The 4th Annual Summit on Biodiversity, Conservation, and Sustainable Biotechnologies (BioCSB 2025) is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and follows the guidance set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). By submitting an article to BioCSB 2025, all authors, reviewers, and editors agree to observe the ethical practices below.

1. Authorship & Contributorship

• Authorship Criteria: Only those who make significant contributions to the design, execution, or interpretation of the research should be listed as authors.
• Corresponding Author: Ensures all co-authors approve the submission and any subsequent revisions.
• Acknowledgments: Individuals contributing in lesser capacities (e.g., technical support, proofreading) should be acknowledged rather than listed as authors.

2. Originality & Plagiarism

• Novelty: Submissions must be original and must not be under review or published elsewhere.
• Plagiarism & Self-Plagiarism: Any form of plagiarism or unauthorized re-use of one’s own published work is strictly prohibited.
• Random Screening: Selected papers may be checked for originality using tools such as iThenticate. Papers found to violate originality standards will be withdrawn immediately without refund.

3. Peer Review Process

• Single-Blind Review: Reviewers remain anonymous; authors’ identities may be known to reviewers.
• Fair & Independent: Manuscripts are evaluated solely on scientific merit, relevance, and clarity.
• Reviewer Responsibilities: Reviewers should disclose any conflict of interest and maintain strict confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.

4. Conflict of Interest

• Disclosure: Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, professional, or personal interests that could influence their work.
• Editorial Independence: Editors with conflicts of interest regarding a specific submission will recuse themselves from handling that manuscript.

5. Corrections, Retractions, and Appeals

• Corrections: Substantive errors discovered post-publication may require a formal “Publisher Note” or “Corrigendum.”
• Retractions: Articles with confirmed major ethical or scientific issues (e.g., data fabrication, plagiarism) will be retracted.
• Appeals: Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a thorough, evidence-based rebuttal to the reviewers’ comments.
• 6. Ethical Oversight
• Compliance: Authors must ensure that their work complies with ethical guidelines, institutional regulations, and relevant laws.
• Integrity: Any breach of academic integrity—such as data manipulation or undeclared conflicts of interest—may lead to rejection or retraction of the work.

7. Intellectual Property

• Copyright: Authors retain copyright under the Open Access policy agreed upon with the publisher.
• Permissions: Authors must secure permission for any third-party content used (figures, tables, or text).

By participating in BioCSB 2025, you confirm your agreement with these principles. For more information or inquiries, please contact the Conference Organizing Committee. We thank you for your cooperation and for helping us maintain the integrity and quality of BioCSB 2025.

Maintaining rigorous scientific standards is a top priority for the 4th Annual Summit on Biodiversity, Conservation, and Sustainable Biotechnologies (BioCSB 2025). All submitted manuscripts undergo a thorough and impartial peer review to ensure that only high-quality research with genuine scholarly value is accepted for publication.

Aims and Scope of Peer Review

1. Quality Assurance. Every submission is subjected to expert evaluation to verify its scientific accuracy, originality, and suitability for the conference scope.
2. Constructive Feedback. Reviewers provide detailed, constructive comments designed to strengthen the manuscript and guide authors in refining their work.
3. Ethical Integrity. The peer review system helps protect the integrity of scholarly discourse by identifying ethical concerns, methodological flaws, or incomplete data.

Review Procedure

1. Initial Assessment. The conference editors evaluate each manuscript for basic compliance with submission criteria, including adherence to the conference theme, evidence of novelty, and overall clarity. Manuscripts that do not meet these initial standards will not proceed to peer review.
2. Double-Blind Review. To promote fairness and impartiality, BioCSB 2025 employs a double-blind evaluation whenever possible. Manuscripts are anonymized before being sent to at least two independent referees, and authors remain unaware of the reviewers’ identities.
3. Evaluation by Qualified Experts. Reviewers are selected for their expertise in relevant fields. They assess the manuscript’s methodology, validity of results, coherence of argumentation, and potential impact on biodiversity, conservation, or sustainable biotechnologies research.
4. Revisions & Author Response. If reviewers suggest revisions, authors will be invited to submit a revised manuscript with a response detailing how they have addressed each point. A secondary review may be conducted if substantial changes are required.
5. Final Decision. The Organizing Committee makes a recommendation (accept, reject, or request further revisions) based on reviewers’ comments and the overall merit of the manuscript. The publisher then confirms or declines the publication proposal. Articles falling below required standards may be rejected at any stage.

Review Criteria

• Originality. The work must be previously unpublished and should significantly advance knowledge in biodiversity, conservation, or sustainable biotechnologies.
• Scientific Reliability. Research methods, data collection, and analyses should be rigorous and replicable.
• Clarity & Structure. The manuscript should be well-organized and comprehensible, offering a strong introduction, a logical flow of arguments, and a concise conclusion.
• Relevance. The study should align with the thematic focus and scientific level expected of major Web of Conferences publications.
• Length & Format. Submissions must meet the minimum required length and conform to formatting guidelines provided by the conference.
• Language Quality. Manuscripts in English or Russian should be clearly written. Those submitted in English may undergo an additional language review by native speakers prior to the formal peer review.
• Impact & Significance. The manuscript should contribute valuable insights, spark dialogue, and drive future research within the scientific community.

Ensuring Quality and Transparency

• Editorial Responsibility. Conference editors have the responsibility to uphold high publication standards, safeguarding the peer review process from conflicts of interest or bias.
• Expertise & Confidentiality. Reviewers must handle manuscripts confidentially and refrain from discussing unpublished content outside the review process.
• Author Revisions. Authors are encouraged to respond to reviewers’ suggestions comprehensively and address any identified issues or errors.

Note: Manuscripts that fail to meet the conference’s quality or ethical standards, or that diverge from its core scope, may be declined at any point in the review process. By maintaining a transparent and stringent peer review, BioCSB 2025 aims to foster scholarly integrity and publish research that meaningfully contributes to advancements in biodiversity, conservation, and sustainable biotechnologies.

These requirements apply to all submissions for the 4th Annual Summit on Biodiversity, Conservation, and Sustainable Biotechnologies (BioCSB 2025). Failure to comply in full may result in immediate rejection.

1. Topic Relevance
Strict Topical Alignment: Submitted manuscripts must demonstrably align with one or more of the designated conference themes. Submissions outside these topics will be declined without review.

2. Language

• Accepted Languages: English only.
• Language Quality: Manuscripts must be free from grammatical and spelling errors. Authors are responsible for professional proofreading or language editing prior to submission.

3. Article Structure
Each submission must include all the following sections in clear, logical order:

1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results and Discussion
4. Conclusion
5. Acknowledgments (Optional)

Failure to include these sections may lead to rejection.
4. Article Length

• Minimum Length: 5 pages in template (excluding references), roughly equivalent to five pages using the publisher’s template.
• Content Requirement: Articles below this minimum or containing excessive filler (irrelevant content) will be declined.

5. Authorship

• Number of Authors: Up to 5 authors per article by default.
• Long Articles: If a manuscript exceeds 35,000 characters, additional authors may be allowed upon the editors’ discretion.
• Author Limit Per Issue: Each author can appear on a maximum of 2 articles in the same issue.
• Author Responsibility: All listed authors must have made a significant contribution to the research. “Guest” or “Honorary” authorship is strictly prohibited.

6. References

• Absolute Maximum: 15 references total
• No Self-Citation: Citing one’s own previous works is not permitted.
• Author-Specific Citations: Do not cite the same author more than once.
• Recent Literature: At least 70% of references must be from the last five years (except for seminal works).
• Avoid Bias: Excessive citation of a single journal or author is discouraged.
• Preferred Sources: Peer-reviewed international journals or equivalent reputable sources.
• Full Details: References must include the complete title of the cited article. Provide DOIs where available.

7. Formatting Requirements

• File Format: Manuscript files must be prepared in Microsoft Word (version 2007 or later).
• Language in Figures/Tables: All figures, tables, and diagrams must be presented in English.
• Originality Check: Minimum 80% originality is required (excluding references).
• Previously Published Material: Submissions containing more than 15% previously published text will be rejected unless indispensable for scientific clarity and properly cited.
• Template Compliance: Authors must use the official publisher template and adhere to specified font, spacing, and layout guidelines.

8. Abstract Requirements

• Minimum of 120 Words: The abstract must succinctly convey the objective, methods, key findings, and relevance of the study.
• Substance over Conclusion: An abstract that merely restates the conclusion will be deemed insufficient.

9. Author Queries

• Contact Protocol: Authors must direct all questions (article status, certificates, editorial concerns, indexing, etc.) to the Editors of the proceedings, not to the Publisher.
• Communication: Prompt and clear communication with the Organizing Committee is essential to avoid publication delays or misunderstandings.

Note: By submitting a manuscript, you and all co-authors affirm your agreement to these conditions. Non-compliant submissions will be declined without further review. The Organizing Committee appreciates your diligence in observing these guidelines, which are crucial to ensuring a high-quality, credible, and timely publication.