RESEARCH ETHICS AND POLICIES
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
AUTHORS
All potential conflicts of interest (competing interests) that could have a direct or indirect
influence on the work must be disclosed by the authors. Even if an author does not have a
conflict, disclosing affiliations and interests allows for a more comprehensive and open
approach, which leads to a more accurate and objective evaluation of the work. Conflicts of
interest, whether genuine or imagined, are a perspective to which the readers are entitled.
The publication of a conflict statement in the article itself, as well as the submission of the
conflict disclosure form, is required for all types of papers. It is not necessarily the case
that a monetary relationship with examination support or funding for counseling work is
inappropriate. Even if the authors do not have any conflict of interest, they still need to
provide a confirmation statement in their manuscripts, i.e., “The author(s) confirm(s) that
there is no conflict of interest related to the manuscript.”
The following are some examples of potential conflicts of interest that are directly or
indirectly related to the research:
Financial competing interests include (but are not limited to):
-
Type of support/grant number
-
Institutional Conflicts of Interest
-
Funds received by the author
-
Funds received by the institution
-
Travel allowances for the research
-
Funds received for article preparation and reviewing
-
Funds for conducting review activities
-
Support provided for article writing assistance, for drugs, equipment, etc
-
Paid lectures
-
Pending fund or grant
Financial conflicts of interest can be personal as well as institutional. Personal conflict of
interest occurs when a contributor involved in the publication process either receives an amount
of money or expects to receive some financial help (including any other financial benefits such
as patents or stocks, gifts or services) that may impact the work related to a specific
publication. More importantly, in academic research, such financial relationships can lead to
institutional conflicts of interest (COIs) because the economic interests of the institution or
institutional representatives may unsuitably affect the decision-making process.
An institutional conflict of interest arises in a situation when financial interests of an
institution or any institutional official (e.g., investments held by the university in a
company) have the potential to unduly influence the research conducted by its employees or
students, or pose an unacceptable risk to human subjects. Such conflicts usually arise in a
state of affairs where a research project directly offers assistance or a benefit to an external
entity via evaluation, validation, trial or test of an invention, product, drug, service or
technology, and the institution holds a financial interest with the external entity. Such
financial interests incorporate, but are not limited to, receipt of licensing payments or
royalties from the external entity, or ownership interest with the external entity. When human
subjects are involved in any research project, and the institution supports such a financial
interest, the conflict of interest is speculated to be unreasonable.
Non-financial competing interests include (but are not limited to):
In addition, interests other than monetary and any funding (non-financial interests) should be
declared if they are relevant to readers. Personal relationships or conflicting interests
directly or indirectly related to research, as well as professional interests or personal
opinions that may impact your research, are examples of these.
Intellectual property, in basic terms, refers to any intangible property that is
the result of
creativity, such as patents, copyrights, etc. Similarly, this section seeks to know about
copyright and patent (licensed patent, pending or issued) and any payment received for
intellectual property, such as:
-
Patent
-
Licensed Patent
-
Issued Patent
-
Pending Patent
-
Royalties
-
Licensee
-
Remarks
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
All conflict of interest disclosure forms are collected by the corresponding author. It is
sufficient for the corresponding author to sign the disclosure form on behalf of all authors in
author collaborations when legal agreements for representation allow it. The
templates of the form can be found here.
Before the reference list, the corresponding author will include a summary statement in the text
of the article that reflects what is reported in the potential conflict of interest disclosure
form (s). Author(s) may declare(s) names of reviewers who they think might have a potential
conflict of interest; therefore, Editorial Office could avoid inviting such reviewers for an
unbiased opinion.
UNDISCLOSED CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Undisclosed conflict of interest cases before or after the publication of an article are dealt
with as per the guidelines of COPE.
-
Undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted article (View
COPE guidelines)
-
Undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article (View
COPE guidelines)
For more information on COIs, see the guidance from the ICMJE.
PEER REVIEWERS
Bentham Science tries to conduct a transparent peer-review process with the help of the reviewers
who do not have any conflict of interest with the authors. In this connection, reviewers who
belong to the same institute or countries as authors are not invited to review manuscripts.
However, it is not possible for the Editorial Office to be aware of all competing interests;
therefore, it is expected from authors to submit:
The Editorial Office expects reviewers:
-
Not to accept manuscript review requests if they have any potential conflict of interest
and inform the Editorial Office accordingly.
-
To decline review requests if they have recently published or submitted an article with
any of the authors listed in the manuscript.
-
To inform the Editorial Office if they have any personal relationship with the authors or
work in the same institutes as of authors, which could affect the review transparency.
-
To abstain from reviewing and informing the Editorial Office/Editor-in-Chief/Handling
Editors about any scientific misconduct or fraud, plagiarism, conflict of interest, or
any other unethical behavior related to the manuscript, which they found while reviewing
it.
During the submission of review comments, reviewers are asked to reconfirm that they do not have
any conflict of interest related to the article. After confirming the below statement, they can
submit their comments.
“I hereby confirm that I don’t have any conflict of interest related to the manuscript.”
If, however, there are still any remaining interests, then reviewers must mention those in the
‘Confidential’ section of the review form.
Reviewers are not encouraged to contact authors directly regarding any of their conflicts of
interest. Peer reviewers should follow journals’ policies in situations they consider to
represent a conflict to reviewing.
UNDISCLOSED CONFLICT OF INTEREST
If reviewers intentionally undisclosed any conflict of interest, then they will be blacklisted
for any future peer reviewing activity of the journal.
The Editorial Office always ensures that an author, if added after peer review activity of a
manuscript, is not part of the reviewers’ list who have conducted a peer review of the same
manuscript.
EDITORS
Editors must not review submitted manuscripts if they have any personal, professional or
financial involvement/conflict of interest with the authors of the manuscript. Every participant
involved in the peer review process, including editorial board members, reviewers, and editors,
must declare any potential conflicts of interest to ensure a transparent and unbiased review
activity.
Editors-in-Chief or Editors who are responsible for the initial and final decision should recuse
themselves to review or take decisions on any manuscript that is written by authors affiliated
to the same institute as of editor, or if they have been a family member, competitor,
collaborator, or have published any manuscript in last 3 years with the authors associated with
the manuscript. They can however nominate someone else on the Board who could provide a neutral
opinion on the manuscript.
The Editorial office recommends editors to follow COPE and
WAME
guidelines to process such manuscripts which involves their personal relationship.
Manuscripts submission by an Editor/Editor-in-Chief
The initial and final decision on the manuscripts submitted by an Editor/Editor-in-Chief will be
taken by any other member of the Board. The Editorial Office will identify members who do not
have any potential conflict of interest with the Editor or Editor-in-Chief.
Acknowledgements
Any research assistants or other individuals who assisted with the research but are not listed as
authors, such as those who carried out the literature review, produced, computerized, and
analyzed the data, or helped with the language, writing, or proofreading of the article, or
offered any comments or suggestions, should be acknowledged. Briefly, everyone who has
contributed significantly to the improvement of the paper should be acknowledged. It is
recommended to mention the "Declared None" if there is no acknowledgement for the study.
Guest or honorary authorship based solely on position (e.g. research supervisor, departmental
head)
is discouraged.
The specific requirements for authorship have been defined by the International Committee of
Medical
Journal Editors (www.icmje.org). Examples of authors'
contributions are: 'designed research/study', 'performed research/study', 'contributed important
reagents', 'collected data', 'analyzed data', 'wrote paper' etc. This information must be
included in the submitted manuscript as a separate paragraph under the heading 'Authors'
Contirbution'. The
corresponding author is responsible for obtaining permission from all co-authors for the
submission
of any version of the manuscript and for any changes in the authorship.
HUMAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
Research Involving Humans
All clinical investigations should be conducted according to the Declaration
of Helsinki principles. For all manuscripts reporting data from studies involving
human
participants, formal review and approval by an appropriate institutional review board or
ethics
committee are required.
Patient Consent
Compliance with the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (www.icmje.org) is recommended, in
accordance with the patient’s
consent for research or participation in a study as per the applicable laws and regulations
regarding the privacy and/or security of personal information, including, but not limited to,
the
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") and other U.S. federal and
state laws relating to confidentiality and security of personally distinguishable evidence, the
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679 and member state implementing
legislation,
Canada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, India's Information
Technology Act and related Privacy Rules, (together "Data Protection and Privacy Laws").
It is the responsibility of the author to ensure that:
-
Patients' names, initials, or hospital numbers are not mentioned anywhere in the
manuscript
(including figures).
-
Authors are responsible for obtaining the patient consent-to-disclose forms for all
recognizable patients in photographs, videos, or other information that may be published
in
the Journal, in derivative works, or on the journal’s website and for providing the
manuscript to the recognizable patient for review before submission.
-
The consent-to-disclose form should indicate specific use (publication in the medical
literature in print and online, with the understanding that patients and the public will
have access) of the patient's information and any images in figures or videos, and must
contain the patient's signature or that of a legal guardian along with a statement that
the
patient or legal guardian has been offered the opportunity to review the identifying
materials and the accompanying manuscript.
-
If the manuscript has an individuals’ data, such as personal details, audio-video
material,
etc., consent should be obtained from that individual. In case of children,
consent should be obtained from the parent or the legal guardian.
-
A specific declaration of such approval and consent-to-disclose form must be made in the
copyright letter and in a stand-alone paragraph at the end of the article especially in
the
case of human studies where inclusion of a statement regarding obtaining the written
informed consent from each subject or subject's guardian is a must. The original should
be
retained by the guarantor or the corresponding author. Editors may request to provide
the
original forms by fax or email.
-
All such case reports require by a proper consent being obtained prior to publishing.
Please refer COPE guidelines available at https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/journals%E2%80%99-best-practices-ensuring-consent-publishing-medical-case-reports.
Editors may request that authors provide documentation of the formal review and recommendation
from
the institutional review board or ethics committee responsible for oversight of the study. The
editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned
requirements. The author will be held responsible for false statements or failure to fulfill the
above-mentioned requirements.
Non-identifiable Images
Anonymous images, that do not identify the individual directly or indirectly, such as through
any
identifying marks or text, do not require formal consent, for example, X-rays, ultrasound
images, pathology slides or laparoscopic images.
In case consent is not obtained, concealing the identity through eye bars or blurring the
face
would not be acceptable.
Research Involving Animals
For research involving animals, the authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were
in
accordance with the standards set forth in the eighth edition of “Guide for the Care and Use of
Laboratory Animals” (grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/guide-for-the-care-and-use-of-laboratory-animals_prepub.pdf
published by the National Academy of Sciences, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.).
Research work on animals should be carried out in accordance with the NC3Rs ARRIVE Guidelines.
For
In Vivo Experiments, please visit https://www.nc3rs.org.uk/arrive-guidelines
Authors should clearly state the name of the approval committee, highlighting that legal and
ethical
approvals were obtained prior to initiation of the research work carried out on animals, and
that
the experiments were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations stated
below.
Animal Ethics Guidelines for Studies Involving Animal Subjects
Ethics Approval Exemption:
If a study is exempted from ethics approval, authors must indicate the reasons for exemption in the ethical statement.
Following is an example of Ethical Statements:
"This study involving animal subjects is exempted from ethics approval for [specific reasons]. The exemption was evaluated and authorized by [Full name of ethics committee], ensuring adherence to ethical standards”.
Client-Owned Animals:
Client-owned animals (non-commercially available animals such as pets or livestock) should be studied exercising best practices in veterinary care. Authors must confirm that the owner(s) (or their legal representatives) have provided written consent for this purpose.
Following is an example of Ethical Statements:
"The animal study was evaluated and authorized by [Full name of the ethics committee]. The owners provided written informed consent for their animals' involvement in this study, ensuring ethical treatment and compliance with standards."
International Standards and 3Rs Principle:
Studies involving animals must comply with internationally accepted standards and adhere to the 3Rs principles (Replace, Reduce, Refine).
- Replace: Whenever possible, replace animals with alternatives.
- Reduce: Reducing the number of animals used and
- Refine: Refining experimental settings can reduce animal damage.
Authors are encouraged to follow the ARRIVE guidelines (Reporting in Vivo Experiments) for reporting experiments involving live animals.
An example of Ethical Statements:
"This study adheres to internationally accepted standards for animal research, following the 3Rs principle. The ARRIVE guidelines were employed for reporting experiments involving live animals, promoting ethical research practices."
Euthanasia Protocols:
Studies on euthanasia, including chloral hydrate, ether, and chloroform overdose, are severely discouraged. Authors should include an in-depth description of any anesthetic, surgical, or euthanasia procedures conducted throughout the study.
If the experimental details explained in the study violate the standard animal research procedure, editors may seek extra documentation, such as approval forms and relevant literature citations.
Hazard Study
Any unusual risks associated with the use of any chemicals, procedures, or equipment used in the
work must be
explicitly stated by the author in the manuscript, preferably in both the materials and methods
section and the
declaration section. For more information, visit The World Medical Association (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/public-health/chemicals)
SEX AND GENDER EQUITY IN RESEARCH (SAGER) GUIDELINES
We strive to promote gender and sex equity in research and adhere to the guidelines of Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) to ensure inclusivity and rigor of the work. All authors submitting research papers are required to follow the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines. These guidelines are intended to encourage the inclusion of sex and gender considerations in research in order to improve the rigor and relevance of our publications.
The SAGER guidelines for reporting sex and gender information in methodology or study design, data analysis, results, and interpretation of findings are strongly encouraged. Authors of review articles are advised to address the methods used for selecting, locating, extracting, and synthesizing data; systematic reviews are required to do so.
RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN SPECIAL OR CRITICAL SITUATIONS
Bentham Science expects all contributors to respect values of justice, benevolence, and autonomy
when
conducting research. We understand that certain situations such as medical emergencies or
humanitarian crises may differ from non-emergency scenarios. Bentham Science recommends that
research efforts should not hurt human subjects/respondents or the researchers, and should be
conducted with sufficient scientific rigor as permissible in these situations, respectively.
Care
should be taken to address potential problems faced by persons who may be victims of disasters
or
involved in a medical emergency. These are vulnerable individuals and their privacy and dignity
should be respected. Researchers should make note of this in their research and identify
potential
issues in their work that may arise because of such situations. Research directed in emergency
circumstances should be to the greatest advantage of survivors involved in the research and with
the
goal of minimizing any future casualties. For guidance, the essential requirements of research
in
emergency situation are the preservation of human life, wellbeing and security, along with the
rights to protection, privacy and confidentiality of subjects.
UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
Unethical behavior and misconduct may be pointed out by anyone to the Editor and Publisher with
sufficient evidences. The Editor, in consultation with the Publisher, will initiate
investigation
against this Unethical misconduct, complete the procedure till an unbiased decision is reached,
and
maintain confidentiality throughout the process of the investigation. The Author should be given
the
opportunity to reply to all minor or major accusations.
In case of serious breaches, the employer may be informed where appropriate, by the
Editor/Publisher,
after reviewing all available information and evidences or after seeking help from experts in
that
field.
Conclusion
-
Author(s) and Reviewers must be informed in case of misinterpretation or mishandling of
International Acceptable Standards
-
A strict notice should be sent to the author and reviewer to avoid future unethical
misconduct
-
An Editorial on the reported misconduct should be published or official notice of
unethical
behavior should be posted on the website
-
Official letter about this misconduct should be issued to the Head of Departments,
Funding
Agencies of the accused author and the reviewer, as well as Abstracting &
Indexing
Agencies.
-
Where required, retraction and withdrawal of publication may be undertaken from the
Publisher’s journal in discussion with the Head of the Department of the author or
reviewer,
and other higher authorities should be informed
-
The Publisher may impose restrictions for some period on future publications from the
accused
author in the journals
Consent for Publication
If the manuscript has an individuals’ data, such as personal detail, audio-video material etc.,
consent should be obtained from that individual. In case of children, consent should be obtained
from the parent or the legal guardian.
A specific declaration of such approval and consent-to-disclose form must be made in the
copyright
letter and in a stand-alone paragraph at the end of the article especially in the case of human
studies where inclusion of a statement regarding obtaining the written informed consent from
each
subject or subject's guardian is a must. The original should be retained by the guarantor or
corresponding author. Editors may request to provide the original forms by fax or email.
All such case reports should be followed by a proper consent prior to publishing.
AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS
The source of data and materials should be mentioned in the manuscript, in support of the findings.
Sharing research data is integral to its transparency and reproducibility. Data sharing involves the
citation and availability of data that support the findings of the research.
Bentham Science encourages authors to share the source of data and materials in the manuscript, in
support of the findings.
Research Data Policy Types:
The four types of research data policies are mentioned below.
-
Case 1: Data sharing and data citation
-
Case 2: Data sharing and its evidence
-
Case 3: Statement for Data sharing and data availability
-
Case 4: Data sharing, evidence of data sharing and data for peer-review
Case 1: Data Sharing and Data Citation
Wherever appropriate and possible, the journal encourages authors to publish data to support their
research findings in a public repository. Any datasets mentioned in the article that are available
in external repositories should be cited.
How to Cite the Data?
Whether the data was developed by the author(s) or researcher(s), all publicly available data
referenced in the preparation of an article should be cited in the text and reference list. The
references relating to the data availability should be presented in the following format:
Example: Name of author(s), the title of data set, data repository, document version (e.g., most
recent updated version), Digital Object Identifier (DOI), and Bentham Science reference style should
be included in data citations.
Case 2: Data Sharing and Its Evidence
When authors submit a paper to a journal, the authors agree that the data provided in the
publication, including the relevant raw data, will be freely available to any researcher who wants
to use these for non-commercial reasons without jeopardising participant anonymity.
Case 3: Statement for Data Sharing and Data Availability
Data availability declarations are required under Bentham Science research data policy types.
The statement relating to the data availability should be presented in the following format under a
separate section for ‘Availability of Data and Materials’ in the manuscript:
-
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are
available within the article and its supplementary materials.
-
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author, [author initials], on special request.
-
The datasets generated or analysed during the current study are not publicly
available due to [mention the reason(s)].
-
Authors who do not wish to share their data should clearly state that the data will
not be shared, and thus mention as ‘Not applicable’.
-
The statement relating to the data should be presented in the following format:
"The data supporting the findings of the article is available in the [repository name] at
[URL], reference number [reference number]”.
Additional Data Availability Statements
Authors can add or change the statement(s) above, to fit their work the best. Depending on the nature
of the research, several assertions may need to be merged.
Case 4: Data Sharing, Evidence of Data Sharing and Data for Peer-Review
All datasets on which the paper's conclusions are based must be made accessible to reviewers and
readers, according to the journal's rules. Prior to peer review, authors must either deposit their
datasets in publicly accessible repositories or provide them as supplementary materials with their
submission. For further details, please visit complete guidelines at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html
Data Access and Retention
Authors may provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be
prepared to provide public access to such data. if practicable, and should in any event be prepared
to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
ANIMATED ABSTRACTS
Extend the scope and visibility of your research by creating an animated abstract. Bentham Science
has
collaborated with Focus Medica, one of the world’s largest publishers of expert animated atlases and
videos in medicine and science.
An animated abstract will help summarise the essential discoveries/ key findings of your published
research or review article. Each professionally produced full-coloured animated abstract in video
format
(length 3 – 5 minutes) is accompanied by an English spoken or foreign language commentary. The
animated
abstract will be published online along with the published article.
The payment for an animated abstract will be US $1320. Initially, an advance amount of US $800 will be payable to the Publisher to start work on the Animated Abstract, while the balance of US $520 will be payable on completion of the Animated Abstract.
Authors who opt for the “Animated Abstract” option and also wish to have their article made available
on
an “Open Access Plus (Gold Open Access)” basis will be entitled to a 50% discount only on the
Animated
Abstract fee and, in addition, pay the normal Open Access Plus (Gold Open Access) fee.
Authors will be asked whether they wish to opt-in for this paid animated abstract service, and if
not,
the article will be published as normal. Animated abstracts are available as open access (free
viewing)
for maximum visibility and awareness to readers at anytime, anywhere. The animated abstracts are
licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International Public License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
For a sample of an animated abstract please access here https://www.benthamscience.com/pages/animated-abstract-video
REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION
All papers submitted for publication are immediately subjected to preliminary editorial scrutiny by
the
Editor-in-Chief regarding their suitability. The Editor-in-Chief determines if the manuscript
(a) falls within the scope of the journal and
(b) meets the editorial criteria of Bentham Science Publishers in terms of originality
and quality.
Manuscripts that appear to be suitable are then subjected to single-blind peer-review by, usually
three,
neutral eminent experts. The services of eminent international experts are sought through
invitations to
conduct the peer-review of a submitted manuscript, keeping in view the scope of the manuscript and
the
expertise of the reviewers. The identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors. The
anonymity
of reviewers ensures objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by the reviewers.
Before sending the manuscripts to reviewers, Bentham Science seeks consent from
potential reviewers about their availability and willingness to review. Correspondence between the
editorial office of the journal and the reviewers is kept confidential. The reviewers are expected
to
provide their reports in a timely fashion since a prompt review leads to timely publication of a
manuscript which is beneficial not only to the authors but to the scientific community as well.
The editorial process and peer-review workflow for each journal are taken care of by a team of Senior
Editors, Editorial Board Members (EBMs) and dedicated Journal managers who have the required
expertise
in their specific fields.
Bentham Science Publishers carries out independent review of all articles. The reviewers are selected
according to their expertise, from our, regularly updated, referee database.
On the basis of reviewer comments, the Editors may recommend acceptance, revision or rejection of a
manuscript.
After review of the manuscript by at least three independent experts, in addition to the views of the
Editor, the decision is relayed to the authors, which may be categorized as:
Bentham Science requests not to have the manuscripts peer-reviewed by those experts who
may have competing interest with the author(s) of a submitted manuscript. It is not possible for
Editors
to be aware of all competing interests; it is therefore expected that the reviewers would inform the
Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor if they notice any potential competing interest during the course of
review of a manuscript. Moreover, the reviewers are expected to inform the Editors or editorial
office
of the journal if they have a conflict of interest in carrying out the review of a manuscript
submitted
by any author/contributor of the manuscript.
The authors are usually requested to resubmit the revised paper within 15 days and it will then be
returned to the reviewers for further evaluation. The publishers normally allow one round of
revision
and, in exceptional cases, a second round of revision may be allowed. If further revision is needed,
then the manuscript is rejected and the author is requested to resubmit the manuscript for fresh
processing.
The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection is that of the Editor-in-Chief, depending on the
quality of the revision and his assessment of the quality of the manuscript. In rare cases,
manuscripts
recommended for publication by the referees may be rejected in the final assessment by the
Editor-in-Chief.
The time frame for revision of any article may vary from one to four weeks, depending on the nature
of
the revision required (minor or major). However, authors who need extra time for revision should
consult
the Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor with valid reasons and the submission date of the revised
manuscript
may be extended if the request is genuine.
After the successful completion of the review and acceptance of the article, the articles are typeset
and
proofs are dispatched to authors for any corrections prior to final publication.
GAIN MORE PUBLICATION REACH AND IMPACT VIA KUDOS
Bentham Science is a publishing partner of Kudos. All authors who publish in this journal will
receive an
invitation to join the Kudos platform, an entirely free service for authors. Kudos enables authors
to
help broaden their audience and readers, increase their professional profile and reputation, and
establish an impact for their publications. The website link is www.growkudos.com.
Kudos provides a free platform to researchers to have their publications accessible, read and cited
across multiple networks and channels available to researchers for the dissemination of their work.
It
takes on average 15 minutes and leads to 23% higher growth in full-text downloads.
Authors are encouraged to explain their work in clear English and to attract researchers of the
relevant
communities, share a trackable link that you can email to your existing network of contacts, or
share on
social media and academic websites, and track how well the articles are performing through the
summary
of views, downloads, citations, and altmetrics on the Kudos dashboard.
Authors may also use the new shareable PDF (S-PDF) service. The S-PDF provides researchers with the
means
to write and share a high-level overview for each of their publications. Kudos thereby provides
researchers, and their publishers and institutions, with a rich understanding of which channels and
activities are most effective for broadening the reach and impact of published science.