Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement::
The Advances in Environmental Biology (AEB) and its Publisher, AENSI, are strictly agreed with the Code of Conduct given by publicationethics.org/, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Our board of this journal keeps following the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.
Therefore, the management of this journal and its Publisher (AENSI) keep checking with COPE ethics and gradually improve relations with Author’s Reader’s and Reviewers’ as well. Here we are providing Publications Ethics & Malpractice statement in Text form and PDF.
Duties of Editors::
Fair play and editorial independence::
Editors of AEB evaluate the submitted manuscripts entirely based on their academic knowledge and experience (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity). AEB has published the papers since 2007 and their relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Therefore, the decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
One of the most critical point that the editors and editorial board take attention that will not disclose any information about a submitted paper to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest::
Editors and editorial board members cannot use unpublished information made known to them in a manuscript for their research purposes. The editors' reports in the editorial review will be kept confidential and not be used for personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering a manuscript in which they have conflicts of interest with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper. Instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to review the manuscript.
The editor in chief and the editors of AEB ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field of AEB Journal.
The final decision for publishing the papers is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief for deciding which of the documents submitted to the AEB journal will be published, based on the validation of the work after completing the review process and passed all stages. In some papers, the Editor-in-Chief may discuss with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations::
Editors of AEB, in conjunction with the AENSI publisher, will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. AEB editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If the ethical concern is well-founded on the investigation, a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or another note as may be relevant will be published in the journal.
Duties of Reviewers::
Contribution to editorial decisions::
Peer review is one of the most critical stages for publication of the papers that assist editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific endeavour.
Review the manuscripts at a specific time. It is essential to prevent any time wasting for the authors. Therefore any invited referee who feels unqualified to review a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. For this reason, any paper received by AEB was reviewed at least by three reviewers.
Many authors and speciality the PhD student whose have a novelty work or the scientists who have a new idea and like to publish as a scientific article worry for the confidentiality of reviewers. Therefore, all the manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be taken as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. This applies must also be to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Standards of objectivity
One of the essential points and must be the reviewers take it, reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them to improve the manuscript.
Acknowledgement of sources
According to our publication experience, many authors take a piece of information without insert the sources or the references. Their reviewers of AEB should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. The relevant citation should accompany any statement or information that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
The reviewers who have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, connections with any of the authors, institutions connected to the manuscript, and the work described there should immediately notify the editors in Chief to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review. Then the paper will send to alternative reviewers to complete the review process. Another important point for the unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Duties of Authors::
1. Reporting standards::
Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive.
2. Data access and retention
In some cases, the authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their experiment together with the manuscript for editorial review. This raw data should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable.
3.Originality and plagiarism
Authors should make sure that their papers are written and submitted entirely original, and if they use other's work, they cite appropriately. Also, cite other publications that have a big impact on the work reported in the manuscript. Plagiarism is of many forms, including plagiarizing another's work, copying or paraphrasing another's work without attribution, to claiming credit for work done by others. Plagiarism is unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. The Advances in Environmental Biology (AEB) and its Publisher, AENSI, the Turnitin program were used to check the plagiarism. The plagiarism must be less than 20% for the original article and less than 25 for the review article.
4. Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication
Researchers should not attempt to duplicate the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. The final edited manuscript should not have been previously published in another journal. Submitting a manuscript to more than one journal is strictly prohibited and unethical. Some articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) can be published in more than one journal, providing specific qualifications. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to have their research published alongside the primary study. Primary sources must be referenced in secondary sources.
Authorship of the manuscript
The authors who meet these criteria should be listed in the publication as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (those who) made significant contributions to the content; (ii) drafted the content; (iii) approved the content and agreed to its submission for publication; and (iv) seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who have made significant contributions to the manuscript, but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author and should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named has been obtained. The corresponding author must ensure that all of the other authors are included in the author list and that all of them have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Authors should—at the earliest possible stage in the review process (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation. Potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed in the manuscript are financial, such as honoraria, educational grants, etc. Examples include speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, etc., and personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All public funding sources for the project should be accounted for (including the grant number or other reference number, if any).
Acknowledgement of sources
Authors should ensure they have properly acknowledged the work of others and should also cite several publications that influenced the manuscript. Authors should not use information obtained while providing confidential services unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the authors of the work involved in these services.
Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work requires chemicals, procedures, or equipment that are considered to be particularly hazardous, the authors must state their potential hazards. If research involving animals or human participants is reported, authors should state that the study was performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) approved the research protocol. Authors must declare in the manuscript that human subjects were involved in the research. Human participants' privacy rights must always be considered.
Authors are expected to respond to the editors' requests for raw data, clarifications, proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions on time. If a first decision of "revisions necessary" is necessary, authors must respond to the reviewers' comments systematically, point for point, and submit a revised manuscript by the specified deadline.
Fundamental errors in published works
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they must promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or retract it. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then the authors should promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the paper's correctness.
Duties of the Publisher::
Handling of unethical publishing behaviour::
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification, or the retraction of the affected workers in the most severe case. Together with the editors, the publisher shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to occur.