Authors Guidelines

We accept Editorial, Research, Case Report, Review, Opinion, Short Communication, Mini Review, Letter to Editors articles for publishing with We.

Author Guidelines

We accept Editorial, Research, Case Report, Review, Opinion, Short Communication, Mini Review, Letter to Editors articles for publishing with We.

Covering Letter


Author need to submit a cover letter before submitting the manuscript and it should follow the following information

  • Contribution for the research work should be summarized
  • Relation between new and previously published work should be established
  • Relation between new and previously published work should be established
  • Describe any prior interactions with Publisher regarding the submitted manuscript
  • Suggest the editors to handle the manuscript
  • Specify the reviewers name that you oppose

Manuscript Standards


  • File format : We accept all DOC, PDF, RTF, or DOCX formats. Microsoft Word documents should not be locked or protected.
  • Length : There is no restriction in manuscript length or word count, number of figures and supporting information. We encourage you to present and discuss your findings concisely.
  • Font : standard font and font size
  • Headings : Limit manuscript sections and sub-sections to 3 heading levels
  • Layout : Manuscript text should be double-spaced.
  • Footnotes : Footnotes are not permitted
  • Language : Manuscripts must be submitted in English
  • Abbreviations : Define abbreviations upon first appearance in the text. Do not use non-standard abbreviations unless they appear at least three times in the text. Keep abbreviations to a minimum
  • Nomenclature : Use correct and established nomenclature wherever possible
  • Units of measurement : Use SI units. If you do not use these exclusively, provide the SI value in parentheses after each value
  • Drugs : Provide the Recommended International Non-Proprietary Name
  • Species names : Write in italics (Write out in full the genus and species, both in the title of the manuscript and at the first mention of an organism in a paper. After first mention, the first letter of the genus name followed by the full species name may be used (e.g., H. sapiens).)
  • Genes, mutations, genotypes, and alleles: Write in italics. Use the recommended name by consulting the appropriate genetic nomenclature database

Manuscript Organization:


  • The manuscript should follow the following standard instruction for each element appear below.
    We are organizing the manuscript in to 4 sections
  • Section I: Title page (Title, authors, and affiliations), Abstract, Introduction
  • Section II: Materials and Methods, Discussion, Results, Conclusions
  • Section III: Acknowledgments, References and Supporting Information Captions (if applicable)
  • Section IV: Figure captions are inserted immediately after the first paragraph in which the figure is cited. Figure files are uploaded separately.
  • Tables are inserted immediately after the first paragraph in which they are cited.
  • Supporting information files are uploaded separately.

Manuscript Title:


Submitted manuscript should follow the following criteria
Title should be in Title Case (except articles, conjunctions and prepositions)
Title should not exceed 250 character length
Specific, Precise, Descriptive and intelligible to readers outside the sphere.
Try to avoid Special characters like abbreviations
For clinical Trials, reviews and meta-analyses abstract should include study design.

Author:


After Title write author names on the Title page and Authors are separated by comma and last name should be followed by conjunction ‘and’ On the title page, write author names in the following order:
First name (or initials, if used)
Middle name (or initials, if used)
Last name (surname, family name)
Each author need to mention affiliation and it includes university, department or organizational information and its address including country name. If an author has multiple affiliations, enter all affiliations on the title page only.

Corresponding author:


Corresponding author should be marked with asterick (*) symbol.
One corresponding author should be designated in the submission system. However, this does not restrict the number of corresponding authors that may be listed on the article in the event of publication.
E-mail address for each corresponding author should be included in the Title Page of the Manuscript.
If there is author group on manuscript, please provide a note that describes where the full membership list is available for the readers.
membership list can be listed in the Acknowledgments, in Supporting Information, or on the internet.


Group authorship

If manuscript is submitted on behalf of organization or research group, include the consortium or group name in the author list, and include the full list of members in the Acknowledgments or in a Supporting Information file.
The corresponding author is responsible for making sure all authors approve the final manuscript before submission. Publisher will contact all authors by email at submission to ensure that they are aware of the submission.
Author names will be published exactly as they appear in the accepted manuscript.
Indicate affiliations by number only.
Affiliation footnotes should appear in numerical order at first mention. Please use the symbols provided in this document for other designations.
Numbers and symbols should be in superscript.
Do not include titles (Dr., PhD, Professor, etc.).


Affiliations:

Affiliations will be published as they appear in the accepted manuscript. Include each component in order of small to large (Department, Division, Section, Institution, City, State, and Country).
Do not include ZIP or Postal Codes, street addresses, or building/office numbers.
Do not use abbreviations (e.g. Dept.).
Do not list positions within an institution (e.g. Department Chair, Professor, etc.).
List each affiliation individually and in full.

Partials


Paper is using partials folder to inject some common html files like header and footer.

Symbol Name Definition
Pilcrow (paragraph symbol) 1st set of equal contributors
& Ampersand 2nd set of equal contributors
* Asterisk sadasd
#a Pound/number sign First Current address
#b Pound/number sign Second Current address
Dagger/Cross Deceased
^ Caret Consortium/Group Authorship

Authors:


John Doe1¶, Antonie Data1¶ , Johannes van Stats1,#a, Marie Testperson2* , David Ribosome Jr.3,5, Gregory H.T. McBio4,#b , Angela Reviewerson1,2&, Marina Measure1&, on behalf of The Bunny Genome Sequencing Consortium^

Affiliations:


1 Department, Institution, City, State, Country
2 Department of Dermatology, Division of Rabbit Health, Section of Veterinary Medicine, St. Hare Hospital, San Francisco, California, United States of America
3 Department of Libraries and Archives, National Contemporary Bunny Museum, Lagomorph, Connecticut, United States of America
4 Department of Restoration, National Contemporary Bunny Museum, Lagomorph, Connecticut, United States of America
5 Department of Archaeology, Bunny University, Lagomorph, Connecticut, United States of America
#a Current Address: Department of Carrot Science, Bunny University, Lagomorph, Connecticut, United States of America
#b Current Address: Department of Canine Evasion, Bunny University, Lagomorph, Connecticut, United States of America
* Corresponding author E-mail: james@university.ed (MT)
¶ These authors contributed equally to this work.
& These authors also contributed equally to this work.
^ Membership of the Bunny Genome Sequencing Consortium is provided in the Acknowledgments.
Abstract Abstract will appear after the Title Page on the manuscript and abstract should follow the following criteria for submission:
It should not exceed 300 words
It should be descriptive along with the Objective of the study
Explain study and model used without methodological details
Summarization of results
It should not include citations and abbreviations (If possible)

Introduction

The introduction should:

Introduction should be in to context and allow readers to know the aim and significance of the study.
Define the issues mentioned and why it is important
Include a short review of the key literature
Note any controversies within the scope of the research
Brief description about overall objective and aim of the work and comment
Conclusion about the overall work and comments about whether that aim was achieved


Materials and Methods:


In this section author should provide sufficient information to allow suitably skilled investigators to fully replicate your study. Guidelines and protocols for new methods should be explained in detail. If protocols and standard methods are well established, author needs to cite these articles properly in detail, but the submission should be include sufficient information to be understood independent of these references.in this section.

Brief Information should be provided in this section to allow other investigators to repeat brief but sufficient to allow other investigators to repeat the research
References should be mentioned wherever possible procedures appear
All organizations and individuals from where the materials are gathered should be listed
If any manuscript presents only theory in that case we can omit Materials and Method Section.
Websites that providing tutorial, personal or laboratory material are omitted from the articles.
None of the Materials and Methods may be placed in Supplemental Materials.
Units like International Standard unit system (SI System) and temperature in degrees Celsius should be implemented in the entire manuscript.


Results:

Results should provide all the content which supports the conclusion of the article.
In this section details of all experimental findings which are required to support the conclusion of the manuscript.
There is no limit for result section but content should not detract from the focus of the manuscript.
Content in this section should be written in past tense.
Results can be divided in to sub sections and content should be concise.
Experimental findings should be clear but succinctly the experimental findings

Acknowledgments

Those who contributed to the work but do not meet our authorship criteria should be listed in the Acknowledgments with a description of the contribution.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that anyone named in the Acknowledgments agrees to be named.

Results, Discussion, Conclusions

The above mentioned sections can be separate or combined to produce mixed section. This section further can be divided in to subsections. This section doesn’t have any word limit but the content should be clear and accurate.
Together, these sections should describe the results of the experiments, the interpretation of these results, and the conclusions that can be drawn.
Authors should explain how the results relate to the hypothesis presented as the basis of the study and provide a succinct explanation of the implications of the findings, particularly in relation to previous related studies and potential future directions for research.


References


All research work available within the scope of the manuscript can be cited in the reference section. The acceptable work can be published in reference section from the following sources
Published or accepted manuscripts
Manuscripts on pre-print servers, if the manuscript is submitted to a journal and also publicly available as a pre-print
Do not cite the following sources in the reference list:
Unpublished work and manuscripts which are under review or u published work.
Instead, include those data as supplementary material or deposit the data in a publicly available database.
Personal communication data should be supported by a letter from the relevant authors. It should not include in the references.

References are published in the end of manuscript and order should be maintained as per text reference number in the bracket (citations).
Do not include citations in abstracts or author summaries.
Make sure the parts of the manuscript are in the correct order before ordering the citations.


Supporting Information:


Author needs to submit all supporting information including images or figures, tables, charts, graphs and other multimedia files. All these files subject to peer review process and are submitted along with manuscript and are not more than 10 MB in size.
Supporting files should be publication-ready, as they are not copyedited.

File format :: We accept all DOC, PDF, RTF, or DOCX formats. Microsoft Word documents should not be locked or protected.

Length : There is no restriction in manuscript length or word count, number of figures and supporting information. We encourage you to present and discuss your findings concisely.

Font : standard font and font size

Headings : Limit manuscript sections and sub-sections to 3 heading levels

Layout : Manuscript text should be double-spaced

Footnotes : Footnotes are not permitted

Language : Manuscripts must be submitted in English

Abbreviations : Define abbreviations upon first appearance in the text. Do not use non-standard abbreviations unless they appear at least three times in the text. Keep abbreviations to a minimum

Nomenclature : Use correct and established nomenclature wherever possible

Units of measurement: : Use SI units. If you do not use these exclusively, provide the SI value in parentheses after each value

Drugs : Provide the Recommended International Non-Proprietary Name

Species names : Write in italics (Write out in full the genus and species, both in the title of the manuscript and at the first mention of an organism in a paper. After first mention, the first letter of the genus name followed by the full species name may be used (e.g., H. sapiens).)

Genes, mutations, genotypes, and alleles: Write in italics. Use the recommended name by consulting the appropriate genetic nomenclature database

EDITORIAL GUIDELINES

All manuscripts submitted by authors are treated with transparent and fair & honesty
Editors are responsible for the guidelines stated as per the journal policies and authorship criteria.
Protecting the conflicts of interest for all in the publication process including editors, authors and reviewers.
Editor is responsible for the confidentiality of the manuscripts submitted by the author.
Assigning reviewers to the manuscripts or articles submitted by the author for effective and rapid review process
Editorial discussions and decisions are made with reasonable time and speed in a clear and constructive manner.
Being vigilant in avoiding the possibility of editors and/or referees delaying a manuscript for suspect reasons
Editor is responsible for maintaining the publication ethics and acceptable practices for sharing experimental materials and information
Establishing a procedure for reconsidering editorial decisions
asdadasArticles submission will be evaluated according to the journal guidelines and standard procedures.
Developing mechanisms, in cooperation with the publisher, to ensure timely publication of accepted manuscripts
Clearly communicating all other editorial policies and standards
Editors are responsible (decision making) for the acceptance or rejection of the manuscripts and also suggest possible changes for acceptance.
Verify facts, dates, and statistics, using standard reference sources.
Review and approve proofs submitted by composing room prior to publication production.

REVIEW GUIDELINES


Deciding Whether to Review a Manuscript Conflict of Interest. Reviewers should not accept to review a manuscript if a conflict of interest exists per the AHA Conflict of Interest Policy (reviewer section begins on the bottom of page 4).
Examples of typical conflicts of interest are:strong>
The reviewer has an ownership interest in a company that stands to benefit from the results reported in the manuscript.
The reviewer is currently collaborating with the author or has recently collaborated with the author (i.e. within the past 5 years).
The reviewer feels he or she cannot give an impartial and objective review, free from professional or personal bias.
If you have questions regarding a potential conflict of interest, please contact the handling editor, and he/she will decide whether it is appropriate to review the manuscript.
Time: Please consider whether you can complete the review within 10 days. Also, after agreeing to complete a review, if unforeseen circumstances prevent the reviewer from completing within the allotted time, please contact the editor immediately.

Peer Review Process:

If you realize that a conflict of interest exists after the review process begins, please notify the handling editor immediately.

Ethical Responsibilities during the Review Process

Confidentiality: The reviewer should maintain confidentiality about the existence and substance of the manuscript. It is inappropriate to share the manuscript or to discuss it in detail with others before publication. There are some exceptions, if approved by the editor. One example is that the reviewer may ask a colleague to collaborate on a review. However, your collaborator on the review should also agree to maintain confidentiality, and the editor should be informed of the participation of this additional person.
Reviewer Conduct: as stated in the Uniform Requirements (http://www.icmje.org/#peer), “Reviewers must not publicly discuss authors’ work and must not appropriate authors’ ideas before the manuscript is published. Reviewers must not retain the manuscript for their personal use and should destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting their reviews.” Knowledge of the content of confidential manuscripts should not be used for any other purpose unrelated to the reviewing of the manuscript.
Reporting Concerns: The reviewer also has the responsibility of noting any ethical concerns, not limited to but including suspected duplicate publication, fraud, plagiarism, or ethical concerns about the use of animals or humans in the research being reported.


Constructing a Review:


Rating a manuscript - In this section of the review form, the reviewer ranks the Novelty/Originality,
Scientific Importance/Impact,
Adequacy of Methods/Experimental Design,
Quality of Data/Presentation Results, and
Overall Scientific Priority of the manuscript based on the following scale:
Top 10 % = High Priority
Top 20% = Somewhat High Priority
Top 30% = Average Priority
Upper 50% = Somewhat Low Priority
Lower 50% = Low Priority
N/A = Does not apply to this paper

Manuscripts rated in the upper 20% are more likely to be accepted for publication. The reviewer also makes a recommendation for publication.
Indicate whether you have any concerns regarding the statistical analysis used or if there are any ethical considerations.

In confidential comments to the Editor - Summarize your reasons for your rating and recommendations. Provide specific comments regarding the original aspects of the work and its importance.
In comments to the Author - The comments to the author should not include any statements that indicate to the author your judgment as to the acceptability of the paper for publication. All comments should be stated in a constructive and helpful way. The reviewer should discuss the shortcomings and/or strengths of a study. Include in your critique your judgment of
originality and scientific importance,
adequacy and length of the title,
adequacy of the abstract,
introduction, rationale and clarity of hypothesis
adequacy of experimental design and methods,
quality of data and presentation of results, including figures,
appropriateness of the authors’ interpretation of their data,
length and appropriateness of the discussion, and
Inclusion of recent and appropriate references. If possible, make specific recommendations for revisions.

We publish the special issues to draw attention to under-researched or controversial topics or to new emerging themes in international business. The special issues are invited from recognized experts with in the journal scope and to attract articles of the highest quality
The main objective of the special issues is to integrate and analyze current thinking and debates in a focused area of applied research in order to inform the decision-making and policy-making community.
We accepts the proposal for special issues on topics that fall within the scope of the journal. Proposals for Special Issues should be submitted by the Lead Guest Editor of the Special Issue
A call for papers must be submitted together with the proposal. The proposal for the special issue must contain the following information:
Guest editors: a short biography of the guest editors with a focus on the expertise of the proposed topic and the involvement in relevant communities
Deadlines: appropriate schedule stating the major dates including paper submission, acceptance notice, etc.
Topics: the most important topics related the proposed special issue must be listed List of reviewers: a list of the reviewers of the special issue (their names, links to their homepages and areas of expertise). It is mandatory that all related topics of the issue are covered by the group of reviewers
Distribution and promotion: a plan for the distribution and promotion of the issue and to attract quality submissions.
All proposals are subject to approval by the journal following a discussion of the proposed Special Issue among the journal’s Editorial Board. If approved, a Call-for-Papers for the Special Issue will be issued and posted online.
Special Issues are made freely available online to all interested readers leading to the maximum possible dissemination and recognition within the scientific community.

Responsibilities of Guest Editors
The Guest Editor(s) are responsible for the selection, commissioning, editing and provision of the final manuscripts to the Editors will normally be expected to provide a preface/ introduction to the issue
The Journal Editors will communicate directly with authors only in exceptional circumstances and at relevant points of the production process.
Guest Editors will be expected to update the Journal Editors regularly on the progress of the Special Issue and ensure that authors follow the Journal's presentation and referencing guidelines
Editor will be expected to ensure that all authors supply illustrations of an appropriate quality and that authors obtain all necessary copyright permissions. Relevant documentation should be provided with the final version of the Special Issue will be expected to proof-read the entire volume and to ensure that authors proof-read their contributions should provide full contact details, including email addresses, for all contributors

Special Issue Guidelines

We encourage the submission of proposals for special issues that will be path breaking and exciting for our international readership.

The normal size of special issues is a minimum of 5, maximum of 10 manuscripts (5-7,000 words each, including references).
We strongly encourage a diversity of authorship—especially in terms of country of authors (i.e. not all authors should be from the same country or region).
Conveners of special issues should formally submit a written proposal to any one of the editors that includes a summary of the topic, an argument about its intellectual merits and relation to current debates in social & cultural geography, a complete list of authors (full contact details), titles, abstracts, and a realistic timeline.
The editors will discuss the proposal as a collective. If approved, a single editor will handle all the manuscripts in the special issue (including the convener’s introduction).
Conveners should have their authors submit their individual anonymized manuscripts at roughly the same time (within a few days). Authors (not conveners) should submit to Manuscript Central. In their cover letter, authors should signal that the paper is part of a (named) special issue.
All papers will be refereed in exactly the same way standard We manuscripts are refereed (typically 3 anonymous reviews from around the globe). One editor will handle all the manuscripts. That editor will not be bound to use referees suggested by conveners.
Submitting a manuscript to a special issue does not guarantee acceptance. Papers succeed or fail on their own merits. The Editor’s decision is final.
If an accepted paper has been waiting in the batch-assignment pile for over 9 months, we may need to dissolve the special issue and publish accepted articles as standalone pieces. This is so that successful, timely authors are not penalized by tardy or unsuccessful papers.
Once all of the manuscripts have been accepted, the convener will submit an editorial introduction to the issue. It should not exceed 4,000 words (including references). This introduction normally will not be refereed, but it will be edited by the editor. This must happen quickly to keep things on schedule.

Publication Ethics

Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing


Peer review process: All of a journal’s content, apart from any editorial material that is clearly marked as such, shall be subjected to peer review. Peer review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewer’s expert in the field who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff. This process, as well as any policies related to the journal’s peer review procedures, shall be clearly described on the journal’s Web site.

Governing Body: Journals have editorial boards or other governing bodies whose members are recognized experts in the subject areas included within the journal’s scope. The full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors are provided on the journal’s Web site.

Editorial team/contact information: Journals provide the full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors on the journal’s Web site as well as contact information for the editorial office.

Author fees: Fees or charges that are required for manuscript processing and/or publishing materials are clearly stated in the journal home page, which is easy for potential authors before they begin preparing their manuscript for submission.

Copyright: Copyright and licensing information is clearly described on the journal’s Web site, and licensing terms shall be indicated on all published articles, both HTML and PDFs.

Identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct: Publishers and editors will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In no case any journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. We and our editors follow COPE’s guidelines (or equivalent) in dealing with allegations.

Ownership and management: Information about the ownership and/or management of a journal shall be clearly indicated on the journal’s Web site. Publishers shall not use organizational names that would mislead potential authors and editors about the nature of the journal’s owner.

Web site: A journal’s Web site, including the text that it contains, shall demonstrate that care has been taken to ensure high ethical and professional standards.

Conflicts of interest: We have clear policies on handling potential conflicts of interest of editors, authors, and reviewers and the policies are well defined.

Access: The Journal individual articles are available to readers for free of cost and there is no charge for open access publications.

Revenue sources: We follow Open Access Business model where we will not charge from our readers but we charge authors to maintain the peer review process, online hosting and management of manuscripts.

Publishing schedule: We are an open access publisher who publishes the manuscripts issues quarterly to maintain high quality and standards.

Policies

Open access policy - The Open Access Publication:


We are working in compliance with the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing

The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship, as well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use.

A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication in at least one online repository that is supported by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences, PubMed Central is such a repository).

Open access is a property of individual works, not necessarily journals or publishers.

Community standards, rather than copyright law, will continue to provide the mechanism for enforcement of proper attribution and responsible use of the published work, as they do now.


Privacy Policy


  1. Purpose of collecting and using data

    Collecting your data serves to provide you with user-friendly, efficient and secure internet services. We use the collected and processed personal data in order to provide those users who are interested with information. Furthermore, we generally process the data with the goal of improving our service and ensuring its security. No personal data is processed: we process the data anonymously or using pseudonyms. Whenever you complete transactions using our website, e.g. opening a user account and / or purchasing a publication, further data processing processes may take place, of which you will of course be separately informed.

  2. The form and scope of collecting and processing personal data

    a) Inventory data
    If you wish to receive a newsletter we need to save and use your e-mail address. We will then send electronic messages at appropriate intervals to the e-mail address you gave us, which may also contain topic-specific advertisements along with editorial information on our products and services. However, you can unsubscribe at any time.

    b) Usage data
    As a general rule, you may access our websites without having to provide any personal data. Nevertheless, we will create a so-called utilization profile by using a pseudonym if you visit our websites as a registered or unregistered user. This implies that data will be collected and saved anonymously for marketing and optimization purposes. This data includes information on the website from which you were taken to our offer, information on your internet service provider and the offers you viewed on our website, as well as the date and length of your visit. On the basis of this already pseudonymous data a utilization profile will be created, along with a corresponding pseudonym. For this purpose, cookies may be used (see subparagraph 5 below). Authentication and tracking logs will be used to compile user statistics. This data will not contain any personally identifiable information.

  3. Passing on data to third parties

    We only pass on personal data to a third party to the extent necessary to fulfill our contractual relationship (if at all), if we are bound by law or if it should be necessary in order to implement our general terms and conditions of business or any other agreements concluded with you, or in order to enforce our rights and claims.
    Provided your personal data is passed on for other purposes we will ask for your approval in each individual case. If you do not approve we will of course not pass on the data.

  4. Disclosure, rectification, deletion, account freezing

    Provided you send us a request in writing, we will inform you about which personal data we have saved at any time. You may at any time demand that we freeze or delete your user account data and accordingly your personal data. Only data we need in order to process open tasks or to enforce our rights are exempt from deletion, as well as data we are required to save by law.

  5. Security

    We employ technical and organizational security measures to guarantee that your data is protected from loss, incorrect modifications and unauthorized third-party access. To the greatest extent possible, we ensure that only authorized persons have access to your personal data and only insofar as it is necessary in the scope of the above-mentioned purposes.

Plagiarism and Copyright
Journal editors and readers have a right to expect that submitted work is the author's own, that it has not been plagiarized (i.e. taken from other authors without permission, if permission is required) and that copyright has not been breached (for example, if figures or tables are reproduced). Protecting intellectual property Journal owners and authors have a right to protect their intellectual property. • Different systems are available to protect intellectual property and journals must choose whichever best suits their purpose and ethos. Some journals require authors to relinquish their copyright, other journals license content from authors, whereas others adopt an open-access model under creative commons licenses. Publisher recommends adoption of a system that licenses content from authors, rather than more traditional systems that require copyright assignment/transfer by authors. Peer reviewer conduct and intellectual property Authors are entitled to expect that peer reviewers or other individuals privy to the work an author submits to a journal will not steal their research ideas or plagiarize their work. Journal guidelines to peer reviewers should be explicit about the roles and responsibilities of peer reviewers, in particular the need to treat submitted material in confidence until it has been published. Journals should ask peer reviewers to destroy submitted manuscripts after they have reviewed them. Editors should expect allegations of theft or plagiarism to be substantiated, and should treat allegations of theft or plagiarism seriously. Editors should protect peer reviewers from authors and, even if peer reviewer identities are revealed, should discourage authors from contacting peer reviewers directly, especially if misconduct is suspected.

Plagiarism is claiming that someone else's writing, experiments, and/or research are your own. This is done by copying another person’s work including articles and/or experiments that are not common knowledge without a reference to that work.

Copying includes using the figures, charts, diagrams, equations, computer code, graphs, photographs, text, abstract, or subject headings of a previous work without proper reference. Copying also includes cutting and pasting substantial portions of text from another work without proper reference.

Why is plagiarism wrong?

Plagiarism is wrong because it is the theft of the work of another author. The work of another author is the intellectual property of that author. By failing to make a proper reference to that author's work, the plagiarist is stealing that property. For more information on plagiarism, please visit www.bbk.ac.uk

Why is self-plagiarism wrong?

Self-plagiarism is wrong because when you are copying some of your previous work in a new publication without proper referencing, you are asking for the same credit twice. Thus, self-plagiarism is dishonest and goes against academic integrity.

What happens to authors found to have plagiarized work?

STJ will not publish plagiarized work, and further work from that author will not be read and/or reviewed for two years.

  • When STJ believes that the author made a good faith error in interpreting the Guidelines, STJ may request that the author change the paper to conform to the Guidelines.
  • STJ reserves the right to change the Guidelines at any time and without notice. Authors are subject to the Guidelines in effect at the date of submission of their work to STJ. Please feel free to contact STJ if you have further questions.
  • Common knowledge is a fact that is widely known and available in many sources. An author does not need to cite common knowledge. The following are some guidelines to what knowledge is common which can also be found in encyclopaedias, dictionaries, or other common sources.
  • For example, the following is rarely common knowledge:"The Gluglac Basin Council paid for the study examining the effects of transferring 950 m3/day of water to new urban developments."
    A fact that is widely known and available in many sources in a specific field need not be cited. If first-year undergraduate students would know this fact, it is probably common knowledge in the specific field.
  • The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings.
  • Transparency
    Who funded the work?
    Readers have a right to know who funded a research project or the publication of a document. Sources of funding for research or publication should always be disclosed. Authors should routinely include information about research funding in all papers they prepare for publication. Where a clinical trial registration number is available, this should be included. Research funders, Type of publication, the role of the research funder details and other sources of support for publications should be clearly identified in the manuscript, usually in an acknowledgment. The role of the research funder, as well as the role of all parties contributing to the research and publication, in designing the research, recruiting investigators/authors, collecting the data, analyzing the data, preparing the manuscript or controlling publication decisions should be stated in the publication, unless this is obvious from the list of authors/contributors.

Authorship Everyone who is listed as an author should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual contribution to the work. For example (in the case of a research report) they should have contributed to the conception, design, analysis and/or interpretation of data. Honorary or guest authorship is not acceptable. Acquisition of funding and provision of technical services, patients, or materials, while they may be essential to the work, are not in themselves sufficient contributions to justify authorship.

Everyone who has made substantial intellectual contributions to the work should be an author. Everyone who has made other substantial contributions should be acknowledged.

When research is done by teams whose members are highly specialized, individuals' contributions and responsibility may be limited to specific aspects of the work.

All authors should participate in writing the manuscript by reviewing drafts and approving the final version. One author should take primary responsibility for the work as a whole even if he or she does not have an in-depth understanding of every part of the work.

This primary author should assure that all authors meet basic standards for authorship and should prepare a concise, written description of their contributions to the work, which has been approved by all authors. This record should remain with the sponsoring department.

Order of Authorship: Many different ways of determining order of authorship exist across disciplines, research groups, and countries. Examples of authorship policies include descending order of contribution, placing the person who took the lead in writing the manuscript or doing the research first and the most experienced contributor last, and alphabetical or random order. While the significance of a particular order may be understood in a given setting, order of authorship has no generally agreed upon meaning.

As a result, it is not possible to interpret from order of authorship the respective contributions of individual authors. Promotion committees, granting agencies, readers, and others who seek to understand how individual authors have contributed to the work should not read into order of authorship their own meaning, which may not be shared by the authors themselves.

The authors should decide the order of authorship together. Authors should specify in their manuscript a description of the contributions of each author and how they have assigned the order in which they are listed so that readers can interpret their roles correctly. The primary author should prepare a concise, written description of how order of authorship was decided.

Implementation: Research teams should discuss authorship issues frankly early in the course of their work together. Disputes over authorship are best settled at the local level by the authors themselves or the laboratory chief. If local efforts fail, the Faculty of Medicine can assist in resolving grievances through its Ombuds Office. Laboratories, departments, educational programs, and other organizations sponsoring scholarly work should post, and also include in their procedure manuals, both this statement and a description of their own customary ways of deciding who should be an author and the order in which they are listed. They should include authorship policies in their orientation of new members.

Authorship should be a component of the research ethics course that is required for all research fellows at Harvard Medical School.

These policies should be reviewed periodically because both scientific investigation and authorship practices are changing.

Who did the work?

The list of authors should accurately reflect who did the work. All published work should be attributed to one or more authors.
Editors should ask for a declaration that the authors have acknowledged all significant contributions made to their publication by individuals who did not meet the journal's criteria for authorship. These might include, for example and depending on their contribution, author's editors, statisticians, medical writers, or translators. If an authorship dispute or discrepancy comes to light before publication (for example, changes to the list of authors are proposed after submission), editors should take care to explain the journal's authorship policy to the corresponding author and to establish that all authors agree to the change before proceeding with publication. If an authorship dispute emerges after publication (for example, somebody contacts the editor claiming they should have been an author of a published paper, or requesting that their name be withdrawn from a paper), the editor should contact the corresponding author and, where possible, the other authors to establish the veracity of the case.
If authorship policies have been clearly set out and an explicit authorship declaration(s) has been received (stating that all authors meet agreed criteria and that nobody deserving authorship has been omitted), then genuine errors are unlikely – however, editors should consider publishing a correction in the case of such errors. Has the work been published before?
Most journals wish to consider only work that has not been published elsewhere. One reason for this is that the scientific literature can be skewed by redundant publication, with important consequences, for example, if results are inadvertently included more than once into meta-analyses. Both journal editors and readers have a right to know whether research has been published previously.
Author needs to declare that the submitted work and its essential substance have not previously been published and are not being considered for publication elsewhere.
If a primary research report is published and later found to be redundant (i.e. has been published before), the editor should contact the authors and consider publishing a notice of redundant publication.
Editors have a right to demand original work and to question authors about whether opinion pieces (for example, editorials, letters, non-systematic reviews) have been published before; journals should establish a policy about how much overlap is considered acceptable between such publications.
Journals that publish clinical trials should consider making registration a requirement before publication of such trials. Even if a journal does not make clinical trial registration compulsory for publication, editors should encourage clear identification of clinical trials and should have a policy about where such information is presented within the structure of the published article.
Papers that present new analyses or syntheses of data that have already been published (for example, sub-group analyses) should identify the primary data source, including reference to the clinical trial registration number if one is available and full reference to the related primary publications.

Research misconduct:
If editors suspect research misconduct (for example, data fabrication, falsification or plagiarism), they should attempt to ensure that this is properly investigated by the appropriate authorities.
Peer review sometimes reveals suspicion of misconduct. Editors should inform peer reviewers about this potential role.
If peer reviewers raise concerns of serious misconduct (for example, data fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, or plagiarism), these should be taken seriously. However, authors have a right to respond to such allegations and for investigations to be carried out with appropriate speed and due diligence. Journals are not usually in a position to investigate misconduct allegations themselves, but editors have a responsibility to alert appropriate bodies (for example, employers, funders, regulatory authorities) and encourage them to investigate.
Peer reviewer selection and performance:
Editors have a responsibility to ensure a high standard of objective, unbiased, and timely peer review.
Editors should strive to establish and maintain a database of suitably qualified peer reviewers.
Editors should consider objectively monitoring the performance of peer reviewers/editorial board members and recording the quality and timeliness of their reviews. Editors should ignore rude, defamatory peer review. Peer reviewers who repeatedly produce poor quality, tardy, abusive or unconstructive reviews should not be used again. Editors should encourage peer reviewers to identify if they have a conflict of interest with the material they are being asked to review, and editors should ask that peer reviewers decline invitations requesting peer review where any circumstances might prevent them producing fair peer review. See ‘Conflicts of interest’, p. 8. If authors request that an individual (or individuals) does not peer review their paper, editors should use this information to inform their choice of peer reviewer.
Editors may choose to use peer reviewers suggested by authors, but should not consider suggestions made by authors as binding.
Editors should request that peer reviewers who delegate peer review to members of their staff inform the editor when this occurs.
Appeals:
Authors have a right to appeal editorial decisions.
Journals should establish a mechanism for authors to appeal peer review decisions. Explaining such a system clearly in the journal's instructions may benefit both authors and editors (for example, by discouraging repeated or unfounded appeals).
Editors should mediate all exchanges between authors and peer reviewers during the peer-review process (i.e. prior to publication). If agreement cannot be reached, editors should consider inviting comments from additional peer reviewer(s), if the editor feels that this would be helpful. Journals should consider stating in their guidelines that the editor's decision following such an appeal is final.
Journals should consider having a mechanism for authors (and others) to comment on aspects of the journal's management.
Conflicts of interest:
Editors, authors, and peer reviewers have a responsibility to disclose interests that might appear to affect their ability to present or review data objectively. These include relevant financial (for example, patent ownership, stock ownership, consultancies, speaker's fees), personal, political, intellectual, or religious interests.
Editors and board members should, whenever these are relevant to the content being considered or published, declare their interests and affiliations.
Editors should seek disclosure statements from all authors and peer reviewers and should clearly explain the types of conflicts of interest that should be disclosed. Authors’ conflicts of interest (or information describing the absence of conflicts of interest) should be published whenever these are directly or indirectly relevant to the content being published and whenever they are significant. For example, owning USD10 stock in a company that manufactures a product discussed in an article would not be significant, whereas consultancy fees of USD10,000 annually or the equivalent of 5% of an author's gross income from the previous year could be considered significant. Editors may consider not publishing details of authors’ interests when these interests have no relevance to the content being published. If there is doubt about whether conflicts are relevant or significant, it is prudent to disclose.
The existence of a conflict of interest (for example, employment with a research funder) should not prevent someone from being listed as an author if they qualify for authorship. Editors may prefer not to commission subjective articles (for example, editorials or non-systematic reviews) from authors with conflicts of interest. However, arguments can be made that such authors are often well informed and have interesting opinions. Strict policies preventing people with conflicts of interest from publishing opinion pieces may encourage authors to conceal relevant interests, and may therefore be counter-productive.
Readers will benefit from transparency, including knowing authors’ and contributors’ affiliations and interests. Editors should strive to maintain transparent policies and procedures regarding authorship and disclosure of conflicts of interest.
Editorial independence:
Editorial independence should be respected. Journal owners (both learned societies and publishers) should not interfere with editorial decisions. The relationship between the editor and the journal owner and publisher should be set out in a formal contract and an appeal mechanism for disputes should be established.
Decisions by editors about whether to publish individual items submitted to a journal should not be influenced by pressure from the editor's employer, the journal owner or the publisher. Ideally, the principles of editorial independence should be set out in the editor's contract. Editors’ contracts at Blackwell Publishing describe the principles of editorial independence.
Editors, journal owners, and publishers should establish processes that minimize the risk of editorial decisions being influenced by commercial, academic, personal or political factors.
It is often impossible to completely insulate editorial decisions from issues that may influence them, such as commercial considerations. For example, editors will know which articles are likely to attract offprint or reprint sales, but they should judge all submissions on their scientific merit and minimize the influence of other factors. If journals publish advertisements, the sale of advertising must be handled separately from editorial processes.
Journals that publish special issues, supplements or sections (or similar material) funded by third-party organizations should establish policies for how these are handled. The funding organization (the supporter or sometimes sponsor) should not be allowed to influence the selection or editing of submissions, and all funded items should be clearly identified.
All funded material should meet the aims and purposes of the journal carrying the material.
Accuracy:
Journal editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the material they publish.
Journal editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the material they publish.
Editors should publish corrections if errors are discovered that could affect the interpretation of data or information presented in an article.
Corrections arising from errors within an article (by authors or journals) should be distinguishable from retractions and statements of concern relating to misconduct (see ‘Informing readers about research and publication misconduct’, p. 5).
Corrections should be included in indexing systems and linked to the original article wherever possible.
Academic debate:
Journals should encourage academic debate.
Journals should encourage correspondence commenting on published items and should always invite authors to respond to any correspondence before publication. However, authors do not have a right to veto unfavorable comments about their work and they may choose not to respond to criticisms.
Neither peer-reviewer comments nor published correspondence should contain personal attacks on the authors. Editors should encourage peer reviewers to criticize the work not the researcher and should edit (or reject) letters containing personal or offensive statements.
Responsible publication practices:
Editors should pursue cases of suspected misconduct that become apparent during the peer-review and publication processes, to the extent and in the ways defined in this document in the ‘Promoting research integrity’ section (p. 4). Editors should first work with the authors, the journal owners and/or the journal publishers (at Blackwell Publishing this is via the Journal Publishing Manager), referring to information from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), or another appropriate body if further advice is needed.
In instances of confirmed misconduct, editors may consider imposing sanctions on the authors at fault for a period of time. Sanctions must be applied consistently. Before imposing sanctions, editors should formally define the conditions in which they will apply (and remove) sanctions, and the processes they will use to do this. Editors of Blackwell journals are encouraged to consult Blackwell Publishing if considering sanctions to ensure that the appropriate processes are applied.
A body such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) can provide editors with impartial advice from other editors about difficult cases, provide information about the prevalence of various types of misconduct and other ethical issues, and allow editors to learn from other journals’ experiences by reference to previous cases.

PUBLISHING PRACTICES
Peer review process: All of a journal’s content, apart from any editorial material that is clearly marked as such, shall be subjected to peer review. Peer review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewer’s expert in the field who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff. This process, as well as any policies related to the journal’s peer review procedures, shall be clearly described on the journal’s Web site.
Governing Body: Journals shall have editorial boards or other governing bodies whose members are recognized experts in the subject areas included within the journal’s scope. The full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors shall be provided on the journal’s Web site.
Editorial team/contact information: Journals shall provide the full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors on the journal’s Web site as well as contact information for the editorial office.
Author fees: Any fees or charges that are required for manuscript processing and/or publishing materials in the journal shall be clearly stated in a place that is easy for potential authors to find prior to submitting their manuscripts for review or explained to authors before they begin preparing their manuscript for submission.
Copyright: Copyright and licensing information shall be clearly described on the journal’s Web site, and licensing terms shall be indicated on all published articles, both HTML and PDFs.
Identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct: Publishers and editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In no case shall a journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. In the event that a journal’s publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in their journal - the publisher or editor shall follow COPE’s guidelines (or equivalent) in dealing with allegations.
Ownership and management: Information about the ownership and/or management of a journal shall be clearly indicated on the journal’s Web site. Publishers shall not use organizational names that would mislead potential authors and editors about the nature of the journal’s owner.
Web site: A journal’s Web site, including the text that it contains, shall demonstrate that care has been taken to ensure high ethical and professional standards. .
Name of journal: The Journal name shall be unique and not be one that is easily confused with another journal or that might mislead potential authors and readers about the Journal’s origin or association with other journals. Conflicts of interest: A journal shall have clear policies on handling potential conflicts of interest of editors, authors, and reviewers and the policies should be clearly stated.
Access: The way(s) in which the journal and individual articles are available to readers and whether there are associated subscription or pay per view fees shall be stated.
Revenue sources: Business models or revenue sources (eg, author fees, subscriptions, advertising, reprints, institutional support, and organizational support) shall be clearly stated or otherwise evident on the journal’s Web site.
Advertising: Journals shall state their advertising policy if relevant, including what types of ads will be considered, who makes decisions regarding accepting ads and whether they are linked to content or reader behaviour (online only) or are displayed at random.
Publishing schedule: The periodicity at which a journal publishes shall be clearly indicated.
Archiving: A journal’s plan for electronic backup and preservation of access to the journal content (for example, access to main articles via CLOCKSS or PubMed Central) in the event a journal is no longer published shall be clearly indicated.
Direct marketing: Any direct marketing activities, including solicitation of manuscripts that are conducted on behalf of the journal, shall be appropriate, well targeted, and unobtrusive
SPECIAL ISSUE
The main objective of the special issues is to integrate and analyse current thinking and debates in a focused
area of applied research in order to inform the decision-making and policy-making community.
Applied Cell Biology accepts the proposal for special issues on topics that fall within the scope of the journal. Proposals for Special Issues should be submitted by the Lead Guest Editor of the Special Issue A call for papers must be submitted together with the proposal. The proposal for the special issue must contain the following information:
Guest editors: a short biography of the guest editors with a focus on the expertise of the proposed topic and the involvement in relevant communities
Deadlines: appropriate schedule stating the major dates including paper submission, acceptance notice, etc.
Topics: the most important topics related the proposed special issue must be listed
List of reviewers: a list of the reviewers of the special issue (their names, links to their homepages and areas of expertise). It is mandatory that all related topics of the issue are covered by the group of reviewers Distribution and promotion: a plan for the distribution and promotion of the issue and to attract quality submissions
All proposals are subject to approval by the journal following a discussion of the proposed Special Issue among the journal’s Editorial Board. If approved, a Call-for-Papers for the Special Issue will be issued and posted online.
Special Issues are made freely available online to all interested readers leading to the maximum possible dissemination and recognition within the scientific community.
Responsibilities of Guest Editors
The Guest Editor(s) are responsible for the selection, commissioning, editing and provision of the final manuscripts to the Editors will normally be expected to provide a preface/ introduction to the issue The Journal Editors will communicate directly with authors only in exceptional circumstances and at relevant points of the production process.
Guest Editors will be expected to update the Journal Editors regularly on the progress of the Special Issue and ensure that authors follow the Journal's presentation and referencing guidelines Editor will be expected to ensure that all authors supply illustrations of an appropriate quality and that authors obtain all necessary copyright permissions. Relevant documentation should be provided with the final version of the Special Issue will be expected to proof-read the entire volume and to ensure that authors proof-read their contributions should provide full contact details, including email addresses, for all contributors Special Issue Guidelines
Applied Cell Biology encourages the submission of proposals for special issues that will be path breaking and exciting for our international readership.
The normal size of special issues is a minimum of 5, maximum of 10 manuscripts (5-7,000 words each, including references).
We strongly encourage a diversity of authorship—especially in terms of country of authors (i.e. not all authors should be from the same country or region).
Conveners of special issues should formally submit a written proposal to any one of the editors that includes a summary of the topic, an argument about its intellectual merits and relation to current debates in social & cultural geography, a complete list of authors (full contact details), titles, abstracts, and a realistic timeline.
The editors will discuss the proposal as a collective. If approved, a single editor will handle all the manuscripts in the special issue (including the convener’s introduction).
Conveners should have their authors submit their individual anonymized manuscripts at roughly the same time (within a few days). Authors (not conveners) should submit to Manuscript Central. In their cover letter, authors should signal that the paper is part of a (named) special issue.
All papers will be refereed in exactly the same way standard Applied Cell Biology manuscripts are refereed (typically 3 anonymous reviews from around the globe). One editor will handle all the manuscripts. That editor will not be bound to use referees suggested by conveners.
Submitting a manuscript to a special issue does not guarantee acceptance. Papers succeed or fail on their own merits. The Editor’s decision is final.
If an accepted paper has been waiting in the batch-assignment pile for over 9 months, we may need to dissolve the special issue and publish accepted articles as standalone pieces. This is so that successful, timely authors are not penalized by tardy or unsuccessful papers.
Once all of the manuscripts have been accepted, the convener will submit an editorial introduction to the issue. It should not exceed 4,000 words (including references). This introduction normally will not be refereed, but it will be edited by the editor. This must happen quickly to keep things on schedule.