The publication of an article in a peer reviewed journal is an essential model for our journal "Biodiversity Journal".
To achieve this result, it is necessary to agree upon standards of ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.

In particular, the editor of Biodiversity Journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor of the Biodiversity Journal may confer with other editors, experts, or reviewers in making these decisions, guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements regarding scientific publications, copyright and plagiarism.

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate, or use the unpublished material of a submitted manuscript without the express written consent of the author.

The main duties of the human components that contribute to the creation of good scientific work (editors, authors, and reviewers) will be outlined below. For anything not reported, our ethic statements are based on recommendations outlined in the guidelines by organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Duties of Editors

Publication
Editors evaluate manuscripts based on intellectual content without discrimination and decide which articles to publish based on validation, importance, and legal requirements. Editors ensure peer review processes using appropriate reviewers.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Editors and editorial staff must not disclose submitted manuscript information without authorization of the authors. Unpublished materials from submitted manuscripts must not be used in the editor's research without written consent.

Complaints, Appeals and Confirmations
Editors are committed to addressing any complaints or appeals in a fair and timely manner.
All stakeholders can submit their opinions in writing to the journal's editorial office with concerns regarding publications and editorial decisions. Editors, after a revision process, will communicate the resolution promptly to interested parties.
In cases of alleged or proven misconduct, fraudulent publication, plagiarism, or undisclosed AI-generated content, the editors will clarify the situation and amend the works in question as appropriate, including errata or retractions.

Retractions and post-publication Corrections
A manuscript may be retracted for one or more of the following reasons:
• plagiarism;
• falsified data;
• use of fictional or fake sources (as it may happen due to unchecked use of AI);
• unethical research practices;
• errors in data or analysis;
• failure to obtain proper ethical approvals;
• violations of human/animal research guidelines;
• publication of the work in question in another journal;
• presence of substantial overlap with another publication by the same authors without proper citation or permission;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest or authorship disputes of the manuscript.
If one or more of these actions are noticed, the editors, after informing and consulting the authors, will decide whether a correction or retraction is warranted.
A retraction notice or a errata will be published alongside the original article, indicating the reasons for the retraction or corrections.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards
Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and highlight its significance. All this data must be presented accurately in the paper that must contain detail and references. The work must be clear and understandable to allow others to replicate it if needed or wanted. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention
Authors are required to provide preliminary data related to an article for editorial review. These data must also be accessible upon request (in accordance with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases) where possible, and must be retained for a sufficient period of time after the work is published.

Originality, Plagiarism and Sources
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. In case the authors decide to use the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited. Thus, the authors should cite all the publications who contributed to the compilation of the reported work.
Use of AI must be disclosed in the paper, both in its use and extent.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
Submitting the same manuscript or manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the design and execution of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions to the realization of the published work should be listed as co-authors or contributors.
The corresponding author, in addition to maintaining relationships with the publisher, should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included on the paper after having reviewed and approved the final version of the article and consented to its publication.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
In the works involving chemicals, procedures, or equipment with unusual hazards, the Authors must clearly identify and describe such risks. Authors of the work must also clarify any extraordinary risks associated with the use of drugs, methods, or instruments employed in the research.
Studies involving human or animal subjects must include statements confirming compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and approvals by appropriate committees.
Particularly, human research requires prior ethics committee approval, documented informed consent, and privacy protections (see also Declaration of Helsinki, 2024 revision); animal research requires approval and adherence to welfare standards emphasizing by the ethical principles known as 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement, see Russell & Burch, 1959) which we can summarize as follows: replace animal testing with other methods as much as possible, reduce the number of animals used, and minimize animals suffering.
For human research, Authors also must provide a statement that informed consent was obtained and documented, and privacy rights strictly observed.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Authors must declare in the manuscript any conflict of interest with the work being published and cite all sources of funding used to complete the work.

Significant errors in published works
If the author discovers one or more significant errors in his or her published work, he or she must immediately inform the journal editor or publisher and work with them to retract or correct the article.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.