Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the Journal of Bioresources and Bioproducts

 

-Based on Elsevier’s recommendations and guidelines.

 

 

Duties of Authors

 

Reporting standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the objective discussion of the significance of the work. There should be sufficient information, containing detail and references within the paper such that others may be permitted to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Review articles and professional publication articles should be accurate and objective, while editorial opinion or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such.

 

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with the manuscript or paper for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available, if the situation presented is feasible. In any event, authors should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

 

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submitted entirely original works. In the situation where authors have used the work and/or words of others, they must appropriately cite the them. Plagiarism takes many forms, from passing off another paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

 

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Therefore, authors should not submit a manuscript for consideration that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.

 

Provided that certain conditions are met, the publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is occasionally justifiable. The authors and editors of the journals involved 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.

 

Authorship of the manuscript

Authorship should be limited to those who meet these authorship criteria as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript at the earliest stage possible. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed as well.

 

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should properly acknowledge the work of others and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of their reported work. Information obtained privately such as conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained through providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless the explicit written permission of the authors of the work involved in these services.

 

Hazards and human or animal subjects

The authors must clearly identify any hazards involved in their work, including chemicals, procedures, and equipment. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and that the appropriate institutional committees has approved them. Authors should include a statement that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

 

Peer review

Authors must promptly respond to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, proof of ethics approval, patient consents, and copyright permissions. In the case of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.

 

Fundamental errors in published works

If authors discover significant errors and/or inaccuracies in their own published work, they must promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to retract or correct the paper.

 

 

 

Duties of Editors

 

Fair play

Editors should evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of authors’ intellectual content without regard to their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are based on the paper’s importance, originality, clarity, and the study’s relevance to the scope of the journal.

 

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than persons involved with the manuscript including the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, such that there is no information discussed with those not involved.

 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used for editors’ own research without authors’ explicit written consent. Likewise, privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript must be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. If editors have conflicts of interest resulting from any relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers, they should ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

 

Publication decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least three reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief will decide which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

 

 

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

When ethical concerns are raised with a regard to a submitted or published paper, editors will take responsive measures; every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. If, through investigation, the ethical concern is justified with sufficient evidence, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.

 

 

 

Duties of Reviewers

 

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication. It assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

 

Promptness

Any reviewer who feels prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and recuse from the review process so other reviewers can be contacted.

 

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be kept confidential; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

 

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the authors is unacceptable. Reviewers should also state their observations clearly with supporting arguments.

 

 

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any observation, derivation or argument statement that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by its relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript of which they have personal knowledge.

 

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used for a reviewer’s own research without authors’ written consent. Likewise, privileged information or ideas obtained by reviewers through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for their own personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation. If invited reviewer have conflicts of interest resulting from any relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers, the invitee should decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.