Authorship is an important concept in scholarly publishing implying credit and accountability. Therefore common and transparent standards for authorship are needed. It is expected that the following authorship standards will be met by submitters to SPB:

Responsibility of Each Author

Each author is expected

  1. to have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work; or have drafted the work or substantively revised it;
  2. to have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version that involves the author’s contribution to the study);
  3. to have agreed both
    • to be personally accountable for the author’s own contributions
    • to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, even ones in which the author was not personally involved, are appropriately investigated, resolved, and the resolution documented in the literature.

Author Contributions

Transparency about the specific contributions of each author is encouraged. This can be achieved by a CRediT author statement (assistence in creating such a statement is provided by the tenzing tool). Financial, professional, and personal relationships of any author with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence the work (conflicts of interest / competing interests) must be declared.


Any personal, non-financial support to the published work that do not quailfy an individual for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgements statement of the paper (provided that the individual agrees to be acknowledged).

Corresponding Author

For every submission one author has to be assigned as Corresponding Author. The responsibility of the Corresponding Author is:

  1. ensuring that all listed authors have approved the manuscript before submission
  2. ensuring that all authors receive the submission and all substantive correspondence with editors, as well as the full reviews
  3. verifying that all data, materials, and code, even those developed or provided by other authors, comply with the transparency and reproducibility standards of both the field and journal.

Originality of Submissions and Related Publications of the Authors

SPB publishes original research which has not been previously published elsewhere. Previous or concurrent publications of the author(s) based on the same or closely related research must be properly acknowledged and cited. It is made clear in the manuscript in which way(s) it represents a novel contribution to warrant consideration for publication in SPB (no redundant or piecemeal publications). Note: Replications of previous work are explicitly welcomed if identified as such.

The authors acknowledge and properly cite all sources used in writing their paper and in conducting the research presented in the paper. SPB uses software to screen submitted content for originality (plagiarism check). 

Preprint Policy

Prior to submitting their article and prior to acceptance and publication in SPB, authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites. Preprints are versions of the submitted article before peer-review (or other quality assurance procedure as part of the publication process). Published conference papers, presentations, posters etc. are considered preprints, provided they are not published in a peer-reviewed conference proceeding.

Transparency and Reproducibility

SPB takes transparent, reproducible, and open science very seriously. Therefore, SPB has committed itself to implement the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines comprising eight transparency standards. Upon submission of a paper, authors will have to confirm that they have included appropriate statements (e.g., about the availability of data, code, materials, other documents, preregistrations) within their papers, and all papers will be checked regarding their adherence to the journal's adopted TOP standards outlined above. For details visit our Open Science page including TOP Implementation Guidelines for Authors.

Financial or Non-Financial Support and Competing Interests

Competing Interests

Authors should disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests and relationships that might be considered likely to affect the interpretation of their findings or which editors, reviewers or readers might reasonably wish to know. This includes any relationship to the journal, for example if editors publish their own research in their journal. If no competing interests are declared, the authors agree to the following statement: "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist."

Funding/Financial Support

All sources of research funding should be disclosed. Authors should disclose the role of the research funder(s) or sponsor (if any) in the research design, execution, analysis, interpretation and reporting. If there are no funding/financial sources reported, the authors agree to the following statement: "The authors have no funding to report."

Acknowledgements/Non-Financial Support

Any non-financial support (such as specialist statistical or writing assistance) from other persons or organizations that do not quailfy for authorship should be disclosed, including the supporter's identity or in an anonymized form (whichever is preferred by the supporter). If there are no such sources reported, the authors agree to the following statement: "The authors have no support to report."

Research Involving Human and Animal Participants

All manuscripts reporting studies that involve human or animal participants must include an ethics statement that provides the following information:

  • Confirmation that the research adheres to recognized ethical standards (e.g., APA’s Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, Declaration of Helsinki). The respective standard must be properly cited.
  • Confirmation that guidelines are followed as required by the affiliated institution(s) in which any of the authors are affiliated with (this pertains to all authors). If these guidelines require approval by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or by an equivalent ethics committee, confirmation that the study was approved by the respective committee (include the name of the awarding body and a reference number if available). If the study has been granted exemption from requiring ethics approval, indicate the committee that granted exception and clearly state the reasons.
  • (Only in case of human participants.) Confirmation that participants were properly instructed and that they (or when appropriate, their parent or guardian) gave informed consent. If the study should be exempt from ethical review, please clearly state the reasons.

Example 1:

This research was approved by the Research Ethics Board at Carleton University (File 2022-456). All subjects gave written informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2013).

Example 2:

At the time these studies were conducted, our faculty had no Internal Review Board to grant ethical approval. However, we certify that the research adhered to the ethical principles of the American Psychological Association (APA, 2010). Informed consent was attained by asking participants to continue only if they were willing to participate and if they had read and understood the instructions and information provided. Participants were told that participation was voluntary and that they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time. Upon completion of the study, participants were fully debriefed. The data were anonymized and treated confidentially.

Example 3:

Our research did not rely on personal-identifying data which forms an exception form ethics approval under the Norwegian Law (Norsk Senter for Forskningsdata). Therefore, no ethics approval has been required. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Example 4:

The study doesn’t require ethical review because it involves observation of people in public places where no intervention was staged by the researcher; the individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy and dissemination of research results does not allow identification of specific individuals.