested before
• Procedure: Waiver requests should be sent to the editorial office with an explanation of circumstances. Decisions are made confidentially by the editor/publisher.

Granting waivers helps uphold inclusivity without compromising quality.

All the above policies are subject to change in line with evolving standards and ethical guidelines. Insightia follows COPE’s Core Practices and other international standards to continuously refine our policies for the benefit of authors, readers, and the research community.