Publication ethics at PaperNova

The PaperNova editorial board holds full authority over content decisions, free of commercial, political, or administrative interference. No advertiser, funder, or external stakeholder influences editorial decisions on any paper.

Editors serve voluntarily and are not compensated per published paper. Every editor must recuse themselves from handling a submission in which they have a financial, personal, or professional conflict of interest.

The Editor-in-Chief has final authority on editorial policy. The current editorial board is listed on the Editorial Board page.

Every submission to PaperNova is evaluated through a structured editorial review process designed for transparency and speed:

1. Desk check. An editor verifies that the submission matches our scope and meets minimum quality standards (structure, originality, length).
2. Expert review. The paper is reviewed by at least one domain expert drawn from our editorial board or reviewer pool. Reviewers check structure, method, clarity, and originality.
3. Decision. The reviewer returns one of three outcomes: accept, revise, or reject. Revision requests come with detailed feedback and a 3-day resubmission window.
4. Publication. Accepted papers are published with a permanent URL, citation block, Google Scholar indexation, and a verifiable certificate of publication.

Target turnaround from submission to first decision is 24 hours for standard submissions. Complex or multi-author papers may take longer; authors are notified if review will exceed 3 business days.

Review model

Reviews are single-blind by default: reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, but editors know both. Authors may opt into transparent peer review at submission, in which case reviewer comments and author responses are published alongside the final paper.

PaperNova follows the ICMJE authorship criteria. All listed authors must have:

• Made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, or execution of the work
• Drafted the paper or revised it critically for important intellectual content
• Approved the final version submitted for publication
• Agreed to be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the work

Contributors who do not meet all four criteria should be credited in an acknowledgements section rather than listed as authors. Honorary, guest, or ghost authorship is strictly prohibited and is grounds for retraction if discovered after publication.

Changes to authorship after submission require written agreement from all existing and proposed authors. The corresponding author is responsible for obtaining this consent.

Contributor roles

We encourage authors to use the CRediT taxonomy to describe each author's contribution in the paper itself.

PaperNova takes plagiarism seriously. Every submitted paper is screened for similarity using our integrated plagiarism detection service. Authors also self-declare originality at submission and retain legal responsibility for the claim.

Similarity thresholds we use in editorial decisions:

• Under 15%: normal. Accepted for review.
• 15% to 30%: review required. Authors asked to revise or paraphrase.
• Over 30%: desk reject unless the overlap is from the authors' own prior work (self-citation permitted).

Paraphrasing without attribution, translated plagiarism, and recycling of one's own previously published work without citation (self-plagiarism) are all treated as plagiarism.

Authors must disclose the use of large language models and other generative AI tools in the preparation of their paper. Acceptable and required practice:

• Allowed: using AI tools for grammar editing, spell checking, paraphrasing, literature search, and reference formatting.
• Allowed with disclosure: using AI to draft sections of the paper, generate figures, or assist with data analysis. Disclose the tool, version, and use case in an "AI disclosure" section.
• Not allowed: listing an AI system as an author. AI cannot accept responsibility for the integrity of the work and therefore cannot be an author.
• Not allowed: fabricating data, citations, or results using AI. Discovery after publication leads to retraction.

We scan every submission for AI-generated content and surface the result in the editorial review. Papers above a 50% AI-content threshold undergo additional manual review before a decision is made.

Authors of empirical papers are expected to make the data, code, and materials necessary to reproduce their results available, either as supplementary files on the paper page or via a trusted repository (GitHub, Zenodo, Figshare, OSF).

Where data cannot be shared (sensitive, proprietary, or restricted), authors must include a brief data availability statement explaining why and describing how other researchers may request access.

We strongly encourage the use of persistent identifiers (DOIs for datasets) and open licenses (CC-BY, MIT, Apache-2.0) for code and data.

All authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could be perceived to influence the work or its evaluation. This includes:

• Financial interests (funding, equity, consulting fees)
• Employment or affiliation with an organization that has a stake in the outcome
• Personal or professional relationships that could bias the review
• Intellectual property or patent claims related to the work

Authors declare conflicts at submission. Reviewers disclose to the handling editor before accepting the review assignment. Editors recuse themselves from papers where a conflict exists. Undisclosed conflicts discovered after publication may result in a correction or retraction.

PaperNova follows COPE's Retraction Guidelines. A paper is retracted when the editors have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to:

• Major error, miscalculation, or experimental flaw
• Fabrication or falsification of data
• Plagiarism or redundant publication
• Serious ethical or copyright violation

Retracted papers are not removed from the archive. Instead, a clearly visible retraction notice is placed at the top of the paper page, the PDF is watermarked "RETRACTED" on download, and the original version is preserved for the scholarly record. Retraction notices explain the reason and are linked to the original paper and cited by DOI.

Corrections

For less serious issues (typographical errors, missing citations, incorrect figures), we issue a correction notice linked to the paper rather than retracting it. A new paper version is published and marked as such; earlier versions remain accessible in the version history.

Readers who suspect an error in a published paper should email editorial@papernova.online. We acknowledge every report and investigate in coordination with the authors.

Authors who believe their paper has been rejected unfairly may file an appeal within 14 days of the decision. Appeals should be emailed to editorial@papernova.online with the subject line "Appeal: <paper title>" and include:

• The original submission details (paper ID, title)
• A point-by-point response to the reviewer's concerns
• Any new evidence, data, or context that supports reconsideration

Appeals are reviewed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision. The outcome (uphold, reverse, or reopen for re-review) is communicated within 10 business days. Appeal decisions are final.

Complaints about editorial conduct or process should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief at the same address. If a satisfactory resolution cannot be reached, the complainant may escalate to COPE.

Authors retain the copyright to their work. At submission, authors confirm that they hold the copyright and grant PaperNova a non-exclusive right to publish, archive, and distribute the paper.

Papers are currently published under our standard publication terms with open-access reading rights. Authors interested in applying a Creative Commons license (CC-BY 4.0, CC-BY-NC, or CC0) to their paper may indicate this at submission.

Third-party content (figures, tables, quotations beyond fair use) must be properly attributed and, where required, used under an explicit licence. It is the author's responsibility to secure such permissions before submission.