General Editorial Policy for Authors

Articles selection and peer-review policy

Introduction

All research articles, and most other article types, published in Eco-Vector journals undergo peer review. This usually involves review by at least two independent, expert peer reviewers. Individual journals may differ in their peer review processes (e.g. open or anonymized), please refer to the specific journal for details.

Peer review policy

All submissions to Eco-Vector journals are first reviewed for completeness and only then sent to be assessed by an Editor who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Where an Editor is on the author list or has any other competing interest regarding a specific manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee peer review. Editors will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor themself may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive peer review reports with the editorial decision on their manuscript.

Proceedings papers are reviewed by the Programme Chairs and Programme Committee members of the respective conference, with help from external reviewers selected by them.

Peer reviewer selection

Peer reviewer selection is critical to the publication process. It is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflict of interest and previous performance. Speed, thoroughness, sound reasoning and collegiality are highly desirable. 

Editors (Editorial Board Members) Responsibilities:

• Editor(s) are expected to obtain a minimum of two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research. It is recognized that in some exceptional circumstances, particularly in niche and emerging fields, it may not be possible to obtain two independent peer reviewers. In such cases, Editor(s) may wish to make a decision to publish based on one peer review report. When making a decision based on one report, Editor(s) are expected to only do so if the peer review report meets the standards set out below.
• Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations of the authors’ work, particularly in relation to the appropriateness of methods used, whether the results are accurate, and whether the conclusions are supported by the results. Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a rationale for the recommendations.
• Editor(s) are expected to independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used to invite peer reviewers wherever possible. Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least one reviewer who was not suggested by the author.
• Manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research, such as Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries or Opinion articles, may be accepted without peer review. Such manuscripts should be assessed by the Editor(s) if the topic is in the area of expertise of the Editor(s); if the topic is not in area of expertise of the Editor(s), such manuscripts should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member.

In the rare, exceptional, occasions when two independent peer reviewers cannot be secured, the Editor may act as a second reviewer or make a decision using only one report.

• Editor must have a sufficient amount of knowledge in the area if acting as a second reviewer
• Editor should sign the review to ensure transparency in the peer review process
• Any single reports should be detailed and thorough
• The first reviewer should be senior, on topic and have published recently on the subject

Potential peer reviewers should inform the Editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation to review a manuscript. Communications between Editors and peer reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties. 

Some journals allow authors to suggest potential reviewers, and to request that some be excluded from consideration (usually a maximum of two people/research groups). Editors will consider these requests, but are not obliged to fulfill them. The Editor's decision on the choice of peer reviewers is final.

Authors should not recommend recent collaborators or colleagues who work in the same institution as themselves. Authors can suggest peer reviewers in the cover letter. Information which will help the Editor verify the identity and expertise of the reviewer will be required. This includes the suggested reviewer’s institutional email address and ORCID or Scopus ID. 
 

Peer reviewer diversity

Eco-Vector is committed to diversity, equity and inclusion and we strive for diverse demographic representation of peer reviewers. Editors are strongly encouraged to consider  geographical regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic groups, and other groups when inviting peer reviewers.

Peer reviewer misconduct

Providing false or misleading information—for example, identity theft and suggesting fake peer-reviewers—will result in rejection of the manuscript, further investigation in line with Eco-Vector’s misconduct policy, and notification to the authors’ institutions/employers. Eco-Vector journals are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). More information about peer reviewer fraud/falsification can be found here.

Peer review models

• Open peer review: Peer reviewers' names are included on the peer review reports. If the manuscript is published, reports with peer reviewer names are published online alongside the article(on rare occasions, information from the pre-publication history may not be available for a specific article). Authors are aware of the peer reviewers’ names during the peer-review process and vice versa. There should not be direct correspondence between authors and peer reviewers; communication is mediated by the Editor. 

• Transparent peer review: If the manuscript is published, the peer review reports appear online alongside the article. Names of peer reviewers are not published. On rare occasions, information from the pre-publication history may not be available for a specific article.

• Anonymized peer review: Most journals use  a single-anonymized peer review process; that is, author identities are known to peer reviewers, but peer reviewers identities are not revealed to the authors. In double-anonymized peer review, identities of neither authors nor peer reviewers are disclosed; peer review mediated by Research Square is double-anonymized. The pre-publication history of articles is not made available online.

Peer reviewer guidance

The primary purpose of peer review is providing the Editor with the information needed to reach a fair, evidence-based decision that adheres to the journal’s editorial criteria. Review reports should also help authors revise their paper such that it may be accepted for publication. Reports accompanied by a recommendation to reject the paper should explain the major weaknesses of the research; this will help the authors prepare their manuscript for submission to a different journal. 

Peer reviewers should adhere to the principles of COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers.

Confidential comments to the Editor are welcome, but they must not contradict the main points in the report for the authors.

Peer reviewers should assess papers exclusively against the journal’s criteria for publication. 

The following conventions should be respected:

• Reviewers should review the peer review policy of the Journal before revealing their reviewer role.
• Reviews should be conducted objectively.
•  Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate, as are defamatory/libelous remarks. 
• Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and references. 
• Reviewers should declare any potential competing interests.
• Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts with which they believe they have a competing interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
• Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of material supplied to them and not discuss unpublished manuscripts with colleagues or use the information in their own work.
• Any reviewer who wants to pass a peer review invitation onto a colleague must contact the journal in the first instance.

Concerns relating to these points, or any aspect of the review process, should be raised with the editorial team.
 

We ask reviewers the following types of questions, to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:

• Key results: Please summarize what you consider to be the outstanding features of the work.
• Validity: Does the manuscript have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
• Originality and significance: If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references.
• Data & methodology: Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data and quality of presentation. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review all data, including any extended data and supplementary information. Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?
• Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties: All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not the case. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests, and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values. 
• Conclusions: Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid and reliable?
• Inflammatory material: Does the manuscript contain any language that is inappropriate or potentially libelous?
• Suggested improvements: Please list suggestions that could help strengthen the work in a revision.
• References: Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded? Attempts at reviewer-coerced citation will be noted against your record in our database.
• Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear, accessible? Are abstract, introduction and conclusions appropriate?
• Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully.
• Please address any other specific questions asked by the editor. 
• Reviewers should alert the Editor-in-Chief/Eco-Vector (contact person from respective journal) if they wish to make an allegation of publication or research misconduct, e.g. plagiarism or image manipulation, about an article they are reviewing.

Before you submit your report, please take a moment to read it through and put yourself in the place of the authors. How would you feel if you received this report? Would the tone offend you? Is it courteous and professional?  Are there unnecessary personal remarks or antagonistic comments about the authors or their competitors? Please note that the Editor reserves the right to remove any inappropriate language from your report.

Reports do not necessarily need to follow this specific order but should document the peer reviewer’s thought process. Some journals have a set of questions that reviewers will need to specifically address. All statements should be justified and argued in detail, naming facts and citing supporting references, commenting on all aspects that are relevant to the manuscript and that the reviewers feel qualified commenting on. Not all of the above aspects will necessarily apply to every paper, due to discipline-specific standards. When in doubt about discipline-specific peer-reviewing standards, reviewers can contact the Editor for guidance.

Eco-Vector is committed to diversity, equity and inclusion. The peer reviewer should flag any concerns that may affect this commitment.

It is our policy to remain neutral with respect to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations, and the naming conventions used in maps and affiliation are left to the discretion of authors. Peer reviewers should not, therefore, request authors to make any changes to such unless it is critical to the clarity of the academic content of a manuscript.

Eco-Vector journals are committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the research community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a delay, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.

Peer reviewer recognition

Eco-Vector is committed to recognizing the invaluable service performed by our dedicated peer reviewers. As part of our appreciation program, we offer our peer reviewers the opportunity to credit their ORCID and Publons (where available) profiles with verified peer review data transmitted directly from the submission system at the time of report submission.

General Manuscript Preparation and Data Reporting guidelines

Which reporting guideline should I use

We endorse the EQUATOR Network and FAIRsharing, which list clinical and general science guidelines, respectively. For the most common study designs, we recommend the following:

Are reporting guidelines mandated

While authors are not currently required to complete checklists on submission, we strongly encourage the use of relevant reporting guidelines when preparing research articles. Our reviewers and editors are also encouraged to refer to these guidelines during the review process. 

We are considering enforcing several reporting standards in the future. 

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion policy

Author name changes after publication

There may be some authors who have less need for privacy and the name change could impact the visibility of their paper, for example, if the first author changes their last name. The name can then be changed directly in the article but a correction/note might be published after discussion with the author.

Jurisdictional Neutrality

We recognize that the global research community includes diverse perspectives on many issues, including the legal status of certain countries/regions. We believe the best way to respect those diverse views is for authors and editors to be able to identify their own institutional and country/region affiliations. We achieve this by being neutral on any jurisdictional claims. This means that the geographical designations and institutional affiliations in published materials do not represent Eco-Vector's opinion about the legal status of any country or region.

Local laws and regulations

We publish material on behalf of partner organizations located in many different countries/regions. While we publish for a diverse global audience, we also respect our partners’ responsibility to comply with their local laws and regulations related to published works.

Blinded authorship

Eco-Vector supports ‘anonimous’ publication mode for authors with a strong need for privacy, in accordance with the principles informing the Committee on Publication Ethics’ working group.

On request from the author, author names can be blinded on Eco-Vector’s primary publishing platforms, without any correction or other note. Arrangements are then made to update the article metadata in secondary indexation databases such as Scopus, Web of Science and Pubmed, as applicable.

Voluntary informed consent

Any biomedical research involving human subjects must be designed with respect to the basic ethical principles stated in: 

• the Belmont Report, as well as in international legal acts; 
• the World Medical Association (WMA) Helsinki Declaration on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects (2013); 
• the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects (2016), as well as national laws consistent with these principles; 
• a model law adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the Commonwealth of Independent States. 

Vulnerable populations:
biomedical research involving women of reproductive age

Voluntary informed consent must be obtained from women of childbearing potential. Women who are capable of childbearing should be informed in advance of the potential risks to the fetus if they become pregnant while participating in the research. The permission of another person shall never supersede the requirement for individual informed consent of the pregnant woman or lactating mother.

Vulnerable populations:
Clinical Research Involving Minors

In the Decision of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission of November 3, 2016, No. 79, “On Approval of the Rules of Good Clinical Practice of the Eurasian Economic Union”, minors are also included in the group of vulnerable research subjects and may participate in research only with the consent of their legal representatives.

Vulnerable populations:
clinical research involving the elderly

Decision No. 79 of November 3, 2016, of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission “On Approval of the Rules of Good Clinical Practice of the Eurasian Economic Union” mentions “elderly persons” in the context of assigning them to a special group of patients―potentially vulnerable―to whom special attention should be paid when studying the safety of a drug. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, elderly patients may also be referred to vulnerable categories as they are more susceptible to the disease and the severe course of coronavirus infection.

For elderly patients, including those with cognitive impairment, the research protocol may provide for the participation of a “caregiver.” The person acting as a caregiver must sign and date a specific, separate informed consent form before the elderly patient may be included in the study.

Vulnerable populations:
research involving human subjects with mental, cognitive, and sensory disorders

When conducting research involving people with sensory disorders, informed consent must be obtained. However, if the patient cannot read the text of the informed consent form himself, the researcher must read it in full in the presence of a disinterested witness, who shall also sign a special form of informed consent. If patients with severe forms of mental disorders―who have been declared incompetent by a court―are included in the study, the consent of their legal representative (a guardian) shall be required.

Vulnerable populations:
research involving patients who are in an emergency, are terminally ill, or unable to give informed consent

Ethical standards may permit an exemption from obtaining a patient’s informed consent only if the research entails minimal risk, or if the patient’s life is in danger and no alternative proven or generally recognized treatment is available that could be equally or more likely to save the subject’s life. In such cases, informed consent must be obtained from the legal representative.

Vulnerable populations:
research involving minority ethnic groups

The following principles of biomedical ethics shall be implemented in research involving members of minority ethnic groups - voluntary informed consent.

Biomedical research involving obtaining information on the genetic data of a research participant

When conducting any biomedical research involving obtaining information on the genetic data of a research participant, it shall be necessary to obtain separate informed consent.

Research involving gene and cell therapy

For medical research using identifiable human material or data, such as research on material or data contained in biobanks or similar repositories, the physicians shall seek informed consent for their collection, storage, and/or reuse. The patients shall be provided with all the relevant research information and their informed consent must be obtained.

Research involving stem cells, germ cells, or human embryos

The Authors must confirm that informed consent was obtained from all the donors.

Research involving medical devices

According to the Guidelines for Clinical Trials of Medical Devices, the rights, safety, and health of clinical research subjects should be protected in accordance with the ethical principles established in the Declaration of Helsinki. Voluntary informed consent must be obtained from study participants. 

Corrections and Retractions Policy

Research Data Integrity 

Eco-vector Publishing House is committed to uphold the integrity of the literature and publishes Errata (Corrections), Expressions of Concerns or Retraction Notices dependent on the situation and in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines. In all cases, these notices are linked to the original article.

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the authors obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

When errors are identified in published articles, the publisher will consider what action is required and may consult the editors and the authors’ institution(s). 

Errors by the authors may be corrected by a corrigendum, and errors by the publisher — by an erratum (see more).

If there are errors that significantly affect the conclusions or there is evidence of misconduct, this may require retraction or an expression of concern following the COPE Retraction Guidelines. All authors will be asked to agree to the content of the appropriate notice. 

Retraction of an already published paper is a measure of last resort and is applied in case facts are revealed that were not known during the reviewing process.

According to the rules of the Council on Ethics of Scientific Publications of Association of Science Editors and Publishers, the grounds for article retraction are:

• detection of plagiarism in the article;
• detection of falsifications (for example, manipulation of experimental data);
• detection of serious errors that cast doubt on scientific value of the article;
• incorrect list of authors;
• duplication of the article in several journals;
• republishing the article without the author’s consent;
• concealment of conflict of interest and other violations of publication ethics;
• the fact that the article hasn’t been peer reviewed.

After the decision to retract the article is made, the editor-in-chief informs its authors, indicating the reason and date of retraction. The article remains on the journal’s site as part of the corresponding journal issue, but is marked “retracted” with the retraction date (the mark is placed on top of the text of the article and in the table of contents); in addition, a message about retraction is placed in the news section of the site, and the chief editor sends information about the article retraction to all online libraries and databases in which the journal is indexed.

Information on COPE Retraction Guidelines can be found here: Retraction Guidelines

Retraction Mechanism

1. Authors, Readers, Reviewers, Editors, and Publishers may initiate the retraction of a paper by writing to the Editorial Board of the journal in which the paper was published.

2. The Retraction Commission shall consider the appeal and notify the parties concerned of the initiation of the procedure.

3. The Retraction Commission shall decide to retract the published paper if there are sufficient facts in favor of its retraction.

4. The Retraction Commission shall notify the initiator of the retraction about the results in writing.

5. If the Commission decides to retract a paper, the journal shall publish information that the paper has been retracted with an indication of its metadata.

6. If papers from the journal are indexed by any databases, a letter shall be sent to these databases that the paper was retracted with the reasons for the retraction.

7. The Editorial Board shall be free to make its own decisions on additional sanctions, such as adding the Authors to the journal’s “blacklist” for a certain or indefinite period.
   

Publication Types

Eco-Vector publish articles of the following types (i.e. notifications on changes in previously published articles).

• Addendum. Publication item giving additional information regarding another publication item, mostly presenting additional results.

• Case report. A detailed report of the symptoms, signs, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of an individual patient.

• Clarification. A variety of Erratum. The article does not report errors, but clarifies the data of a previously published article.

• Comment. Work consisting of a critical or explanatory note written to discuss, support, or dispute an article or other presentation previously published. It may take the form of an article, letter, editorial, etc. It appears in publications under a variety of names: comment, commentary, editorial comment, viewpoint, etc.

• Conference proceedings. Published record of the papers delivered at or issued on the occasion of individual congresses, symposia, and meetings.

• Correspondence. Letter to the editor or a reply to the letter.

• Correction. An article describing the corrections made in an article previously published in the same journal. This type of publication is not a variant of Erratum.

• Corrigendum. Article in which errors are reported that were made by authors in an earlier publication in the same journal.

• Clinical Practice Guidelines. Text described recommended best practice in medicine.

• Discussion. Argumentative communication, like papers in a discussion, but also perspectives, commentaries, etc.

• Duplicate. Accidental duplication of an article in another Eco-Vector's journal. The text of the article is retracted. The HTML pages are replaced by a single page with citation details and an explanation. The PDF pages remain with a watermark on every page to notify it is a duplicate.

• Editorial. Work consisting of a statement of the opinions, beliefs, and policy of the editor or publisher of a journal, usually on current matters of medical or scientific significance.

• Erratum. Article in which errors are reported that were made in an earlier publication in the same journal. Can be Erratum (publishing error) but also Corrigendum (author error).

• Expression of Concern. A notification about the integrity of a published article that is typically written by an editor and should be labelled prominently in the item title. It is the responsibility of the editor to initiate appropriate investigative procedures, discover the outcome of the investigation, and notify readers of that outcome in a subsequent published item. The outcome may require the publication of a retraction notice.

• Original Study Article. Complete report on original research.

• Removal. Editorial notice of the removal of a previously published article. The text of the article is removed. The HTML pages and PDF pages of the article are completely removed and replaced by a single page with citation details and an explanation.

• Retracted publication. The text of the article is retracted. The HTML pages are replaced by a single page with citation details and an explanation. The PDF pages remain with a watermark on every page to notify it is retracted.

• Retraction of Publication. Editorial notice of the retraction of a previously published article.

• Review article. Substantial overview of original research, usually with a comprehensive bibliography, generally also containing a table of contents.

• Short Communication. Short report or announcement of research, usually claiming certain results, usually with a shorter publication time than other papers in the same publication. Appear under many names, such as Letter Papers, Preliminary notes, Notes, etc.

• Short Review. Short or mini-review.

• Withdrawal. Refutation of an article previously published in the same journal (in a situation where retraction cannot be performed).

CrossMark Policy

Eco-Vector is committed to maintaining the integrity and completeness of the published scholarly records and demonstrates this commitment by participating in CrossMark. 

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative to provide a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, Eco-Vector is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking the CrossMark logo on a document will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.

For more information on CrossMark, please visit the CrossMark site.

The Eco-Vector content that will have the CrossMark logo is restricted to current and future journal content and is limited to specific publication types (see). Articles in Press will not have the CrossMark icon for the present.

You can find this page on URL: http://doi.org/10.17816/crossmarkpolicy2018

Copyright

Overview

In order for Eco-Vector to publish and disseminate research articles, we need certain publishing rights from authors, which are determined by a publishing agreement between the author and Eco-Vector.

For articles published open access, the authors license an exclusive rights in their article to Eco-Vector where a CC BY-NC-ND end user license is selected, and license non-exclusive rights where a CC BY end user license is selected.

For articles published under the subscription model, the authors typically transfer copyright to Eco-Vector. In some circumstances, authors may instead grant us (or the learned society for whom we publish) an exclusive license to publish and disseminate their work.

Regardless of whether they choose to publish open access or subscription with Eco-Vector, authors have many of the same rights under our publishing agreement, which support their need to share, disseminate and maximize the impact of their research.

For open access articles, authors will also have additional rights, depending on the Creative Commons end user license that they select. This Creative Commons license sets out the rights that readers (as well as the authors) have to re-use and share the article: please see here for more information on how articles can be re-used and shared under these licenses.

This page aims to summarise authors’ rights when publishing with Eco-Vector; these are explained in more detail in the publishing agreement between the author and Eco-Vector.

Author rights

The below table explains the rights that authors have when they publish with Eco-Vector, for authors who choose to publish either open access or subscription. These apply to the corresponding author and all co-authors.

Institution rights

Regardless of how the author chooses to publish with Eco-Vector, their institution has the right to use articles for classroom teaching and internal training. Articles can be used for these purposes throughout the author’s institution, not just by the author:

Find out more

• Download a sample publishing agreement for articles financed by journal subscriptions in English.
• Download a sample publishing agreement for articles published open access with a commercial user license (CC BY) and a non-commercial user license (CC BY-NC-ND)
• For authors who wish to self-archive see our sharing guidelines.
• See our hosting page for additional information on hosting research published by Eco-Vector.
• If an author has become aware of a possible plagiarism, fraud or infringement we recommend contacting their Eco-Vector publishing contact who can then liaise with our in-house legal department.
• If you are publishing in a society or third party owned journal, they may have different publishing agreements. Please see the journal's Guide for Authors for journal specific copyright information.

Eco-Vector End-User License

Articles published under an Eco-Vector user license are protected by copyright. Users may access, download, copy text and data mine (but may not redistribute, display or adapt) the articles for non-commercial purposes provided that users:

• Cite the article using an appropriate bibliographic citation (i.e. author(s), journal, article title, volume, issue, page numbers, DOI and the link to the definitive published version on site Eco-Vector publishing group);

• Maintain the integrity of the article;

• Retain copyright notices and links to these terms and conditions so it is clear to other users what can and cannot be done with the article;

• Ensure that, for any content in the article that is identified as belonging to a third party, any re-use complies with the copyright policies of that third party.

For permission to use documents beyond permitted here, write to support: info@eco-vector.com

Please, rebember, that Eco-Vector journal articles and other publications can be used under the terms of Green Open Access model. More information can be found here: https://eco-vector.com/en/content_sharing.php

Eco-Vector end-user license is a non-commercial license where the use of published articles for commercial purposes is prohibited. 

Commercial purposes include:

• Copying or downloading articles, or linking to such postings, for further redistribution, sale or licensing, for a fee.

• Copying, downloading or posting by a site or service that incorporates advertising with such content.

• The inclusion or incorporation of article content in other works or services (other than normal quotations with an appropriate citation) that is then available for sale or licensing, for a fee.

• Use of articles or article content (other than normal quotations with appropriate citation) by for-profit organizations for promotional purposes, whether for a fee or otherwise.

• Use for the purposes of monetary reward by means of sale, resale, license, loan, transfer or other form of commercial exploitation.

If the user is the author of the article