A Non-Profit Organization. A Charitable Society.
Our journals Indexed with------
 Site hits:  
About Membership
Be part of the world's leading Scientific Research community, advancing excellence in the Interdisciplinary research. With large area of members, we are the India's professional body for scientists, researchers, economists, or an individual supporting and representing our members and bringing together Researchers from all over the world.

A not-for profit organization, we have an ambitious international vision for the future. We work to shape the future of the Scientific Research - for the benefit of science and humanity.

Our members are required to accept and adhere to a Professional Code of Conduct, as well as meeting high standards of ethical and professional behavior.
Individual Member
Five Year Platinum
(Professional Member)
5000.00 INR
Five Year Member of Society
Half Fee for Society Conferences during membership
No Fee for Publication of Research Papers in any Journal of SERS for Five years
20% Fee Discount for Publication of Research project/ Thesis/ Dissertation of self or any one nominee
Vote/ Fill nomination for YSA/LTA Awards
Notification of Society events life time
Two Years Gold
(Professional Member)
2000.00 INR
Two Years Member of Society
Half Fee for Society Conferences during membership
No Fee for Publication of Research Papers in any Journal of SERS for two years
20% Fee Discount for Publication of Research project/ Thesis/ Dissertation of self
Notification of Society events life time
Silver membership/students’ membership
(One Year)
1000.00 INR
One Year Member of Society
No Fee for Publication of Research Papers in any Journal of SERS for one years
Notification of Society events life time

To download membership form click here

The classification of membership of SERS is further broaden as

Full Members

Full Members are persons who (i) are currently engaged in the practice and research of science, technology, economics and management at a professional level and (ii) having at least Five full years of professional-level experience post Doctorate (iii) must have distinguish publications.

Early Career Members

The Early Career members are persons who are young professionals and new members. This category offers full voting member benefits at a reduced cost for three years at a 40% discounted membership rate.

Fellow Members

Fellow Members are Senior Members (50 years of age or older by March 1 of the year the person is to be selected and who, except under unusual circumstances, have been members of the Society during the preceding five years) who have been honored with election of this class of membership as a result of significant administrative, educational, and/or scientific contributions to the Academics or Research.

Privileges accruing to this class of membership shall not be less than the privileges enjoyed by Full Members. Nominations for this class of membership may be made by any Full or Fellow Member of the Society. Three letters from existing Fellow Members must accompany this nomination. These must be received by the Awards Committee chairperson by March 1st of each year.

Student Members

Student Members are students who are engaged in full-time study or research. Proof of status as a student must be demonstrated each year.

Members Emeritus

Members Emeritus are former Full Members who have (i) reached the age of 60 or ceased to function professionally in the field of Academics or Research because of permanent disability, (ii) retired from active employment, and (iii) held membership in the Society at least ten consecutive years prior to reaching the age of 60 or becoming permanently disabled.

Emeritus status may be obtained upon request to the Editor-in-Chief and payment of dues established for the class. Privileges accruing to this class of membership shall not be less than the privileges enjoyed by a Plenary Member.

Life Members

Life Members are persons who have been designated by the Awards Committee and approved by the Editorial Board as persons worthy of Life Membership in the Society. There is no dues requirement and privileges accruing to this class of membership shall not be less than privileges enjoyed by a Full Member.

Affiliate Members

Affiliates are organizations whose interests in the general field of research are such as to warrant a formal working relationship with the Society.
Join or Renew
Join the growing community of Scientific & Engineering Research in the world. Share great Scientific & Engineering Research with thousands of Academicians, scientists, management gurus, economists, clinicians, etc. Receive valuable support for professional development and training, and help advance the field through global public policy and educational outreach.

Current members can renew now for 2014-2015

SERS memberships are valid during the current calendar year (January 1 through December 31) and are nonrefundable.

For Individual Members
Log in to renew or create an account and apply for membership.
Pay the membership fee as the Publication fee details given in website.
Get involved
Because SERS is among the most-respected organizations in the field, members also serve as stewards of the profession through service in leadership roles, mentoring the next generation, or publicly promoting the field’s extraordinary progress and promise.

Members have numerous opportunities to get involved with the Society by:

• Serving on SERS committees
• Voting in SERS's annual Management election
• Mentoring the next generation of researchers
• Educating the public about research promise and progress, including advocacy training and educational events
• Sponsoring new member applications
• Shaping the SERS annual meeting program through symposium submissions
• Recognizing excellence in the field through award nominations
Professional Code of Conduct
SERS believes that progress in understanding the nature always benefits human welfare. This progress depends on the honest and ethical pursuit of scientific research and the truthful representation of findings. The entire scientific endeavor is put at risk by misconduct, including fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, and by unethical treatment of animals or human subjects.

SERS policies on ethics and scientific conduct provide valuable guidance for ethical behavior by scientists or researchers.
SERS Ethics Policy
SERS assume an obligation to maintain the highest level of integrity in their scientific activities, including compliance with the policy herein.


The integrity of the scientific mission is a collective responsibility. SERS members and those who contribute to SERS activities and publications are expected to conduct science in a responsible and ethical manner. The institutions at which scientific work is carried out are responsible for ensuring ethical standards are followed. SRES has a special responsibility regarding those scientific activities for which it is directly responsible, including publication of the Journals and presentations at the annual meeting. Investigators are responsible for the accuracy of information reported in published articles and abstracts, for insuring that authorship is appropriate, for avoiding plagiarism and duplicate publication, and for insuring the ethical treatment of animals and human subjects. Journal editors and reviewers are responsible for providing a fair, objective, and timely process for reviewing submitted manuscripts.

Data must be original and accurate. It is essential that researchers and others be able to trust the validity of published data. That trust permits researchers to build on prior observations and thus facilitates the progress of research. Replication and extension of published results allows research to move forward and often entails free sharing of research material. While scientific errors and differences of interpretation are natural aspects of the creative process, data that have been fabricated or falsified contaminate the scientific literature, greatly diminishing its value for researchers and others in the community. Moreover, such fraudulent actions undermine society's trust in the scientific enterprise.

Priority of data and ideas must be respected. Scientific publication is an important part of the process by which priority is established for experimental work and research ideas. Plagiarism — the presentation of other investigator's data or ideas as your own — is unacceptable. Duplication of text or data (including figures, tables, or portions thereof) previously published by others or presentation of ideas or experimental findings of others must be accompanied by citation of the previous work.

Authorship should reflect a significant intellectual contribution. Each author should have made a significant intellectual contribution to the conception, design, conduct, analysis, and/or interpretation of the scientific work. Each individual meeting this criterion should be offered the opportunity to participate in authoring, drafting, or critically reviewing the manuscript.

Original data should only be published once. Reporting the same finding based on the same data in separate publications without explicit acknowledgement of the relationship constitutes duplicate publication and is unacceptable.

Every author shares responsibility. All authors share responsibility for the scientific accuracy of an abstract or manuscript, including supplementary material. Hence, in cases of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, all authors are potentially culpable.

Conflict of interest must be declared. Authors are responsible for declaring any conflict of interest or appearance thereof that is relevant to a manuscript, abstract, or presentation. Everyone involved in peer review should declare any conflict of interest or appearance thereof and avoid any inappropriate conflict of interest.

Pre-published material is confidential. Reviewers and editors must avoid breach of confidentiality or using confidential information to advance their own or someone else’s research or financial interests.

Research using animals and human subjects must be conducted ethically. Research using laboratory animals or human subjects must be done humanely and in accordance with institutional and governmental regulations.

Allegations of Policy Violations

When a possible violation of the Ethics Policy is brought to the attention of SRES, it will be pursued through established procedures that respect due process. Violations of the Ethics Policy include research misconduct (fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) and also inappropriate conflict of interest or unethical treatment of animal or human subjects. If SES concludes that a violation of the Ethics Policy has occurred, it reserves the right to impose sanctions and/or to take corrective actions, regardless of whether intentionality is demonstrated during an institutional investigation. Sanctions may include, but are not limited to, restrictions on authoring manuscripts or abstracts for SRES publications and presenting at scientific venues of SRES, and loss of SRES membership.
Responsible Conduct Regarding Scientific Communication
1. Authors of Scientific Communications

1.1. The SRES expects its members to adhere to high standards when publishing any scientific communications, whether these are SRES publications or not. Authors are obliged to conduct research according to ethical precepts; to present an accurate account of the methods used, the results obtained, and the relevant scientific literature; and to provide an objective discussion of the significance of the research.
1.1.1. Authors should conform to the Instructions to Authors prepared by the editors of the journal.
1.1.2. If necessary, authors should seek the assistance of someone with experience in technical writing in English for the manuscript. However, the authors of the manuscript retain responsibility for the accuracy of the final manuscript.
1.2. Data must be original and accurate. It is essential that researchers and others be able to trust the validity of published data. That trust permits researchers to build on prior observations and thus facilitates the progress of science. It also allows individuals to form opinions and make policies based on those observations. Data that have been fabricated or falsified contaminate the scientific literature, greatly diminishing the value of this resource for researchers and others in the community. Moreover, such fraudulent actions undermine society’s trust in the scientific enterprise.
1.2.1. Intentional, knowing, or reckless fabrication or falsification is misconduct and will lead to action by the Society. No data may be put in a scientific communication that have not actually been collected or observed (fabrication), nor may data be altered in any way (falsification) other than by mathematical transformations that are commonly accepted or clearly explained in the manuscript. This includes numerical data as well as images.
1.2.2. Data points that clearly deviate from all others of the same type as demonstrated by an appropriate statistical test or some other generally accepted criterion may be eliminated from a data set. It is generally appropriate to indicate such deletions within the manuscript.
1.2.3. All data and analyses for research reported in abstracts, articles, and oral presentations should be maintained in a retrievable form for as long as required by the relevant funding source(s) and institutions, typically at least three years from submission of final grant reports.
1.3. Priority of data and ideas must be respected.
1.3.1. Appropriating of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit is plagiarism. Plagiarism undermines the system through which authors receive credit for their work, and in doing so may inhibit authors from sharing their data and ideas in a timely fashion, activities essential to the progress of science. In addition to denying scholarly credit, plagiarism also has potentially important legal implications for commercial development and patenting.
1.3.2. Authors are responsible for consulting and citing relevant work appropriate to the standards of the field and the restrictions of the journal.
1.3.3. In most instances, the appropriate source will be a peer-reviewed article rather than a review article, chapter, or book. When a secondary source is used to supplement a primary source, it should be identified as such. Abstracts, presentations at meetings or seminars and material placed on a Web site also should be cited appropriately.
1.3.4. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author’s work without explicit permission from the source of the information (who should then be cited as providing a personal communication).
1.4. Any data reported in scientific communications involving human or animal subjects must have been conducted in compliance with the relevant institutional review boards.
1.5. All data should be presented so as to minimize the possibility of misinterpretation. The prohibition against misrepresenting observations extends beyond fabrication and falsification. Data also must be presented in such a form that they will not be readily subject to misinterpretation.
1.5.1. Data should be presented as clearly as possible. This is particularly important when data transformations are employed or when graphical illustrations include axes that do not begin at a standard origin (usually “0,0”).
1.5.2. All statistical tests employed to analyze data must be used knowledgeably, ensuring that the requirements of the tests are satisfied by the data set to which they are applied. Authors not well versed in the statistical procedures appropriate to their research are expected to have consulted an individual with the necessary expertise.
1.6. Authorship should be based on a substantial intellectual contribution. It is assumed that all authors have had a significant role in the creation of a scientific communication that bears their names. Therefore, the list of authors on an article serves multiple purposes; it indicates who is responsible for the work and to whom questions regarding the work should be addressed. Moreover, the credit implied by authorship is often used as a measure of scientists’ productivity in evaluating them for employment, promotions, grants, and prizes.
1.6.1. The senior author(s) should offer to each individual who has met the first criterion the opportunity to participate in authoring, drafting, or critically reviewing the manuscript so as to avoid exclusion from authorship by lack of opportunity.
1.6.2. Although researchers are strongly encouraged to share materials such as reagents, animals, and tissues, the provision of such materials in and of itself does not constitute sufficient grounds for inclusion as an author.
1.6.3. In multi-authored papers, the significance of the order in which authors are listed varies widely according to common practice in the field or to the policy established by the publisher and the journal and thus cannot reasonably be stipulated in these Guidelines. However, it is usual in neuroscience and allied fields for authors to be listed in descending order of their contribution to the paper, with the exception that the senior author is often listed last.
1.6.4. Once the list and order of authors has been established, the list and order of authors should not be altered without permission of all living authors. (Exceptions to this rule shall be limited to the demonstration of misconduct on the part of an author or failure to fulfill authorship obligations.)
1.6.5. The role of each author in the work reported should be indicated. Often, two or more individuals have contributed equally and it is appropriate to share credit as first author or senior author.
1.6.6. All authors share responsibility for the scientific accuracy of an abstract for a presentation at a professional meeting or a manuscript, including supplementary material. Hence, in cases of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, all authors are potentially culpable.
1.6.7. In the case of papers with multiple authors, a “corresponding” author must be designated as having responsibility for overseeing the publication process and ensuring the integrity of the final document. The corresponding author accepts the responsibility for: (a) including as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate; (b) obtaining from all co-authors their assent to be designated as such, as well as their approval of the final version of the manuscript; (c) determining that permission has been obtained from each individual acknowledged in the manuscript; and (d) keeping all co-authors apprised of the current status of a manuscript submitted for publication, including furnishing all co-authors with copies of the reviewers’ comments and a copy of the published version, as appropriate.
1.6.8. If a manuscript is revised and resubmitted to the same journal, co-authors should be asked to reaffirm their assent to be listed as co-authors and to approve the revised version. In addition, if the manuscript is rejected or withdrawn from a journal and then submitted to a different journal, the co-authors should be asked again to affirm their assent to authorship even if no substantive changes have been made.
1.6.9. Co-authors have the right to withdraw their names from a manuscript at any time before acceptance of the manuscript by the editor. However, an author’s name should not be removed from a manuscript without his or her permission or without approval of the editor in cases involving possible misconduct. Once a manuscript has been accepted for publication, no change in authorship should occur without permission of the editor.
1.6.10. When a study is published under the auspices of a formal group, typically multicenter, it is appropriate to append “For the xxx Group” at the end of the author list to indicate the formality of the association without explicitly considering the group as an author.
1.6.11. Ghostwriting (writing of a manuscript by someone who is not an author and is not acknowledged) of a scientific publication is unacceptable. However, soliciting assistance in improving a manuscript’s grammar and style is encouraged.
1.7. “Honorary authorship” is inconsistent with the definition of authorship. An honorary author is any individual listed as an author who has not made a substantive intellectual contribution to the work as defined in section 1.6. Among those who would be considered honorary authors are those whose participation was limited solely to the acquisition of funding for the research; those who are a chair or director of department, division, or research group and had no significant role in the planning, conduct, and review of the research; or those who merely supervised the collection of data. Honorary authorship is a misrepresentation, implying a substantial intellectual contribution that was not made. It also distorts the publication record, making it a less reliable measure of productivity. Moreover, should honorary authors be unable to adequately discuss the work, this will reflect poorly on them and their co-authors. Finally, honorary authors risk associating themselves with work that may later be the subject of a misconduct investigation and about which they have little knowledge.
1.8. “Acknowledgements” provide an opportunity to note assistance that does not warrant authorship but does merit recognition. Although only a limited number of people will qualify as authors of a manuscript (see section 1.6), there are many other types of contributions that can or even should be acknowledged in other ways. Acknowledgement of ideas or of comments provided about a draft of a manuscript is an appropriate indication of assistance provided and also may facilitate such interactions in the future. However, because acknowledgements of intellectual contributions may be interpreted by readers as an endorsement of the conclusions of the paper, authors should offer such individuals the opportunity to decline the acknowledgement. Other types of acknowledgements that may be appropriate are those for the donation of a critical reagent or for technical support.
1.8.1. A footnote or the “Acknowledgements” section of a paper should be used to indicate intellectual, technical, or other contributions that do not merit authorship but are nonetheless noteworthy.
1.8.2. Individuals should be informed before the publication of any such acknowledgements and thereby given the opportunity to decline the offer.
1.9. Financial contributions to the work being reported should be clearly acknowledged, as should any potential conflict of interest. Acknowledgement of financial support is expected by sponsors and may assist the funding agency in determining the impact of their contribution. Moreover, financial support from commercial sponsors may be a potential conflict of interest, which should be disclosed so that editors, reviewers, and readers can consider this in evaluating the objectivity of the report. Financial support includes the contribution, free of charge, of products such as drugs, biological materials, or devices.
1.9.1. All sources of financial support for the work described should be acknowledged in a footnote or in an “Acknowledgements” section of a manuscript.
1.9.2. Authors should disclose in a cover letter sent to the editor any associations that represent a potential conflict of interest. These include a current or pending relationship as a consultant for the company supporting the research or manufacturing products being tested, a financial or managerial interest in such a company, or intellectual property rights that might be affected by publication of the results of the research reported in a manuscript. Upon receipt of this information, an editor may require that a footnote disclosing the potential conflict be added to the manuscript.
1.9.3. Authors should ensure that no contractual relations or proprietary considerations exist that would restrict the dissemination of their findings. More fundamentally, researchers should seek advice from their institutions before entering into agreements that might prevent or unduly delay publication of their research results. It is generally accepted that there may be a brief delay (e.g., 30 to 60 days) for the sponsor to review a manuscript and prepare a patent application. However, it is not acceptable for an academic scientist to permit an outside organization to hold veto power over publication. Should any such restrictions exist, however, they should be disclosed to the editor. Upon receipt of this information, an editor may choose to return the manuscript.
1.10. Methods and materials should be described in sufficient detail to permit evaluation and replication. In science it is essential that other researchers be able to evaluate and, if they wish, to replicate published observations. This enables researchers to build on the work of each other, thus permitting the efficient use of resources.
1.10.1. A research article should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information in a format appropriate to the journal’s style and policy to allow a knowledgeable scientist to evaluate and replicate the work reported.
1.10.2. The source of any materials and equipment thought to be crucial to the replication of the experiment should be clearly identified, and authors should provide details on any materials and protocols upon request.
1.10.3. Any known unusual hazards inherent in the chemicals, equipment, or procedures used in an investigation should be clearly identified in the manuscript reporting the work.
1.11. Data sharing is encouraged. When data are published in a peer-reviewed journal, authors should deposit associated data in a suitable publicly accessible repository, when available. Authors should, when possible, honor requests for access to any form of published data for appropriate scientific use.
1.12. Unique and propagatable materials used in studies being reported must be made available to qualified scientists for bona fide research purposes. In some cases, the replication and extension of published work may require materials that are not readily available. In such instances, the authors must make every effort to provide those materials to other qualified scientists. Indeed, the failure of authors to provide such materials greatly reduces the value of their work. In general, editors should not accept a manuscript for publication unless the authors agree to the above conditions.
1.12.1. Once a manuscript has been published, authors must promptly make available to qualified scientists for bona fide research purposes all materials that were used in the reported research and are not otherwise readily available. This includes propagatable research materials (such as monoclonal antibodies, transgenic mice, and DNA probes and constructs) and, where possible, non-propagatable materials (for example, serum antibodies). Reasonable costs associated with the production and transfer of these materials should be provided by the recipient if the authors so request.
1.12.2. Such materials must be provided without restrictions, such as the requirement that they not be used for a particular type of experiment. Likewise, the person providing the materials should not make future authorship a condition for this provision. Reasonable mutual agreements to avoid unnecessary overlap of research are encouraged.
1.12.3. These guidelines apply equally to those in academia and in the private sector, except that when an individual in the private sector requests materials that are intended to be used for commercialization, it is appropriate that the individual requesting the materials be asked to provide a fee.
1.12.4. Authors should try to arrange to provide these materials for a significant period of time after a paper has been published, even if the material is not in current use.
1.12.5. Authors who use materials that they obtain from another source should endeavor to have those materials made available to other researchers.
1.12.6. In rare instances, considerations of time, money, or personnel may make sharing of materials impossible. In each such case the authors must explain these circumstances in a cover letter submitted with the manuscript, indicating that the authors are prepared to make every effort to assist others in creating their own materials. The editors of the journal may then determine whether or not to accept the manuscript for review.
1.12.7. Certain considerations may lead authors, particularly those in the private sector whose work is not supported by public funds, to wish to delay providing compounds being developed as therapeutic agents. These instances must be explained and the period of delay defined in a cover letter submitted with the manuscript. In addition, the authors might offer to supply closely related materials (e.g., an analog to a compound). The editors can then determine whether to accept the manuscript for review.
1.12.8. If it is demonstrated that an author has failed to abide by these guidelines, SRES will refuse to publish any communication involving that author until the matter is corrected.
1.13. Authors have an obligation to correct errors promptly. Once an article has been published, it remains forever within the scientific literature. Thus, care should be taken to determine that every aspect of a manuscript is correct. Occasionally, errors are not discovered until after a manuscript has been submitted or even after it has been published. Every effort should be made to correct such errors as quickly as possible. It is far preferable to do so before an article is published since the subsequent publication of corrections — while serving a useful purpose when required — can never completely eliminate the possibility that individuals will read the original article and assume it to be accurate, having not read the correction.
1.13.1. Authors must strive to ensure that every aspect of a manuscript is correct. This responsibility does not end when a manuscript has been submitted for publication.
1.13.2. Should a significant error be discovered after the article has been submitted, is in press, or has been published, the authors must immediately contact the editor and establish how the error should best be corrected.
1.13.3. If there is a disagreement among the authors about such matters, the editor of the journal to which the manuscript was submitted must determine the proper course of action.
1.14. All components of a research article are subject to peer review. Designation as a peer-reviewed article implies that each substantive component of the published article, including supplemental material, has received editorial approval. This includes material that has been modified or added after the initial review process, as well as the deletion of material. Thus, although it may be necessary to alter a manuscript after it has been submitted, this should be done only with the consent of the editor.
1.14.1. If a manuscript has been reviewed, returned to the authors, and is being sent back to the same journal in a revised form, all substantive changes in any aspect of that manuscript should be explicitly described in an accompanying note to the editor. This applies to the list and order of authors, as well as to the text, data, figures, tables, and references.
1.14.2. All substantive changes made in proofs sent to the authors after a manuscript has been accepted for publication also must be clearly identified and explained in a note to the editor.
1.15. Authors should not engage in duplicate publication. Publishing the same finding based on the same data in two different articles without explicit acknowledgement of the relationship is duplicate publication and is unacceptable. Any data that have been previously published should be explicitly labeled as such. Data refers to the full range of experimental observations, including both numerical values and images. Once this condition has been satisfied, studies involving data mining and explicit comparison with pre-existing data sets are appropriate and encouraged.
1.16. Informal communication of results and ideas is encouraged. Presentation of data and manuscript drafts at conferences or on the Internet is encouraged, because it enhances the prompt exchange of information and allows for feedback from the community. Authors should ascertain in advance whether the communication infringes the policies of the journal targeted for final publication and should be aware that even informal communication can modify the intellectual property status of the data.
1.17. Authors should not discuss with reviewers any aspect of a manuscript under evaluation prior to a final decision. In order to maximize the unbiased nature of the review, the evaluation process should proceed without any interaction between authors and reviewer except through the editor.
1.17.1. Communications between authors and reviewers should be made only through the editor or a designated editorial assistant. Authors should not discuss their manuscript directly with a reviewer while it is under review.
1.17.2. Authors and reviewers should continue to refrain from discussing the review with each other after a final editorial decision is made.
1.17.3. Under no circumstances should an author allow an opinion rendered by a reviewer to influence the author's future actions regarding that reviewer except that an author might choose to request that a given reviewer not be asked to evaluate the author’s future manuscripts.
1.18. It is improper for authors to submit a manuscript describing essentially the same research simultaneously to more than one peer-reviewed research journal. To do otherwise is to overuse valuable editorial and reviewing time. It also risks the possibility of duplicate publication.
1.18.1. When submitting a manuscript for publication, authors should inform the editor of any closely related manuscripts under editorial consideration or in press, and describe the relationships of such manuscripts to the one submitted. A copy of these manuscripts should also be supplied to the editor.
1.19. When communications will not undergo formal editorial review (e.g., abstracts for presentations at professional meetings), authors are encouraged to have these communications reviewed by colleagues.

2. Reviewers of Manuscripts

SRES expects high standards and compliance with these guidelines by all SRES members who review manuscripts for any journal and for all reviewers of any manuscript submitted to an SRES publication. Peer review is an essential step in the publication process, and therefore in research. It helps to ensure that published articles describe experiments that focus on important issues and that the research is well designed and executed. In addition, it serves to promote the presentation of methods in sufficient detail to permit replication, data that are unambiguous and properly analyzed, and conclusions that are supported by the data. Finally, it promotes the proper citation of prior literature. In these ways peer review serves as a safeguard for both the authors and the readers.
2.1. Thorough scientific review is in the interest of the scientific community. Although readers of the scientific literature must judge the quality of a research article for themselves, the peer-review system is an extremely valuable safeguard. First, it allows readers some degree of confidence regarding the quality of the article, which is particularly important in areas with which they are not familiar. Second, it reduces the time spent reading a paper that fails to conform to generally accepted standards. Thus, it is essential that reviewers carefully evaluate a manuscript, a process that often requires several hours. A thorough review should objectively judge all aspects of the manuscript.
2.1.1. Agreement to review a manuscript is an implied agreement to carry out a careful, thorough, and timely evaluation.
2.1.2. A reviewer should consider the quality and significance of the experimental and theoretical work, the completeness of the description of methods and materials, the logical basis of the interpretation of the results, and the exposition with due regard to the maintenance of high standards of communication.
2.1.3. Reviews should include constructive suggestions for revision, including, if appropriate, indication of where statements may require additional reference to the published literature.
2.2. A thorough review must include consideration of the ethical dimensions of a manuscript as well as its scientific merit. It is essential that experiments be conducted and reported in an ethical manner. Whereas the primary responsibility for this assurance lies with the authors, the reviewer has a critical role to play in safeguarding the integrity of the scientific literature.
2.2.1. A reviewer must consider the ethical dimensions of a manuscript and should advise the editor of any suspicions of violations of ethical standards in the research or the reporting. The editor should then relay appropriate questions to the authors in a timely manner.
2.2.2. The issues for consideration include but are not limited to the following: the unethical treatment of animals and human subjects, fabrication or falsification, the improper analysis of data, the use of misleading graphics, duplicate publication, and improper or omitted citation of the work of others (including plagiarism).
2.3. All scientists are encouraged to participate if possible when asked to review a manuscript. Each year, many thousands of manuscripts that are related to neuroscience are submitted to journals for consideration. Distributing the responsibility for reviewing these manuscripts as broadly as possible helps to provide expertise in a variety of areas and a diversity of opinion; it also minimizes the burdens assumed by diligent individuals.
2.4. Anonymity of reviewers should be preserved unless otherwise stated in the guidelines for authors and for reviewers, or unless a reviewer requests disclosure. Both authors and reviewers should observe the policies for confidentiality as set by the journal concerned, noting that such policies can differ significantly among journals. Most journals in neuroscience and related fields do not identify reviewers to the authors of manuscripts because it is felt that disclosure might inhibit adequate review. However, those journals usually reveal the identity of the authors to the reviewer because it is assumed that this information assists in evaluating a manuscript’s quality. For example, it may be important to know whether a given author has experience with a particular technique. When such imbalance in information exists, it should not be permitted to affect either the quality or the confidentiality of the review process.
2.4.1. Reviewers should not communicate with authors about a manuscript under consideration. Likewise, authors should not initiate such a communication with a reviewer but instead should communicate only with the editor. If an author persists in attempting to communicate with a reviewer, that reviewer should notify the editor.
2.5. Reviewers should be chosen for their high qualifications and objectivity regarding a particular manuscript. Individuals who are active in the area of research addressed in a manuscript may often be the most qualified reviewers. However, for the peer review process to work effectively, authors and editors also must be assured that reviewers are impartial. For these reasons, reviewers should be sensitive to any conflict of interest or appearance of such conflict in regard to a particular manuscript that they are asked to review.
2.5.1. An individual who is asked to review a manuscript and who feels inadequately qualified to judge that manuscript should return the manuscript promptly without review and advise the editor of the circumstances.
2.5.2. Individuals must inform the editor of any potential conflict of interest regarding a manuscript, and should decline to review the manuscript if they believe that the conflict of interest might impair their objectivity. Examples of a conflict of interest might include but are not limited to: (a) a manuscript that is so closely related to the potential reviewer’s work in progress that it would be difficult to ensure that the reviewer would not be influenced by reading the manuscript; (b) a manuscript that strongly supports or refutes the potential reviewer’s opinions; (c) an author who has recently been associated with the potential reviewer as a mentor, student, collaborator, or protagonist; or (d) a manuscript that discusses an issue or an organization in which the potential reviewer has a financial interest. If in doubt on this issue, a prospective reviewer should (a) return the manuscript promptly without review and advise the editor of the circumstances, (b) contact the editor and defer to the editor's judgment with regard to the appropriateness of serving as a reviewer, or (c) explain to the editor the possible conflict of interest in a confidential comment that accompanies the review.
2.6. Reviews should not contain harsh language or personal attacks. Reviewers need not refrain from rendering a critical judgment; indeed, this is in the best interest of science. However, reviewers should comment tactfully. Harsh language and personal attacks on the authors are unacceptable; they also may call into question the validity of the reviewer's comments. Editors may choose to modify a review if necessary to ensure that civility is preserved.
2.7. Reviews should be prompt as well as thorough. Objectivity and thoroughness are essential qualities of a review; so is promptness. Authors profit from timely feedback, as when an additional experiment or modification of a method is recommended. Moreover, priority — publishing a finding before others do so — is often an important criterion in the evaluation of an author’s productivity.
2.7.1. Reviewers must be allowed and should take the time necessary to provide a thorough review. They also should submit their evaluation of the manuscript in a timely manner. SRES considers that two weeks is usually an adequate period of time to complete the review of a full-length manuscript.
2.7.2. Should a reviewer receive an invitation to review a manuscript at a time when circumstances preclude prompt attention to it, the reviewer should decline the invitation in a timely manner. Alternatively, the reviewer may notify the editor of probable delays, propose a revised deadline for the review, and defer to the editor’s judgment regarding the acceptability of a delay.
2.8. Reviewers must not use non-public information contained in a manuscript to advance their own research or financial interests. The resources necessary for research are scarce and are awarded in large part to those individuals who are credited with the best ideas and the highest productivity. Yet, authors willingly submit manuscripts for review before receiving credit for their work. Thus, it is essential that reviewers not abuse their privileged positions by attempting to benefit from their advanced access to new ideas, methods, or data.
2.8.1. Reviewers should not use any information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration to advance their research unless the information has been made publicly available through another source, such as an abstract or a presentation at a meeting, a stock offering, or a new article.
2.8.2. There is one exception to this rule: If information obtained during the review of a manuscript indicates that some of the reviewer’s own research is unlikely to be successful, it would be ethical for the reviewer to discontinue the research.
2.8.3. Individuals should not buy or sell stock in a company whose product figures prominently in a manuscript they are reviewing until after the manuscript is published or the information contained in the manuscript becomes publicly available through some other means. Neither should they buy or sell stock in a competitor based upon non-public information in a manuscript they have reviewed.
2.9. Information contained in a manuscript under review is confidential and must not be shared with others. The rationale prohibiting reviewers from profiting from their advanced access to a manuscript also dictates that reviewers treat the document as confidential. If it is in the best interests of the review process to obtain additional advice, this must be done with careful attention to matters of conflict of interest and confidentiality, and in conformity with the journal’s policies.
2.9.1. Reviewers, as well as their administrative staff who deal with the manuscript, should neither share nor discuss a manuscript with others, except in special cases when additional specific advice is necessary to provide a thorough review, and then only if consistent with instructions from the editor.
2.9.2. In the event that outside advice is deemed necessary and requires that confidential information be revealed, the reviewer should request permission from the editor if journal instructions so indicate. This will allow the editor to determine whether the authors of the manuscript have requested that the individual in question not be assigned as a reviewer.
2.9.3. If the designated reviewer does consult additional colleagues, the number of such individuals should be kept to a minimum. Moreover, it is the reviewer’s responsibility to ensure that each such individual is aware of all relevant aspects of these Guidelines and other pertinent policies for the journal concerned, especially those dealing with conflict of interest and confidentiality.
2.9.4. An exception is made for reviewers to instruct their trainees in the process of peer review. A reviewer may bring an immediate lab member with appropriate expertise into the process for training purposes. In such situations, the reviewer is responsible for ensuring that the trainee fulfills all obligations for confidentiality, and the reviewer must report to the journal the identity of the trainee. The reviewer remains fully responsible for the content and quality of the review.
2.9.5. Unless otherwise agreed upon by the editor or indicated in the instructions, the person to whom the manuscript was originally sent bears ultimate responsibility for the accuracy of the review and for ensuring that additional readers do not compromise the integrity of the review process.
2.9.6. The reviewer should identify all individuals who contributed to the confidential review.
2.9.7. Reviewers should be mindful of the fact that unpublished manuscripts remain the property of the authors until a copyright agreement between the authors and the publisher has been signed.

3. Editors of Scientific Journals

All SRES members who serve as editors on any journal and all editors of SRES publications are expected to maintain the highest ethical standards and to comply with these Guidelines. The review process needs a director, such as an editor (or editors) charged with ensuring the high quality of all manuscripts accepted for publication, and with maintaining the objectivity and confidentiality of the process used to make that determination.
3.1. The sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of a manuscript rests with the editor. The primary task of the editors of any journal is to ensure that all manuscripts are evaluated primarily with regard to the importance and quality of the work reported, and its relevance to the journal’s mission.
3.1.1. An editor may reject a manuscript without additional opinions if it is deemed to be (a) inappropriate as to subject matter or format; (b) of poor quality; or (c) of inadequate significance. This decision, based primarily on the manuscript as submitted, should take into account the editor’s assessment of the possible impact of revisions by the author.
3.1.2. In the case where authors have a conflict of interest, an editor may request that the authors include a statement to this effect in the manuscript before it can be reviewed or accepted for publication.
3.1.3. For manuscripts that pass this initial screening, responsible and prudent exercise of editorial responsibilities normally requires that the editor seek advice from reviewers as to the appropriateness of the manuscript for publication in the journal for which it is being considered.
3.1.4. Editors should endeavor to select reviewers who possess appropriate expertise and exercise sound judgment. Editors then should ensure that the reviewers understand their responsibilities, including those regarding confidentiality and the timely preparation of an unbiased review.
3.1.5. Editors are under no obligation to reconsider a manuscript they have rejected. However, an editor may offer the authors an opportunity to respond to criticisms and/or to prepare a revised version. In this case, the editor should permit the authors a reasonable but limited period of time in which to do so.
3.1.6. Editors should hold authors to a high standard with regard to the citation of appropriate literature, emphasizing the use of initial, peer-reviewed references whenever possible. However, editors should not encourage authors to cite the editors’ journal merely to enhance that journal’s reputation.
3.2. Editors should generally grant the request of an author who asks that an individual be excluded from the review of a particular manuscript. There are legitimate reasons for authors to request that particular individuals not review their manuscripts. For example, the individual may be a competitor in a rapidly moving field, or may have previously demonstrated an inappropriate bias against the author.
3.2.1. Authors may request that the editor not involve certain individuals in the review of their manuscript. The editor should generally grant this request. However, the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers if the editor believes that their expertise is critical to the fair consideration of the manuscript. If an editor does use a reviewer despite an author's objection, the editor should seek the opinions of additional reviewers.
3.2.2. Authors may indicate in their cover letter that the manuscript should be returned to them rather than be reviewed by a particular individual. An editor should respect this request.
3.3. Editors should establish a review process that minimizes bias. Science flourishes best when publication in peer reviewed journals is based solely on the quality and scientific importance of manuscripts and their relevance to the mission of those journals. This applies to all journals, regardless of whether they are published by a nonprofit scientific organization, academic institution, or commercial firm.
3.3.1. Editors should avoid conflict of interest by recusal when appropriate.
3.3.2. An editor should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits without regard to any personal characteristic of the authors. Such irrelevant characteristics include, but are not limited to, age, ethnicity, gender, institutional affiliation, nationality, race, religion, seniority, and sexual orientation.
3.3.3. Editors should urge reviewers to be objective in their evaluation of a manuscript.
3.3.4. Except in the case of signed editorials, editorial responsibility for any manuscript with which the editor has a potential conflict of interest should be delegated to another qualified person, such as another member of the editorial board or senior editorial staff of that journal. This may be necessary, for example, when a manuscript under review is authored by the editor or someone at the editor’s institution or a present student or collaborator; closely overlaps with ongoing work in the editor’s laboratory; or may be related to an editor’s financial interests.
3.3.5. Editors should ensure that throughout the review process the intellectual independence of authors is respected and room is left for well-reasoned differences in opinion.
3.4. Editors should subject all manuscripts of a given form to the same type of review. If readers are to assume that publication indicates a manuscript has achieved the standards set by a given journal, then all articles within that journal (or a particular section of the journal) must receive an equivalent review. Moreover, because special credit is provided to the individual who publishes a finding first, editors should endeavor to have all manuscripts reviewed and published with the same degree of promptness.
3.4.1. Editors should consider manuscripts submitted for publication with all reasonable speed. Likewise, editors should strive to publish manuscripts in chronological order of acceptance.
3.4.2. Authors should never be given any assurance of a positive outcome of the review process until that process has been completed. This requires complete and thorough evaluation of the submitted manuscript and usually involves input from two or more reviewers other than the editor.
3.5. Editors should provide to the authors a written rationale for editorial decisions regarding a manuscript submitted for publication. It is essential that the scientific community, including each individual author, have as much confidence in the editorial process as possible. Thus, a written explanation of an editorial decision — usually including the comments of reviewers — is essential. Moreover, such feedback can play an important role in encouraging good science and manuscripts of high quality in the future.
3.5.1. Editors should provide the corresponding author with a copy of the reviewers’ comments regarding a manuscript.
3.5.2. Before forwarding a reviewer’s comments to an author, the editor may delete any inappropriately harsh language or personal attacks included in the review. The need for these deletions should be brought to the attention of the reviewer. Such language or attacks should not influence the editor's decision regarding the manuscript, although it may require the editor to seek input from an additional reviewer.
3.6. Everyone involved in the editorial process must treat unpublished manuscripts as confidential documents. Until a manuscript is published, editors and members of their editorial staffs are expected to treat it as a privileged document.
3.6.1. Unpublished research ideas, information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor’s own research or for the personal financial gain of an editor or anyone associated with a journal. However, if information obtained during the review of a manuscript indicates that some of the editor’s own research is unlikely to be successful, it would be ethical for the editor to discontinue the research.
3.6.2. The editor, the editor’s staff, and the journal’s staff should not disclose information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought or as part of the normal editorial process.
3.6.3. However, an editor who solicits or otherwise arranges beforehand for the submission of manuscripts may need to disclose to prospective authors the fact that a relevant manuscript by another author has been received or is in preparation. This may occur, for example, during development or production of a special issue.
3.7. A limited amount of information regarding a manuscript accepted for publication may be disclosed by an editor to the public prior to publication. In certain cases, it may be of value to hasten the dissemination of some or all of the contents of the article. This might occur, for example, if the article contains information important to public health.
3.7.1. After a manuscript has been accepted for publication, it is reasonable for the editor and members of the editor’s staff to release to the press, under embargo, information about or from the manuscript before publication.
3.7.2. With the exception of the title and authors’ names, the contents of a manuscript should not normally be disclosed prior to publication without the authors’ permission unless such disclosure is part of the published policy of the journal.
3.8. Editors should correct errors in a manuscript if they are detected before publication or publish corrections if they are detected afterward. Honest errors can escape detection until after a manuscript has been submitted or even published, as when a reagent subsequently proves to be less specific than originally believed or a measuring device is later shown to have been inaccurate. Occasionally, calculations are incorrect or a critical paper is discovered late. An author, a reviewer, an editor, or any other individual may raise the possibility of error. In each case, it is imperative that the editor carefully investigates the possible error once it has been pointed out. When errors significantly alter some aspect of an article, the editor and publisher should provide a means by which a correction or retraction can be made.
3.8.1. If someone other than an author brings an error or apparent error to an editor's attention the editor should notify all authors as soon as possible and request correction.
3.8.2. If an error may significantly affect a manuscript or published article, then corrective action should be taken. If a manuscript has not yet been published, the errors should be corrected before publication or else publication should be delayed or revoked. If the article has been published, then a report about the error should be published in the journal in which the original article appeared.
3.8.3. In the case of errors in reports that have already been published, the authors should always be given the opportunity to respond to and report the error. If the authors do not do so in a timely manner, then the editor of the journal should publish a notice of correction, or in more serious cases retract the article.
3.8.4. All notices of correction or retraction must be published prominently in the journal in which the original report appeared and contain the full bibliographic reference to the original article or abstract. It should also be listed in the contents page and be prominently labeled.

4. Communications Outside the Scientific Literature

Communication with the lay public through publication of research results and discussions is encouraged. Such communications help to disseminate knowledge to the general community and can promote an appreciation of research, much of which is supported with public funds. However, these communications must be made responsibly, staying within the boundaries set by the level of understanding of the audience and the need for accuracy and responsibility. In most instances, research findings should be published or accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal before being announced to the public.
4.1. Research scientists should seek to communicate their ideas and results to the general public. Researchers are encouraged to discuss their ideas and their results with the public. This might occur through oral presentations, press releases, or articles written for the lay community or assistance and advice to those producing public communication in science. SRES maintains a staff to assist its members in this regard.
4.2. Material prepared for the popular literature should be accurate and be given previous review by peers. Scientific terminology provides the precision essential to the conduct of science, yet may be unintelligible or unnecessarily complex for communicating with the general public. Scientists are encouraged to use language appropriate to their audience, even though this may result in some loss of precision. The scientist should, however, strive to keep public writing, remarks, and interviews as accurate as possible, given the constraints of effective communication, the particular medium, and the extent to which the scientist is able to control the final product or communication.
4.2.1. When communicating outside the scientific literature, researchers should adhere to the same general ethical principles that apply to research articles. This includes giving appropriate credit to others; the prohibitions against fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism; the principles that define authorship; and the requirement that potential conflicts of interest be disclosed.
4.2.2. A scientist should not publicly announce a discovery unless the experimental, statistical, and theoretical support for it is of sufficient strength to warrant publication in the scientific literature.
4.3. Communication outside the scientific literature is not a substitute for publication within the scientific literature. Although communication of ideas and results to the lay public is strongly encouraged, this does not substitute for publication of those ideas and results in a peer-reviewed journal. Moreover, public trust in the scientific endeavor can be greatly harmed through the premature release of findings that are called into question or disproved shortly thereafter. Thus, it generally is best if the initial public announcement of a scientific finding occurs after acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal.
4.3.1. In most instances it is in the best interest of science that a finding be reviewed and accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal before it is announced to the public.
4.3.2. Under certain circumstances an author may conclude that the public good is best served by more rapid dissemination of research findings. In such circumstances, special care must be taken to ensure that the conclusions presented to the public are well supported. If the work has not yet been subjected to formal editorial or peer review, the proposed communication should be reviewed by knowledgeable colleagues.
4.3.3. When publication of a result in the popular press precedes publication in a peer reviewed journal, an account of the experimental work and results should be submitted as quickly as possible for publication in such a journal.
4.3.4. Researchers are cautioned that extensive disclosure of research results in the public press may preclude publication in some peer-reviewed journals.
Procedures for Dealing with Allegations of Unethical Scientific Conduct
When a violation of the SRES Ethics Policy, whether intentional or not, is alleged, it is essential that the scientific community respond quickly and effectively. Allegations brought to the attention of SRES are initially dealt with by the editor-in-chief if they pertain to any of the journals, by the chair of the Program Committee if they pertain to abstracts for the annual meeting, by the SRES Patron if they pertain to other categories. The Ethics Committee is responsible for overseeing the consistent handling of alleged Ethics Policy violations.

1. SRES's investigation of an alleged violation of the Ethics Policy will conform to the following principles:

1.1. The investigation will be prompt and will respect the rights of the accused and of the individual(s) making the allegation.
1.2. Authors or other relevant parties are expected to cooperate fully with the investigation.
1.3. The identity of the complainant will be kept confidential, unless the complainant requests otherwise.
1.4. At all stages, every effort will be made to ensure that the process is fair and just for the accused, the complainant, and the neuroscience community.
1.5. Complainants who bring forward allegations in good faith should not be subjected to retaliation, even if no misconduct is found.
1.6. Knowledge that an investigation is being or has been conducted, as well as any information collected in the process, should be restricted to the absolute minimum number of persons necessary and treated with strict confidentiality, even after the investigation is complete. However, information regarding the investigation and its findings should be released in cases in which misconduct has been determined to have occurred or when the existence of an investigation has become generally known and an accused scientist is exonerated.

2. All allegations should be dealt with at the lowest organizational level that can be effective.

The appropriate SRES person, as outlined above and referred to in this document as “the point person,” will conduct a preliminary inquiry into the allegation. If the matter can be resolved at this level it will save time and money, and help to protect the reputations of all involved. If, after an initial inquiry, the point person believes that an allegation may have merit, then he or she will inform all authors (or other relevant parties if the case does not involve a publication) of the allegation and solicit a response. If this response allows the point person to determine that no violation of the Ethics Policy has occurred (e.g., an honest scientific mistake is acknowledged by the authors), the authors will be asked to publish a correction or to retract the paper or abstract, if appropriate. If resolution is achieved at this level, the chair of the Ethics Committee will be notified in confidence of the incident.

2.1. For manuscripts, the editorial process will be put on hold until the allegation is resolved.

3. Allegations not resolved at the lowest organizational level will be referred to the Ethics Committee.

In the case of more serious allegations, the point person will notify all relevant parties that the matter has been referred to the Ethics Committee. If the Ethics Committee concurs that a violation of the Ethics Policy may have occurred, the chair of the Ethics Committee will notify the institution at which the research was conducted and will request that a formal investigation be undertaken by the institution.
3.1. The Society for Neuroscience expects that institutions engaged in research will have effective procedures for dealing with allegations of scientific misconduct, inappropriate conflict of interest, or unethical treatment of animals or human subjects.
3.2. All possible care will be taken by SRES to handle these matters so as to protect the rights and reputations of everyone concerned.
3.3. When requesting that an institution investigate an allegation, SRES expects to be informed of the progress and outcome of any inquiry or investigation and expects the process to be concluded within five months.

4. The Society may initiate corrective actions and/or sanctions in response to a violation of the SRES Ethics Policy.

In some cases it may be appropriate that the Society take further actions regarding a violation of the Ethics Policy.

4.1. The SRES Executive Committee will make the final decision on any sanctions imposed by SRES.
4.2. The point person and the Ethics Committee are empowered to continue their investigation and analysis in parallel with any institutional investigation and may recommend that the Executive Committee impose immediate, short-term sanctions to protect the integrity of scientific communications. These sanctions may be extended or revised, and corrections to the literature may be made as needed after five months or the conclusion of the institutional investigation, whichever comes first.
4.3. Once an investigation of misconduct is concluded by the relevant institution(s), the chair of the Ethics Committee should be informed of the outcome, including any administrative or disciplinary action that has been taken by the institution or agency.
4.4. If the institutional investigation provides substantial new information, the Ethics Committee will review the case based on the information provided by the investigating institution as well as the original allegations and the results of the preliminary inquiry. If the institution requested to investigate possible misconduct has failed to respond within five months, the Ethics Committee will make its recommendations based on the information available.
4.5. If an investigation concerning a published article or abstract determines that the article contains a serious error, then a correction or retraction must be published prominently in the journal or abstract collection in which the original report appeared and contain the full bibliographic reference to the original article or abstract. It should also be listed in the contents page and be prominently labeled (e.g., erratum, retraction, or apologia). The normal expectation is that an author would voluntarily retract an article that was found to involve violations of the Ethics Policy. If the authors do not agree, it is incumbent on the editor-in-chief to retract the article with a statement of an editorial action.
4.6. If an investigation reveals possible misrepresentation involving non-SRES publications, the Ethics Committee may recommend notifying the editors of the other publications.
4.7. Some allegations of SRES Ethics Policy violations may involve publications submitted to a non-Society publication by a member of the Society. A finding of a violation of the SRES Ethics Policy should be reported to the chair of the Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee will determine what action, if any, to recommend.
4.8. If it is determined that allegations were not made in good faith, or were maliciously motivated, disciplinary action may be recommended for those responsible by the Ethics Committee to the Executive Committee.
4.9. The Council of the Society for Neuroscience retains the right to consider additional action. In accordance with the Bylaws of the Society, this action may include expulsion from the Society.
Policies on the Use of Animals and Humans in Research
The SRES, as a professional society for Scientific research, endorses and supports the appropriate and responsible use of animals as experimental subjects. Knowledge generated by research on animals has led to important advances in the understanding of diseases and disorders that affect the nervous system and in the development of better treatments that reduce suffering in humans and animals. This knowledge also makes a critical contribution to our understanding of ourselves, the complexities of our brains and what makes us human. Continued progress in understanding how the brain works and further advances in treating and curing disorders of the nervous system require investigation of complex functions at all levels in the living nervous system. Because no adequate alternatives exist, much of this research must be done on animal subjects.

Several functions of the Society are related to the use of animals in research. A number of these involve decisions about research conducted by members of the Society, including the scheduling of scientific presentations at the Annual Meeting, the review and publication of original research papers in journals and the defense of members whose ethical use of animals in research is questioned by animal rights activists. The Society's support for the research of individual members defines a relationship between the Society and its members. The purpose of this document is to outline the policy that guides that relationship. Compliance with the following policy will be an important factor in determining the suitability of research for presentation at the Annual Meeting or for publication in the journals of SRES and in situations where the Society is asked to provide public and active support for a member whose use of animals in research has been questioned.

The responsibility for implementing the policy in each of these areas rests with the relevant administrative body.
Member Obituaries
The SRES acknowledges deceased members by listing obituaries. Deaths and archives will be listed. If you know a member of the SRES who has recently passed away, write us at editor@sers.og.in that will be posted to our website.