Publication Ethics and Policies
Overview
Scienceline Publication adheres to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. The Online Journal of Animal and Feed Research published by Scienceline Publication endorse the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), COPE's guidance for Journals’ Best Practices for Ensuring Consent for Publishing Medical Case Reports, the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Policy Statement on Geopolitical Intrusion on Editorial Decisions, the Council of Science Editors’ White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
Submitting a manuscript to a journal published by Scienceline Publication implies that all contributors listed as authors have read and agreed to the content of the submitted work and that the submission observes the policies of the journal.
All the scholarly journals published by Scienceline Publication including the Online Journal of Animal and Feed Research follow the "Editorial Policies" and the Editors follow "the international standards for editors" recommended by COPE. The publisher, editors, reviewers, and authors of Scienceline journals, have agreed upon the following statement of principle which states a core value of intellectual freedom and independent editorial decisions and standards of expected ethical behavior, informed by the COPE's Core Practices, ICMJE, the RELX policy on editorial standards, and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT).
The Online Journal of Animal and Feed Research ensures some policies for authors about the publication and distribution of an article. The author should be aware of policies before the submission of an article. Read policies about Copyright, Article Sharing, Article Withdrawal, Article Retraction, Article Removal and Article Replacement.
(https://publicationethics.org/core-practices)
- Scienceline Publication is committed to ensure that the final decision on a manuscript always rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
- Scienceline Publication promises to ensure that the decision on manuscript submissions is only made based on professional judgment and will not be affected by any commercial interests.
- Scienceline Publication is committed to maintain the integrity of academic and research records.
- Scienceline Publication monitors the ethics by Editor-in-Chief, Editor/Co-Editors, Editorial Board Members, Reviewers, Authors, and Readers.
- Scienceline Publication always checks the plagiarism and fraudulent data issues involved in the submitted manuscript.
- Scienceline Publication is always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions involving its publications as and when needed.
(http://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf)
- The Editors of the journal should have the full authority to reject/accept a manuscript.
- The Editors of the journal should maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts under review or until they are published.
- The Editor-in-Chief should make a decision on submitted manuscripts, whether to be published or not with other editors and reviewers
- The Editors of the journal should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
- The Editors of the journal should disclose and try to avoid any conflicts of interest.
- The Editors of the journal should maintain academic integrity and strive to meet the needs of readers and authors.
- The Editors of the journal should be willing to investigate plagiarism and fraudulent data issues and to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
- The Editors of the journal should limit themselves only to the intellectual content.
- The Editors of the journal must not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
- Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author's explicit written consent.
What Do Editors/Co-editors Do?
Editors are generally appointed by the publisher or the Science Committee of Journals. Together with the publisher, editors are responsible for everything published in their journals; ensuring the publication of important work in relevant fields with a high enough quality, and those fit with the scope of the journal for peer review. Editors of Scienceline Journals strive to constantly improve the journal, the quality of the content published, meet the needs of readers and authors, champion freedom of expression; maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual standards; always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
Editorial/Advisory Boards
Editorial boards are appointed by the editor per the journal's field. Their role as experts may include reviewing papers, advising on journal aims and scope; attracting new paper submissions; submitting some of their own papers; putting forward special topics. There are also additional duties:
- Article Publication Decision: Possible decisions based on the double-blind peer review are: accept as is, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
- Honesty and Fair Play: Editors will not give any consideration to authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political context, movement, and rituals.
- Confidentiality: They must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and the publisher.
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished materials are not allowed in the submitted manuscript without the express written consent of the author.
- Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations
Scienceline Staff
Editors are supported by the following staff
Publishers: The main contact for journal strategy, journal performance indicators, editorial rotations, finances, ethics, and support.
Journal Manager: Manages the production process from acceptance to publication.
Marketing Manager: Responsible for marketing planning, implementation and evaluation.
We are committed to ensuring that commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Scienceline journals will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors. The publisher also has the right to consult with the editor of the journals every year and, if necessary, make changes to improve the publications to the highest possible level. 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. To better understand how publishers and editors work together please visit here (topics are: Selecting a good editor, How publishers and editors work together, Changing editors ...).
Finding reviewers
Finding new reviewers is always a challenge for each journal editor. Scienceline has here some tools and tips to help:
Tools
In order to save authors' time, Scienceline offers a facile open-access submission form including a field for suggesting unbiased expert reviewers. All the expert reviewers suggested by the authors are saved in the system for future needs to identify reviewers. Editors may also determine the suitability of a reviewer using their publication and citation record, as well as details of co-authors.
Co-Editors prepare a digitally signed reviewer certificate for each reviewer after a peer-review process is successfully completed.
Tips
Select reviewers conducting research in a similar area; they will be best placed to spot any shortcomings of the paper. Their interest in the topic may also mean they review the paper quicker.
Ask editorial board members to review, if there was no suitable expert reviewer.
Ask recently published authors, young researchers, postdoctorates or professors; they may be more likely to review. As much as possible, no reviewers have not published in the last five years.
Those who have not published in the journal, may not review but could refer papers to another reviewer.
Only invite as many reviewers as each editor require.
Actively contributing reviewers of Scienceline Journals are granted the right to publish one article, free of fees, during the calendar year they serve on the board. This offer expires at the end of the year and cannot be accumulated or transferred to another person.
Online submission system
The majority of Scienceline journals use facile open-access submission forms (Scienceline submission form or Journal submission form) to free up more of a researcher's time and allow authors to submit their manuscripts in any format and comply with the style required by the target journal. This system can also reduce processing and publishing costs for the authors.
Benefits for Editors
Automatic manuscript submission ensures accuracy in communication and acknowledgement and also saves time.
A manuscript submission overview contains the corresponding author's name and affiliation, the article title and abstract, the filled and signed declaration, cover letter, and a suggested list of reviewers.
New submissions can be easily checked for plagiarism by iThenticate, PlagScan and Docol©c.
The adjustable communication templates save time while allowing for personal messages.
Editorial and Peer Review Processes generally follow these steps:
We follow and request from authors, reviewers, and editors the "ICJME Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly work in Medical Journals".
When an article is submitted to Scienceline journals, Editor makes the first check of submitted articles (structure, plagiarism, and scientific quality).
Articles may be rejected, sent back for structural revision, or sent to at least two reviewers for peer review.
After the peer review process, articles may be rejected, sent back for revision requested by reviewers, or accepted for publication.
Revised articles by authors may be accepted, resent to reviewers, resent to authors for additional corrections/revision, or rejected.
Authors could not see reviewers’ information. Editors may make authors’ information available to reviewers or not.
Accepted articles are forwarded to the publishing process.
Editor(s) may require additional materials or changes from authors during copy editing, composing, grammatical editing, and/or proof reading steps.
Reviewers' Ethical Responsibilities and Duties
(http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer review guidelines.pdf)
- Reviewers contribute to editorial decisions by validating a newly submitted author’s research to confirm its suitability for publication
- Reviewers should generally treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated themselves and observe good reviewing etiquette.
- Reviewers should provide comments in time that will help editors to make a decision on whether the submitted manuscript is to be published or not.
- Reviewers comments on each submitted manuscript should be technical, professional, and objective. They should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Reviewers who feel unqualified to review the submitted manuscript or they are unable to a prompt review should notify the editor.
- Reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts, which they are invited to review. They must not share the review or any information about the paper with anyone or contact the authors directly without permission from the editor.
- If there was a need to discuss with colleagues or co-reviewing exercises, the reviewer should first notify the editor in order to ensure that confidentiality is observed or it is allowed.
- Reviewer is not allowed to use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript unless written consent is obtained from the author.
- Reviewer must keep ideas and novel information obtained through peer review confidential and not used for personal advantage.
- Reviewer should notify the editor by the relevant comments, if there were any ethical issues in the paper, including any substantial overlap with other published papers.
- Reviewers should be unbiased experts and do not criticize the author personally that is inappropriate.
- Reviewers should not review the manuscripts in which they have found conflicts of interest with any of the authors, companies, or institutions.
- In case of potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers, reviewers should consult the editor.
- Any suggestion by a reviewer in the manuscript to cite his/her published work is allowed only per genuine scientific reasons and not to increase the reviewer’s citation index.
- Check that there is no conflict of interest in referee duties. In case of discrepancy, it will be acted according to the COPE guidelines.
- When the request for review is sent to the reviewer, the reviewer must act according to the description of the COPE guidelines.
- When the journal editors suspect FABRICATED DATA, the publication acts according to the description of COPE guidelines.
- If the journal editors suspects a referee during the reviewing process, it will act according to COPE guidelines.