Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Our Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement 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 Resource Kit and in compliance with Elsevier recommendations and research publishing ethics guidelines of the Cambridge University Press:

 

https://publicationethics.org/

https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk

https://www.cambridge.org/core/about/ethical-standards

In general:

Research integrity

We uphold the high standards of our journal and expect research published by Academia Journal of Biology to abide by the principles within the principles cover 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 and subjects of research;

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 and discipline.

Editorial process

We are committed to editorial independence and strive in all cases to prevent this principle from being compromised through conflicts of interest, fear, or any other corporate, business, financial or political influence. Our Editorial processes reflect this commitment to editorial independence.

We do not discriminate against authors, editors, or peer reviewers based on personal characteristics or identity.

Peer review

Peer review is critical to maintaining the standards of our publications. 

- We provide appropriate systems, training, and support to facilitate rigorous, fair, and effective peer review for all our publications;

- We encourage our 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;

- Expect those who oversee the peer review process to be able to recognize warning signs of fraudulent or manipulated peer review, and to raise any concerns by emailing publishingethics@cambridge.org. People who oversee the peer review process may be internal to Cambridge University Press or contracted by us;

- Support our editors and peer reviewers in investigating and acting on any suspected cases of manipulated or fraudulent peer review;

- 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 necessary information to support this;

Plagiarism

We do 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 CrossCheck 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;

Duplicate and redundant publication

Duplicate or redundant publication, or self-plagiarism, occurs when a publication, or substantial parts of a publication, is published more than once by the author(s) of the publications without appropriate cross-referencing or justification for the overlap. This can be in the same or a different language.

When authors submit manuscripts to our journals, these manuscripts should not be under consideration, accepted for publication, or in the press within a different journal, book, or similar entity. 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.

We do not support substantial overlap between publications, unless:

• It is felt that editorially this will strengthen the academic discourse; and

• We have clear approval from the original publication; and

• We include citations of the original source;

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; and/or

- Drafting the publications or revising them critically for important intellectual content; and

- Final approval of the version to be published, and

- 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.

Conflicts of interest and funding

Conflicts of interest are situations that could be perceived to exert an undue influence on the presentation, review, or publication of a piece of work. These may be financial, non-financial, professional, contractual, or personal in nature.  Our journal requires the inclusion of a funding declaration in addition to conflicts of interest declaration. 

Retractions, corrections, and expressions of concern

Journal editors will consider retractions, corrections, or expressions of concern in line with COPE’s 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.

Transparency

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.

In detail:

* Duties of Editors

Publication decision

The editor of the Academia Journal of Biology is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to this peer-reviewed journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors

Confidentiality

The 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. 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should excuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

*Duties of reviewers

Contribution to editorial decision

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.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of source

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. 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. 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

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. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

*Duties of authors

Reporting standards

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 detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data. If practicable, should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and plagiarism

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. Plagiarism takes many forms, from passing off another's paper as the author's own paper to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Acknowledgment of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the paper

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 on 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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

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. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

Fundamental errors in published works

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.