Science in Quality

What it is

• 7pass / fail gates
• 10scientific quality criteria
• 10presentation criteria
• 5declarations in every full paper

How ECRES 2027 applies it

1. 1

   A Declarations section in every full paper

   Full papers end with a Declarations section, just before the references: author contributions, funding, conflicts of interest, data availability and the use of generative AI. If you started from the 2026 template, add the section yourself with the five headings below.

2. 2

   Confirmations when you submit

   In Microsoft CMT you confirm that the paper is original and not under review elsewhere, that its data and images are genuine and, for studies with people or animals, that it has ethics approval.

3. 3

   A review against the criteria

   Reviewers use the scientific quality and presentation criteria below as the basis of their review, and do not review a paper when they have a conflict of interest.

In the full Science in Quality model, at least two reviewers score each of the twenty criteria from 0 (absent) to 4 (excellent); scientific quality counts 70% and presentation 30% of a total out of 100, and the total sets one of four accreditation levels. The ECRES 2027 review uses the seven gates and the twenty criteria; it does not award Science in Quality levels.

The Declarations section

Five short headings at the end of every full paper, just before the references. One or two sentences under each are usually enough.

Author contributions

Each author's role in CRediT terms, for example conceptualization, methodology, software, investigation, writing.

Funding

Every source of funding with its grant number, or “This research received no external funding.”

Conflicts of interest

Any financial or personal interest that could be seen to influence the work, or “The authors declare no conflict of interest.”

Data availability

Where the data and code can be found (repository and identifier), that they are available on request, or why they cannot be shared.

Use of generative AI

Any use of AI tools beyond language editing: the tool, its version and what it was used for, or “No generative AI tools were used.”

Seven gates

Pass or fail. They protect the integrity of the work, whatever its other strengths.

1. G1

   Originality

   Similarity at or below the limit (20% overall, 5% from any single source, references excluded); no duplicate or redundant publication.

   Evidence similarity report (e.g. iThenticate)

2. G2

   Research ethics

   Ethics committee approval for studies on humans or animals; informed consent where people take part.

   Evidence approval number and committee name

3. G3

   Data and image integrity

   No fabrication, falsification or inappropriate image manipulation; raw data available on request.

   Evidence signed integrity declaration

4. G4

   Authorship

   Every author meets the ICMJE criteria; no guest or ghost authors.

   Evidence CRediT contribution statement; ORCID iDs

5. G5

   Conflicts of interest and funding

   All financial and personal interests and all funding sources declared.

   Evidence declaration section in the paper

6. G6

   Use of generative AI

   Any AI use in writing, analysis or images is disclosed; AI is never listed as an author; authors take full responsibility.

   Evidence AI-use statement

7. G7

   Citation integrity

   No citation manipulation or coerced citations; self-citation limited to what the work needs.

   Evidence reference list, checked by the reviewer

Scientific quality

Ten criteria that decide whether the paper adds reliable new knowledge.

S1Originality and significance

New knowledge, a new method or new data; the research gap and the paper’s contribution are stated explicitly.

S2Research question and objectives

A clear, specific and answerable question; hypotheses where the design calls for them.

S3Literature review

Current, relevant and critical coverage of the field; the work is positioned against the state of the art.

S4Methodology

A design suited to the question, with enough detail to repeat it: materials, equipment, parameters, software and versions, controls or baselines.

S5Data analysis and statistics

Correct methods with their assumptions checked; uncertainty reported (error bars, confidence intervals, error analysis); comparison with benchmarks.

S6Reproducibility and data availability

A data and code availability statement; data shared in a repository where possible, following the FAIR principles.

S7Results

Complete, clearly presented and consistent with the methods, including negative or unexpected results.

S8Discussion

Results interpreted against prior work, with mechanisms explained; no claims beyond the evidence.

S9Limitations

Limitations stated honestly, with their effect on the conclusions.

S10Conclusions and impact

Conclusions follow from the results; theoretical or practical implications and future work are named.

Presentation

Ten criteria that decide whether readers and reviewers can understand, check and cite the work.

P1Title

Accurate and specific, without exaggeration.

P2Abstract

Background, aim, method, key results with numbers and the conclusion, within the word limit.

P3Keywords

3–6 terms that a researcher in the field would search for.

P4Structure

IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) or the field’s accepted equivalent.

P5Language

Clear, concise and grammatical English; terms and abbreviations defined at first use.

P6Figures and tables

Legible, axes labelled with units, self-explanatory captions, at least 300 dpi; each one cited in the text.

P7Equations, units and notation

SI units, consistent symbols, a nomenclature list where many symbols are used.

P8References

Complete and accurate, one consistent style, primary and recent sources, DOIs where they exist.

P9Reporting guidelines

The checklist that fits the study type is followed (e.g. CONSORT for trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews, ARRIVE for animal studies, STROBE for observational studies).

P10Metadata and declarations

Author names, affiliations and ORCID iDs; corresponding author; funding, acknowledgements and data statements in place.

Where ECRES papers stand

In October 2026 we read the papers in the ECRES proceedings of 2017 and 2022–2026 against the criteria that can be checked from the text. The figures come from an automatic reading and are approximate.

• 565papers and abstracts read, from six ECRES proceedings
• 97%have an abstract and three to six keywords (P2, P3)
• 94%list the authors' ORCID iDs since the 2022 template (P10)
• 8% → 52%of references carry a DOI: 2017 proceedings, then 2026 (P8)

What ECRES 2027 asks more of

• A Declarations section in every full paper: author contributions, funding, conflicts of interest, data availability and the use of generative AI (G4–G6, S6).
• Limitations stated honestly, with their effect on the conclusions (S9).
• Uncertainty reported for measured and simulated results (S5).
• Key results with numbers in the abstract (P2).
• Complete references with DOIs wherever they exist (P8).

Before you submit

• Similarity checked with a tool you have access to; no duplicate or redundant publication (G1).
• Declarations section complete: author contributions, funding, conflicts of interest, data availability, use of generative AI (G4–G6).
• Every listed author contributed and agrees to the submission; ORCID iDs in your CMT profile (G4, P10).
• Abstract with the aim, the method, key results with numbers and the conclusion; three to six keywords (P2, P3).
• Methods detailed enough to repeat: materials, equipment, parameters, software and versions (S4).
• Uncertainty reported: error bars, confidence intervals or an error analysis (S5).
• Limitations stated, and conclusions that follow from the results (S9, S10).
• Figures legible at 300 dpi, with axes labelled in SI units (P6, P7).
• References complete, in one style, with DOIs where they exist; cite only what the work needs (P8, G7).

Questions