NeBIO is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices.

Authors submitting their works to the journal for publication as original articles attest that the submitted works represent their authors’ contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works.

The authors acknowledge that they have disclosed all and any actual or potential conflicts of interest with their work or partial benefits associated with it.

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal NeBIO is built in accordance to the Elsevier model, based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at

The act of publishing a peer-reviewed article is responsibility of all parties involved in it (Publisher, Editors, Authors, and Reviewers), so that developing a coherent and respected network of knowledge is essential and it is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of all parties.

Publisher Responsibilities

  • Autonomy of editorial decisions, so that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
  • Protection of intellectual property and copyright.
  • Take appropriate measures (correction, erratum, or even retraction) in cases of proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism.

Editor Responsibilities

  • Publication decision based on an intellectual analysis of the manuscript and a critical analysis of the reports of the reviewers.
  • Fair play in the manuscript evaluation, just for intellectual criteria.
  • Maintain the Confidentiality of information on authors and manuscript content.
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of interest guided in accordance to the COPE’s guidelines.

Author Responsibilities

  • Reporting standards with sufficient data and substantial and objective discussion of results.
  • Originality of results and no Plagiarism in the manuscript.
  • Guarantee the manuscript is not a Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication.
  • Acknowledgement of Sources must be properly given.
  • Authorship of the Manuscript should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or/and interpretation of the reported research.
  • Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects must be indicated.
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of interest guided in accordance to the COPE’s guidelines.
  • Fundamental errors in published works must be promptly notified to the journal’s editor or publisher.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Contribution to Editorial Decision by reporting the critical, technical, and intellectual analysis of the manuscript.
  • The Reviewers are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but rather focus on its scientific quality and overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing.
  • Promptness in accepting or rejecting the invitation as a referee.
  • Maintain the Confidentiality of information on authors and manuscript content.
  • Standards of Objectivity must be followed, so that reviews must be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism, and in the ways on referee’s views must have supporting arguments.
  • Acknowledgement of Sources must be guarantee, so that relevant published work that has not be cited is included, and substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data is called to author’s and editor’s attention.
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of interest guided in accordance to the COPE’s guidelines.

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.


The practice of peer review is to ensure that good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out on all reputable scientific journals. Our referees therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of NeBIO and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below:

Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Those rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal.  Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least 2 experts for review.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will normally be informed within 2 weeks of receipt.

Type of Peer Review
This journal employs double blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process. Typically the manuscript will be reviewed within 3 months.

Selection of Referees
Referees are invited to review the manuscript according to their subject expertise.  We welcome suggestions for referees from the author though these recommendations may or may not be used.

Referee reports
Referees evaluate the manuscript for originality, methodologically sound, appropriate ethical guidelines, clearly presented results and correctly cited previous relevant works.

Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.

Editor’s Decision is final
Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript. The final decision on the manuscript will be made and communicated to the corresponding author.