Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of Academia Journal of Biology (AJB) are based on the code of conduct and best practice guidelines for Journal Editors and the code of conduct for Journal Publishers by using the publishing ethics guidelines of COPE https://publicationethics.org/; Publishing Ethics Resource Kit for editors of Elsevier https://beta.elsevier.com/editor/perk?trial=true; Publishing Ethics: Academic Research of the Cambridge University Press https://www.cambridge.org/core/about/ethical-standards.
A. In general
We uphold the standards by the AJB to abide by the principles covered as:
- Honesty in all aspects of research;
- Scrupulous care, thoroughness and excellence in research practice;
- Transparency and open communication;
- Care and respect for all participants in and subjects of research.
- Accountability both for one’s own research integrity and that of others when behaviour falls short of standards.
In addition to the general principles above, we will provide specific guidelines and policies for authors on research integrity and ethics appropriate to their subject matter.
For Research integrity, please refer to Research integrity of the Publishing Ethics: Academic Research of the Cambridge University Press https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-file-manager/file/5b44807ace5b3fca0954531e/CUP-Research-Publishing-Ethics-Guidelines-2019.pdf.
The AJB are committed to editorial independence and strives in all cases to prevent this principle from being compromised through competing interests, business, financial or political influence. Our editorial processes reflect this commitment to editorial independence.
The AJB does not discriminate against authors, editors or peer reviewers based on personal characteristics or identity. We are committed to embedding diversity, removing barriers to inclusion, and promoting equity at every stage of our publishing process. We consider appeals on editorial decisions, but only when new information is relevant to the editorial decision or if there is reason to believe we did not follow these Ethics Guidelines.
For Editorial process, please refer to Editorial process of the Publishing Ethics: Academic Research of the Cambridge University Press https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-file-manager/file/5b44807ace5b3fca0954531e/CUP-Research-Publishing-Ethics-Guidelines-2019.pdf.
Peer review is critical to maintaining the standards of our publications.
- The AJB provide appropriate systems, and support to facilitate rigorous, fair, and effective peer review (Peer review process https://vjs.ac.vn/index.php/vjbio/peer-review-process) for all publications.
- The AJB encourage editors and peer reviewers to familiarise themselves with and act in accordance with relevant best practice guidelines on peer review. For journal editors and peer reviewers, please refer to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers.
- The AJB protect the confidentiality of participants in the peer review process where anonymity forms part of that publication’s peer review process. We also expect our publishing partners, authors, and peer reviewers to uphold any relevant confidentiality arrangements for the journal and to provide the necessary information to support this.
The AJB does not tolerate plagiarism in any of our publications, and we reserve the right to check all submissions through appropriate plagiarism-checking tools. Submissions containing suspected plagiarism, in whole or part, will be rejected. Our journal uses the iThenticate https://www.ithenticate.com/ to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts.
Plagiarism can occur concerning all types of sources and media, including:
- Text, illustrations, extended mathematical derivations, computer code, etc.;
- Material downloaded from websites or drawn from manuscripts or other media;
- Published and unpublished material, including lectures, presentations, and grey literature;
For plagiarism complaints, please refer to Plagiarism complaints of Elsevier https://beta.elsevier.com/editor/perk/plagiarism-complaints.
Duplicate and redundant publication
The authors are expected to submit articles that are original and have not been submitted to any other publication. Occasionally, authors submit the same paper to multiple journals or submit multiple papers based on the same research. The AJB have editorial policies that prohibit the publication of numerous papers based on the same research.
When authors submit these manuscripts to the AJB, the manuscripts should not be under consideration, accepted for publication or in press within a different journal or similar entity, unless a journal is explicit that it does not have an exclusive submission policy.
However, the deposition of a preprint on the author’s personal website, in an institutional repository, or in a preprint archive shall not be viewed as prior or duplicate publication.
Please refer to multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication/simultaneous submission of the Elsevier
Authorship and Contributorship
We recommend applying the following principles:
- Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the publications or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
- Drafting the publications or revising them critically for important intellectual content;
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the publications and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
We consider the Corresponding Author to be the person who handles the manuscript and correspondence during the publication process. We ask that the Corresponding author confirm that they have the authority to act on behalf of all co-authors in all matters pertaining to the publication of the manuscript including supplementary material. The Corresponding author is responsible for obtaining such agreements and for informing the co-authors of the manuscript’s status throughout the submission, review, and publication process. In addition, the Corresponding author also acts as the main point of contact for any inquiries (including those relating to the integrity of the work) after the paper is published.
We encourage authors to list anyone who does not meet the criteria for authorship in an Acknowledgments section in their publication, for example, to recognize the contributions of anyone who provided research or writing assistance. We support our editors in dealing with any authorship disputes, and encourage anyone involved in editorial decisions to resolve authorship disputes.
For Authorship and Contributorship, the COPE also provides extensive resources on authorship and authorship disputes, please refer to Authorship and Contributorship of COPE https://publicationethics.org/authorship.
Undisclosed conflicts of interest
Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how well conflict of interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision-making. Conflict of interest exists when an author, reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence his or her actions. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.
For conflicts of interest, please refer to Undisclosed conflicts of interest of Elsevier https://beta.elsevier.com/editor/perk/undisclosed-conflicts-of-interest nts.
Retractions, corrections, and expressions of concern
The editors of The AJB will consider retractions, corrections, or expressions of concern in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines. If an author is found to have made an error, the journal will issue a corrigendum. If the journal is found to have made an error, they will issue an erratum. Retractions are usually reserved for articles that are so seriously flawed that their findings or conclusions should not be relied upon. Journals that publish Accepted Manuscripts may make minor changes such as those which would likely occur during typesetting or proofreading, but any substantive corrections will be carried out in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines.
We strive to follow COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly
Fraudulent research and research misconduct
Any publication found to include fraudulent results will be retracted, or an appropriate correction or expression of concern will be issued. Please see the Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern section of these guidelines for more information.
B. In detail:
* Duties of Editors
Editor-in-chief: The editor-in-chief of the Academia Journal of Biology (AJB) is fully responsible for all steps of review processing, editing, online publishing of articles submitted to AJB, and responsible for the quality of the article, the process of publishing the article in AJB. Assign the Specialty Chief Editor to take steps to handle the review process. The editor-in-chief makes the final decision on all submitted articles.
Deputy Editor-in-chief: Assisting Editor-in-chief in handling the review process, editing, and publishing online. Make the final decision with the status of the assigned articles. The Deputy Editor-in-chief manage manuscripts with content close to his/her speciality, supervises and handles problems arising in the manuscript process of the Editor.
Specialized Editor: Preliminary evaluating the quality of manuscript, can directly reject or send comments to the editor-in-chief for rejection if manuscript is of low quality or does not meet the criteria for publication in the AJB. Invite experts to evaluate and give comments for submitted manuscripts. Review the comments of experts to send the author. Ask the author for the necessary explanations.
For Duties of Editors, please refer to Duties of Editors of Elsevier
* Duties of Reviewer
- Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method.
- Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
- Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. A reviewer should also call to the editor'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 consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, or institutions connected to the papers.
- For Duties of Reviewer, please refer to Duties of reviewers of Elsevier https://beta.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics?trial=true#3-duties-of-reviewers.
* Duties of Authors
- The authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detailed references to permit others to replicate the work.
- The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
- An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.
- Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
- The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
- All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
- For manuscripts dealing with zoological nomenclature, we recommend that the authors, reviewers and editors follow the Code of Ethics in Appendix A of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature https://code.iczn.org/?frame=1. For manuscripts reporting research using live vertebrates and higher invertebrates, the authors follow the PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals https://olaw.nih.gov/policies-laws/phs-policy.htm, and provide a statement confirming that all guidelines and regulations were followed in the care and use of experimental animals.
- 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 correct, revise or retract articles after publication.
For Duties of Authors, please refer to Duties of authors of Elsevier https://beta.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/publishing-ethics?trial=true#4-duties-of-authors.
*Post-publication discussions, corrections, retraction and complaints
- The AJB allow debate post publication either on the website of AJB, or send to letters to the editor, or by Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Editors should consider retracting a publication if:
- They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of a major error or as a result of fabrication or falsification
- It constitutes plagiarism
- The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources
- Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue
- It reports unethical research
- The authors failed to disclose a major competing interest that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.
- Retraction notices will be linked to the article and articles will be retracted wherever possible (i.e. in all online versions). Retracted articles are clearly identified by including the title and author in the retraction title or citing the retracted article and stating the reason for the retraction.
For Post-publication discussions and corrections, please refer to HOPE https://publicationethics.org/postpublication.
Complaints against the AJB, the Editorial Board or the Publisher are reviewed and responded to through the website of AJB, or sent to letters to the editor, or Email: email@example.com. For Complaints and appeals, please refer to HOPE https://publicationethics.org/appeals.