Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
The publication process at the Journal of Applied Biological Sciences (JABS) is the basis of the improvement and dissemination of information objectively and respectfully. Therefore, the procedures in this process improve the quality of the studies. Peer-reviewed studies are the ones that support and materialize the scientific method. At this point, it is of utmost importance that all parties included in the publication process (authors, readers and researchers, publisher, reviewers and editors) comply with the standards of ethical considerations. Journal of Applied Biological Sciences (JABS) expects all parties to hold the following ethical responsibilities.
The following ethical duties and responsibilities are written in the light of the guide and policies made by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, and the publisher.
Publication and authorship:
- All submitted manuscripts are subject to a double-blind peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript. The factors that consider in the review are relevance, significance, originality, readability and language.
- Authors can suggest three potential reviewers - experts in the subject matter of the article but the editorial board of JABS can accept or reject suggested referees.
- The accepted articles may subject to further editing by journal editorial staff before they appear in print.
- The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection based on reviewers comments or editorial board decisions. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a manuscript, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted. Rejected manuscripts will not be considered for further reviewing process.
- JABS is committed to complete the reviewing process if there is no response from any requested potential reviews. The editorial board can assign the manuscript to the section editor to make a final decision or reject the manuscript.
- No research can be included in more than one publication.
- Authors should certify that their manuscripts are their original work and not previously been published elsewhere and not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
- If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that should be appropriately cited or quoted.
- Authors are obliged to provide an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
- The authors must provide corrections of mistakes.
- All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.
- The authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
- The authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
- The authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent inaccurate statements that constitute unethical behavior are unacceptable.
- Authors must notify the journal editor of any errors or inaccuracies in their published work when they discover in their published paper.
- When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
- Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access as well.
- Acknowledgment of the work of others must be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Peer review / responsibility for the reviewers:
- Reviewers should keep all information regarding the manuscript confidential and treat them as privileged information.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
- Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
- Reviewers should also call to the Editor-in-Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
- Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
- Editors' responsibilities
- Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept a submitted manuscript.
- Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
- Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
- Editors should have a clear picture of the research's funding sources.
- Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to the publication's scope.
- Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
- Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
- Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
- Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
- Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
- Editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Publishing ethics issues
- Monitoring/safeguarding publishing ethics by editorial board;
- Guidelines for retracting articles;
- Maintain the integrity of the academic record;
- Preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
- Always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Duties of Editorial Team
Editor-in-chief: The Editor-in-Chief has the responsibility to set the journal scope and ensures the manuscript review process follows JABS guidelines. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on acceptance or rejection of submissions after they have passed through the review process. In addition, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the promotion of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief is appointed by the Anatolia Academy of Sciences. The Editor-in-Chief term is three years.
Assistant Editors: Coordinates the workflow of the Journal
- To check that the submitted manuscript is in the scopes of Journal.
- To check that the submitted manuscript is prepared according to the guideline of the journal.
- An initial screening of the submitted manuscripts to judge its basic suitability based on the journal policy.
- Assigning the submitted manuscript to related section editors.
- Holding regular section editors meetings.
Section Editor: Review assigned manuscript in a specific area
- Judgment about the suitability of the manuscript based on the following criteria:
- Quality of writing and clarity of presentation: If a paper is poorly written or unclear, it is unsuitable for detailed review and it should be rejected on these grounds alone. There is no need for you to judge its scientific content.
- Interest to potential readers: We expect papers to make an interesting contribution; there is inevitably an element of subjectivity in judging the interest of a paper, and we are confident that our section Editors have the ability to do this.
- Novelty and originality: If a paper clearly does not make a reasonable original contribution then it should be rejected at this stage
- The initial screening should be finished within two weeks of receipt of the manuscript. If you judge that the paper is not suitable for further consideration, please recommend rejection including some comments to the Assistant Editors.
- If you judge the paper passes the initial screening, then move to the review stage. In this stage, the manuscript should be reviewed by at least two or more referees (Two positive or negative would be enough for final decision). You can be one referee, if you wish and send the manuscript to other reviewers.
- The review stage should be completed in one month. The reviewers should look in closer detail at the interest and originality of the paper. We must do our best to ensure that published papers are technically correct.
- Each editor will be expected to receive 2-5 papers per month.
Advisory board member: The Advisory board provides guidance to the Editor-in-Chief and Assistant editor on issues regarding the direction of the journal and producing a relevant and high-quality publication. The Advisory board member also serves in the role of the Appeal Board in problematic review cases. The Advisory board member is appointed by Editor-in-Chief.
Duties of the Publisher
Journal of Applied Biological Sciences (JABS) is committed to ensure that commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, JABS will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors. Finally, we are working closely with other publishers and industry associations to set standards for best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions–and are prepared to provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.
Journal of Applied Biological Sciences (JABS) uses double-blind review fulfilled by at least two reviewers. In addition, all articles are checked by means of a program (Ithenticate etc.) in order to confirm they are not published before and avoid plagiarism.
The peer review process is at the heart of the success of scientific publishing. As part of our commitment to the protection and enhancement of the peer review process, JABS has an obligation to assist the scientific community in all aspects of publishing ethics, especially in cases of (suspected) duplicate submission or plagiarism.
When a reader discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a paper published in Journal of Applied Biological Sciences (JABS) or have any other complaint about editorial content (plagiarism, duplicate papers, etc.), he/she should make a complaint by e-mail to: email@example.com. We welcome complaints as they provide an opportunity for improvement, and we aim to respond quickly and constructively.
Informed Consent Policy
Journal of Applied Biological Sciences (JABS) is committed to apply informed consent under research ethics, based on Declaration of Helsinki: Statement of Ethical Principles for Medical Research and ICMJE's Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
Informed consent and ethics committee approval forms must be obtained in clinical studies conducted on humans or human specimens and must be stated in the materials and methods section. For studies with human volunteers, a written informed consent form prepared in accordance with the research protocol should be obtained. For studies with the case or other personal information all written permissions should be obtained and must be retained by the author for possible legal situations. Human information without necessary permissions should not be included in the article. Informed Consent letter stating that the consent of the participants was obtained after the explanation of all the procedures applied within the scope of the study should also be indicated in the articles announcing the results of the studies using the 'human' material. For experimental studies in humans, a statement should be included stating that the volunteers signed a written informed consent form with a detailed description of the procedures performed. Analytical research on human participants should include the participant's statement of informed consent in the Methods section. It is journal policy to preserve the participant's name in all cases.