Publication Ethics & Policies


Welcome to Openventio, a publisher dedicated to advancing scholarly knowledge through ethical research and publication practices. This guide serves as your comprehensive resource for navigating Openventio’s policies and procedures related to authorship, data sharing, ethical considerations, and more.

At Openventio, we understand the importance of protecting your privacy and the trust you place in us when you use our website and applications. This Privacy Policy outlines how we collect, use, and disclose information about you, and the choices you have regarding your personal data.


This policy applies to all websites and applications operated by Openventio. This policy does not apply to third-party websites or applications, even if linked to our sites or apps. Please review the privacy policies of any third-party services you use for their data practices.


We are committed to complying with all applicable data protection laws and regulations, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). We are constantly reviewing and updating our practices to ensure your privacy is protected.


Understanding who deserves credit for a research work is crucial. Authorship at Openventio follows the ICMJE’s four criteria:

  • Substantial contributions: Authors must have made significant intellectual contributions to the conception, design, acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the data.
  • Intellectual Shaping: Drafting and revising the work critically for intellectual content.
  • Final approval:¬†All authors must approve the final version submitted for publication.
  • Accountability: Each author agrees to be held accountable for all aspects of the work and ensures questions regarding its accuracy or integrity are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Additional responsibilities of authors include disclosing conflicts of interest, obtaining permission from acknowledged individuals, and ensuring data access for original research. Openventio encourages transparency and best practices throughout the authorship process, emphasizing clear discussion and documentation of contributions from the outset.

Group and Collaborative Authorship

What is it? Group authorship involves multiple contributors to a research project, often from different institutions or disciplines. Examples include multicenter studies, working groups, and expert committees. These collaborations can be complex and involve hundreds of participants.


  • Deciding who qualifies for authorship and how to list them in the byline,¬†while ensuring proper credit and accountability.
  • Avoiding misattribution and enabling easy search and retrieval of articles in databases.

A detailed textual description of a flowchart outlining the steps researchers take to determine authorship in a research project, based on ICMJE criteria. The flowchart covers identifying contributors, assessing their roles, ordering authors, and obtaining confirmations.

Options for Listing Authors on Openventio: A Quick Guide

Openventio provides clear guidelines for author attribution based on group size and contribution levels. Below is the simplified breakdown:

    Scenario     BylineAcknowledgment     Explanation
Small group (up to 4 authors)All authors listed individuallyN/AEach author meets all authorship criteria.
Medium group (5-15 authors)All authors listed individuallyOptional for non-authorsSome may prefer shorter byline; non-authors listed for significant contributions.
Large group (>15 authors)Writing team/subgroupAll group members listedWriting team takes responsibility; all members acknowledged for involvement.
Large group with formal name (e.g., study group)Group name with asteriskAll individual authors listedGroup name emphasizes collaboration; individual authors identified for accountability.
Entire group qualifies for authorshipGroup nameN/AAll members meet criteria and have specific contributions identified.


  • Example 1: A research team of 5 members conducted a study. All 5 members made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, analysis, and interpretation of the data. All 5 members would be listed as authors and would meet all authorship criteria.
  • Example 2:¬†A research team of 15 members conducted a large-scale survey.¬†While all members contributed to the project,¬†only 8 members made significant intellectual contributions to the writing and revision of the manuscript.¬†These 8 members would be listed as authors,¬†while the remaining 7 members would be acknowledged in the acknowledgements section for their contributions to data collection or recruitment.

Important Points

  • At least one individual should be named as the corresponding author for accountability.
  • Individual authors should be distinguished from non-author contributors.
  • Group author articles should use clear formatting and coding for easy search and retrieval.
  • AMA citation format should be indicated for the article.
  • Authorship should be based on significant contributions, not just participation.


Individuals who made valuable contributions but did not meet authorship criteria deserve proper recognition. Acknowledgements allow authors to thank collaborators, supporters, and others who aided the research. Consider acknowledging:

  • Supporters:¬†Funding agencies, equipment donors, and material providers.
  • Contributors: Individuals who made substantial intellectual contributions, such as data analysis, biostatisticians, writing assistance, or critical review.
  • Groups: Collaborative groups or anonymous reviewers can be briefly acknowledged.

Remember, clear identification of individuals and their contributions with specific details is crucial for transparency and proper recognition. Refer to COPE guidelines for further details on contributorship (

Openventio fiercely patrons ethical research and publication. We adhere to COPE’s comprehensive flowchart for investigating suspected cases of plagiarism, fabricated data, authorship disputes, or undisclosed conflicts of interest ( Our dedicated Editorial Board carefully examines each case and makes informed decisions based on established ethical frameworks. We encourage clear communication and prompt action to uphold the integrity of research and publication.

  • Pre-Review: Before entering peer review, manuscripts undergo a rigorous pre-review screening process ensuring quality and ethical soundness. This critical step involves:
  • Plagiarism Detection:¬†We employ industry-standard tools to identify and address potential plagiarism concerns,¬†safeguarding original research contributions.
  • Visual Data Inspection: We meticulously scrutinize every image submitted, applying keen visual analysis to detect inconsistencies, artifacts, or anomalies that might compromise the research integrity. For an added layer of protection, we leverage advanced forensic tools to delve deeper into suspicious cases, ensuring only the most trustworthy visuals find their way into published articles.
  • Ethical and Legal Compliance:¬†Manuscripts are thoroughly reviewed for essential statements like copyright notices,¬†ethics committee approvals,¬†informed consent documentation,¬†conflict of interest disclosures,¬†animal ethics board approvals,¬†authorship clarity,¬†funding acknowledgments,¬†data ownership information,¬†and adherence to relevant regulations and standards like GCP for clinical trials,¬†AERA/BERA for education research,¬†and established guidelines for animal research.
  • Consequences and Commitment: Before or during the peer review manuscripts failing to meet these requirements even after following the standards will be promptly rejected, reflecting Openventio’s unwavering commitment to maintaining the highest ethical standards.
  • Reporting Misconduct: Openventio takes all allegations of research or publication misconduct seriously. Institutions, grant funders, or governing bodies can contact us at to report any potential issues. We promptly investigate such claims by establishing ethical guidelines and institutional policies by taking COPE’s flowcharts ( as guidance.
  • Building Trust Through Action: By diligently upholding these principles at every stage, Openventio strives to promote ethical and reliable research practices. This dedication builds trust in published content, ultimately driving the advancement of knowledge and positive societal impact.



Transparency regarding financial interests and potential biases is essential in maintaining scientific objectivity. Authors must disclose any potential COI that could influence the research or its interpretation. Refer to the ICMJE COI form ( and ensure you include a COI statement after the manuscript’s conclusion or acknowledgement section. Openventio takes COI disclosures seriously and implements safeguards to minimize bias and maintain research integrity.


  • Example 1:¬†A researcher receives funding from a pharmaceutical company to conduct a study on a new drug.¬†The researcher discloses this conflict of interest in the manuscript and takes steps to mitigate it,¬†such as by having an independent data safety monitoring board review the study.
  • Example 2:¬†A researcher works for a university that has a patent on a technology that is related to the researcher’s study.¬†The researcher discloses this conflict of interest in the manuscript and explains how it might bias the study results.



Data sharing and reproducibility are crucial aspects of scientific integrity and research advancement. To ensure transparency and the ability to verify and build upon published findings, open access scholarly publishers have a responsibility to implement robust policies in these areas.

Importance of Data Sharing and Reproducibility

  • Transparency and validation:¬†Sharing data allows independent researchers to verify and replicate published findings, thereby strengthening the scientific validity of the research.
  • Building new knowledge: Open access to data enables researchers to analyze it from different perspectives, leading to discoveries and innovations.
  • Efficiency and cost-savings:¬†Replicating research can be costly and time-consuming. Sharing data avoids unnecessary duplication of effort and reduces research costs.
  • Public trust: Data sharing and reproducibility demonstrate scientific commitment to rigor and integrity, fostering public trust in research findings.

However, we recognize the challenges in achieving this ideal. Many open access journals lack clear data sharing policies, and technical, cultural, and economic factors can create barriers to sharing.

Openventio’s Commitment to Data Sharing

  • Clear and comprehensive data sharing policies:¬†We’re developing robust policies that outline data availability requirements,¬†preferred formats,¬†hosting platforms,¬†and access permissions or restrictions.
  • Author support: We provide resources and templates to help authors prepare and share their data easily.
  • Partnership with metadata repositories: We collaborate with trusted repositories such as CrossRef‚ÄĒA giant metadata repository ( to ensure secure storage,¬†long-term accessibility,¬†and proper metadata management of shared data.
  • FAIR data principles: We prioritize FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable; principles in data management to maximize usability and discovery.
  • Reporting guidelines and trial registration: We encourage authors to utilize standardized reporting guidelines and register clinical trials ( to enhance transparency and reproducibility.
  • Monitoring and enforcement: We regularly monitor data sharing compliance and implement clear procedures for addressing non-compliance.


  • Example 1:¬†A researcher conducts a clinical trial on a new drug.¬†The researcher chooses to publish the data in a journal that requires data sharing.¬†The researcher makes the anonymized data set available in a public repository after publication,¬†along with a codebook explaining the variables and their meanings.
  • Example 2:¬†A researcher conducts a qualitative study with a small group of participants.¬†The researcher chooses to publish the data in a journal that allows authors to choose whether or not to share data.¬†The researcher decides not to share the data publicly due to concerns about participant privacy.¬†However,¬†the researcher offers to share the data with other researchers upon request,¬†with appropriate safeguards in place to protect the privacy of the participants.



Ensuring ethical research practices is fundamental to scientific integrity and protecting individuals and communities involved. Openventio’s commitment to ethical oversight encompasses various aspects:

Informed Consent:¬†Participants must voluntarily agree to participate after fully understanding the research’s risks and benefits. This adheres to core ethical principles in research involving human subjects.

Vulnerable Populations: Research involving children, pregnant women, or individuals with disabilities requires additional ethical considerations. Openventio emphasizes minimizing risks, maximizing benefits, involving communities in research design, and employing robust oversight mechanisms for such studies.

Research with Animals: Animal research must adhere to strict ethical principles to minimize pain and suffering while ensuring scientific rigor. Openventio advocates for the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) and prioritizes animal welfare through species-specific care, veterinary oversight, and transparent reporting.

Research with Human Subjects: Human subjects demand meticulous ethical consideration, safeguarding participants’ rights and well-being. Core principles like respect, maximizing benefits while minimizing harm, and equitable practices ensure research benefits all without exploitation (

Handling Confidential Data: Research often thrives on sensitive participant data, making its protection paramount to respect privacy and uphold trust. Informed consent empowers participants, while robust security measures shield data from unauthorized access and loss. Remember, less is more ‚Äď minimize data collection for maximum focus on research objectives.

Ethical Business and Marketing Practices: Scientific publishers and research institutions share the responsibility of navigating ethical business and marketing practices. This means shunning predatory tactics, prioritizing transparency in fees and policies, and actively combating research misconduct. By embracing these principles, we nurture a trustworthy and responsible research ecosystem.

By upholding these principles, Openventio fosters a trustworthy and credible environment for scientific research and publication.

Openventio’s Commitment to Ethical Standards

Openventio Publishers is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in research and publishing. We adhere to the following guidelines:

Copyright Policy

Patient(s)/Participant(s) Consent Statement

  • Authors are required to provide a consent statement at the end of their manuscript and retain signed consent forms, if applicable.
  • A distinction is made between patient consent for images/photographs and participant consent for involvement in studies (

Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval

Animal Ethics and Welfare Guidelines

  • Manuscripts are considered only if they adhere to international, national, and institutional animal welfare guidelines and relevant legislation.
  • Ethical review committee approval is required, and studies involving client-owned animals must demonstrate high standards of veterinary care and informed client consent.
  • Authors must sign a letter certifying compliance with ethical and legal requirements for animal treatment.
  • For more information, please refer to the following link,
  • Manuscripts may be rejected if they fail to meet animal ethics requirements, involve unnecessary pain or suffering, or raise ethical or welfare concerns.


Transparency and fairness are central to Openventio’s commitment to scholarly excellence. This extends to our policies surrounding intellectual property (IP), including copyright and publishing licenses. We believe authors and readers deserve clarity on:

  • Copyright Ownership and Licensing: Our policies clearly define copyright ownership and available licensing options, allowing authors to retain appropriate control over their work while promoting dissemination and accessibility. Refer to our dedicated Licensing and Copyright Terms section in any of our journals.
  • Costs and Fees: Associated costs,¬†such as article processing charges (APCs),¬†are always communicated upfront and transparently.¬†You can find a comprehensive breakdown of fees on our website ( We are committed to ensuring that APCs or waiver status have no bearing on editorial decisions.
  • Pre-Publication Disclosure: To ensure fair peer review and publication, we specify what constitutes pre-publication activity that may preclude consideration for publication. This includes presentations, abstracts, and publicly available material exceeding specified limits.
  • Plagiarism and Redundant Publications: Openventio takes academic integrity seriously. We clearly define plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, and policies concerning publication ethics are readily available in the Scientific Misconduct section. We also discourage redundant or overlapping publications, emphasizing transparency and originality in research contributions.

Guiding Frameworks

Openventio’s IP policies are grounded in established ethical frameworks, including:

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):¬†Provides comprehensive guidance on authorship,¬†intellectual property,¬†and publication ethics (
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE):¬†Offers detailed guidelines on authorship,¬†conflict of interest disclosure,¬†and other ethical considerations relevant to research publications.
  • American Medical Association (AMA): Establishes ethical principles for medical research and publication,¬†including responsible data sharing and authorship practices.


At Openventio, we recognize that scientific knowledge is rarely static. New evidence emerges, interpretations evolve, and perspectives shift. Embracing this dynamic nature of research, we actively encourage post-publication discourse and corrections as essential tools for refining understanding and solidifying knowledge.

  • Letters to the Editors:¬†We welcome spirited yet constructive discussion by inviting readers to submit letters to the editors.¬†These letters can offer alternative interpretations,¬†raise insightful questions,¬†or build upon published findings,¬†fueling further exploration and enriching the scholarly dialogue.
  • Errata:¬†Minor errors or updated information discovered after publication can be swiftly addressed through our errata submission process.¬†Authors are empowered to ensure the continued accuracy and relevance of their research,¬†upholding the integrity of the scientific record.
  • Editorials: In-depth analyses and critical examinations of published research from our editorial team are invited to add further context and stimulate wider discussion. These editorials provide an additional layer of commentary and interpretation, fostering a comprehensive understanding of the issues raised in the presented studies.


Openventio is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific integrity and publication ethics. This policy outlines procedures for retraction, correction, and withdrawal of published articles.


Retraction is reserved for serious cases of research misconduct (e.g., falsification, fabrication, plagiarism) or major errors that compromise the article’s scientific integrity. Retraction decisions require agreement from all authors, their institution(s), and any relevant funding agencies. In exceptional cases where authors disagree, the editor may, in consultation with relevant parties, initiate a retraction process and disclose the reasons for disagreement by publishing an expression of concern.

Retraction Process

We act decisively to address concerns about published articles through a transparent and efficient process:

1. Identification and Author Notification

  • Concerns are identified by authors,¬†reviewers,¬†editors,¬†or readers and investigated thoroughly.
  • Authors are promptly informed of potential retraction.

2. Author Collaboration and Notice

  • In ideal scenarios, authors agree to retraction and submit a signed notice detailing specific reasons.
  • However, if an author disagrees or remains uncontactable, the Editor-in-Chief or the handling Editor will, after diligent consultation with relevant bodies, initiate the retraction process and publish an Expression of Concern to the public. This ensures responsible action and public transparency.

3. Visibility and Accessibility

  • The original article is prominently marked as “Retracted” online and in PDFs.
  • A clear retraction notice is published, including:
    Title: “Retraction: [Original Article Title]”
    Reasons for retraction
    Impact (if applicable)
    Contact information

4. Maintaining Records and Informing Databases

  • Indexing services are notified to ensure database updates.
  • A complete record of the retraction notice and documentation is publicly accessible on our website.

5. Transparency and Communication

  • The retraction is acknowledged publicly on our website.
  • Open communication is maintained with authors and readers.

Our unwavering commitment to research integrity guides our actions, ensuring accuracy and trustworthiness in the scientific record.


Corrigenda or errata will be published in the journal issue following the discovery of minor errors (eg, doi: 10.17140/GOROJ-9-160). Authors should promptly notify the editorial office of any such errors identified after publication.

Retraction vs. Correction

  • Retractions are reserved for serious issues that fundamentally undermine the validity or integrity of a published article, such as data fabrication, plagiarism, or ethical breaches. They essentially withdraw the article from the scientific record.
  • Corrections are used for less serious issues that do not fundamentally alter the overall conclusions of the article. They maintain the article’s presence but address specific errors or omissions. Common types of corrections include errata (for minor errors) and corrigenda (for more significant errors).
  • Additional publications, such as letters to the editor or follow-up studies, can also be used to address limitations or provide further context, but they do not directly modify the original article.

Withdrawal Policies

Free Withdrawal: Authors can withdraw their manuscripts free of charge within the first 24 hours after submission. This allows for immediate retraction in case of impulsive submissions.

Reduced Fee Withdrawal: If authors withdraw their manuscript between 24 and 48 hours after submission, a reduced withdrawal fee of USD 75 will be applicable. This covers the initial administrative handling and preliminary screening.

Standard Fee Withdrawal: If authors withdraw their manuscript after 48 hours of submission but before any review process begins (including initial pre-quality assessment), a withdrawal fee of USD 179 will be charged. This reflects the effort invested in handling and pre-assessing the manuscript.

After Review, Before Acceptance: If authors withdraw their manuscript after receiving review feedback, but before it is accepted for publication, a withdrawal fee of 50-75% of the agreed Article Processing Charge (APC) will be charged. This reflects the significant editorial effort invested in the peer review process.

After Acceptance: Once an article is accepted for publication, withdrawal is not possible. Authors can address any concerns through corrections or retractions as necessary.

Article Processing Charges (APCs)

APCs paid for accepted and published articles are non-refundable, even in cases of retraction.


Duplicate publication, republishing work without transparent and proper referencing, violates this commitment. This can distort evidence and mislead readers, undermining trust in scientific communication. We take duplicate publication seriously and adhere to international guidelines: any manuscripts with potential overlap must be disclosed. We understand situations like follow-up publications to preliminary reports and consider them on a case-by-case basis. Public health emergencies may necessitate immediate information sharing, and we prioritize authors who ensure data accessibility. Sharing scientific findings outside of peer-reviewed publications can impact publication priority, and authors should consider preprint servers responsibly. If duplicate publication concerns arise, we follow established protocols: contacting authors for clarification, consulting other editors if needed, and potentially publishing notices to inform readers. We collaborate with other journals and academic institutions to uphold ethical standards and address violations. By safeguarding research integrity, we ensure the quality and reliability of the information you encounter on Openventio.

Duplicate Publication Handling Process

1. Initial Assessment

  • Editors:¬†Upon suspecting duplicate publication,¬†editors carefully examine the manuscripts in question,¬†comparing content,¬†data,¬†and authorship.
  • Author Contact: Editors reach out to authors for a written explanation,¬†clarifying reasons for potential overlap, and seeking any justifications.
  • Expert Consultation:¬†If necessary,¬†editors may consult external experts or the editor of the other journal involved for further assessment.

2. Confirmation and Action

  • Agreement on Duplication:¬†If both editors concur that duplicate publication has occurred,¬†the journal that published later takes action:
    • Notice of Duplicate Publication:¬†A notice informing readers of the duplication is published in a visible format (e.g.,¬†editorial page,¬†table of contents).¬†It includes citations for all duplicate articles and,¬†ideally,¬†a signed explanation from the author(s).
    • Retraction:¬†In severe cases,¬†the duplicated article may be retracted entirely.
    • Institutional Notification:¬†Editors may inform the author’s institution (department chair,¬†dean) to seek assistance or initiate disciplinary measures.

3. Cross-Journal Cooperation and Prevention

  • Communication:¬†Journals involved communicate transparently to ensure consistent action and inform readers appropriately.
  • Shared Databases: We maintain shared databases to track duplicate publications and impose sanctions on offending authors (e.g., temporary bans).
  • Author Education: We encourage journals and academic institutions should promote awareness of ethical research practices and the importance of responsible publication.
  • Plagiarism Detection Tools: We use plagiarism detection software to screen for potential duplication during the editorial process.

4. Ethical Considerations

  • Research Integrity:¬†Duplicate publication undermines trust in scientific research and can lead to misinterpretation of evidence.
  • Wasted Resources: It wastes the time and resources of editors,¬†reviewers,¬†and readers.
  • Author Misconduct:¬†It can signal a disregard for ethical standards and potentially lead to reputational damage for authors and institutions.

5. Additional Considerations

  • Context Matters:¬†Editors consider the specific circumstances of each case,¬†including the extent of overlap,¬†author intentions,¬†and potential harm to the research community.
  • Public Health Emergencies:¬†In cases of public health emergencies,¬†rapid information dissemination may take precedence over strict adherence to duplicate publication guidelines.
  • Preprint Servers:¬†Authors should use preprint servers responsibly,¬†disclosing preprint postings during journal submission.
  • Joint Publication:¬†In rare cases,¬†editors of different journals may agree to simultaneous or joint publication if deemed beneficial for public health.


At Openventio, we understand the potential of AI-assisted technologies in research, while prioritizing transparency, ethical use, and human responsibility. In line with ICMJE and COPE recommendations, we require:

Transparency and Disclosure

  • Mandatory Disclosure:¬†Authors must explicitly disclose any use of AI tools (LLMs,¬†chatbots,¬†image generators) in the cover letter and manuscript,¬†detailing their specific role and contribution to the research.
  • Clear Definitions: Provide clear definitions of “AI-assisted technology” and explain the importance of disclosure to ensure reader understanding and adherence to ethical research practices.

Human Expertise and Ethics

  • Human Responsibility:¬†Authors,¬†not AI tools,¬†hold ultimate responsibility for the research:¬†its accuracy,¬†integrity,¬†originality,¬†and ethical implications.¬†This aligns with ICMJE’s emphasis on authorship criteria.
  • Critical Review and Editing: Authors must carefully review and edit AI-generated content to address potential biases, and errors,¬†and ensure it aligns with research objectives,¬†as emphasized by COPE.
  • No AI Authorship:¬†AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors,¬†nor cited as references.¬†Acknowledge any AI-generated elements with proper attribution,¬†as per ICMJE recommendations.

Transparency in Published Work

  • Methodology Section:¬†Provide detailed information on the specific role of AI tools in the research methodology section,¬†offering readers transparency and context,¬†as endorsed by COPE.
  • Focus on Human Contribution: While acknowledging the contribution of AI tools,¬†the main focus should remain on the intellectual and scientific work of human authors,¬†aligning with ICMJE’s focus on authorship.

COPE Considerations

  • AI Limitations:¬†Remember,¬†AI tools have limitations and can produce inaccurate or biased outputs.¬†Authors must remain critical and exercise careful judgment,¬†as stressed by COPE.
  • Misleading Representation:¬†Avoid exaggerating the role of AI or misrepresenting its contribution to prevent misleading readers,¬†as highlighted by COPE.

ICMJE Considerations

  • Author Responsibility:¬†Authors must remain vigilant about potential errors or biases introduced by AI tools and ensure the research outcomes are accurate,¬†unbiased,¬†and trustworthy.
  • Proper Attribution: Authors must provide proper attribution for all quoted material, including full citations, regardless of its origin (human or AI-generated). This aligns with COPE’s emphasis on ethical research practices and transparency.

By upholding these principles, Openventio champions responsible AI integration in research while safeguarding the essential values of scientific scholarship. We empower researchers to leverage AI tools ethically and ensure the public’s trust in the quality and reliability of published work.


Openventio is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing. This includes providing a fair and transparent process for handling complaints and appeals related to editorial decisions, research misconduct, and other publishing ethics concerns. These policies and procedures are established by the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).

These policies and procedures apply to all complaints and appeals received by Openventio regarding:

  • Editorial decisions:¬†This includes concerns about the peer-review process,¬†manuscript rejection,¬†retraction,¬†or any other decision related to the publication of an article.
  • Research misconduct:¬†This includes allegations of plagiarism,¬†fabrication,¬†falsification,¬†or other forms of scientific dishonesty.
  • Other publishing ethics concerns:¬†This includes issues related to authorship,¬†conflict of interest,¬†data sharing,¬†and any other ethical violation outlined in the journal’s guidelines.

Process for Complaints

  1. Submission: Complaints must be submitted in writing to the Openventio Editorial Office via email ( The complaint should clearly state the nature of the issue, the desired outcome, and any supporting evidence.
  2. Initial Review: The Editorial Office will acknowledge receipt of the complaint within 5 business days and conduct an initial review to ensure it falls within the scope of these policies and procedures.
  3. Investigation: If the complaint is deemed valid, the Editorial Office will conduct a thorough investigation, potentially involving consulting with relevant experts or committees. The complainant will be kept informed of the progress of the investigation.
  4. Decision: The Editorial Office will issue a written decision on the complaint within 30 business days of the initial review. The decision will be based on the evidence collected and will be communicated to both the complainant and the respondent (if applicable).
  5. Appeal: If the complainant is not satisfied with the decision, they may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 15 business days of receiving the decision. The appeal should explain why the complainant believes the original decision was incorrect.
  6. Appeal Review: The Editor-in-Chief will assemble an independent committee to review the appeal. The committee will consider all relevant information and make a final decision, which will be communicated to both parties within 30 business days.


Openventio will treat all complaints and appeals with confidentiality to the extent possible. However, certain information may need to be disclosed to ensure a fair and thorough investigation. All parties involved will be informed of the level of confidentiality that can be maintained.

Record Keeping

Openventio will maintain a record of all complaints and appeals received, including the nature of the complaint, the investigation conducted, the decision reached, and any appeals made. These records will be kept for a minimum of five years.

Openventio believes that a robust and transparent complaints and appeals process is essential for upholding the integrity of scholarly publishing. These policies and procedures are designed to ensure that all concerns are addressed fairly and promptly. We encourage authors, reviewers, and other stakeholders to raise any ethical concerns they may have.


We believe it fuels scientific progress and better health for all. We foster an open, fair, and representative publishing environment, aligned with best practices and Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Capacity (DEIAC) resources. We welcome diverse voices and perspectives and continuously evaluate and improve our DEIAC efforts. Join us in building a more inclusive scholarly future.


Authors with questions about the above policies should contact the editorial office at