The
Agrobiological Records
is a Quarterly (January-March; April-June;
July-September; October-December) published by the
Unique Scientific Publishers. This journal is a
peer-reviewed and open-access journal that publishes
high-quality original research articles, review
articles, short communications, and clinical
articles/case reports in the areas of Agriculture,
Veterinary/Animal Sciences, Life/Biomedical
Sciences, and allied disciplines. The
Agrobiological Records publishes
articles/manuscripts that contribute significant
knowledge. Preference is given to original articles
that develop new concepts or experimental
approaches, rather than merely serving as
repositories of scientific data.
The formal part of the
scholarly communication system, the publication of
an article in a peer-reviewed learned journal,
serves many purposes outside of simple
communication. It is a building block in developing
a rational and respected knowledge network. It is
prima facie evidence for the quality and impact of
the research work of its authors and, by extension,
the institutions that support them. It supports and
is itself an example of the scientific method. For
all these reasons and more, it is essential to
establish standards of expected ethical behavior for
all parties involved in publishing: the author, the
journal editor, the peer reviewer, and the
publisher. This includes all parties treating each
other with respect and dignity and without
discrimination, harassment, bullying, or
retaliation.
These guidelines are
designed specifically for primary research journals
but may also be relevant for review and other
professional publications. Individual journals
often have more elaborate or distinct ethical
procedures, generally reflected in their Guide for
Authors. Many journals also accept and are, in many
cases, founding participants concerning
discipline-specific standards or standard-setting
bodies, such as the International Council of Medical
Journal Editors (ICMJE) and
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT).
The ethical requirements for publishers, editors,
reviewers, and authors include, but are not limited
to, the following:
1.1. Publisher:
We require publishers to promote and comply with
industry best practices. The publisher shall
provide editors with technical, procedural, and
legal support, ensuring their editorial decisions
are independent and not influenced by any other
factors.
1.2. Editors:
The editors shall follow the industry best practice,
including but not limited to ensuring the editorial
decisions they make and the peer review process are
fair, unbiased, and timely.
1.3. Reviewers:Reviewers shall assist the editors in making
editorial decisions and may also assist the author
in improving the paper. Reviews should be conducted
objectively, and reviewers are responsible for
ensuring the review process is fair, unbiased, and
timely. 1.4. Authors:The authors should ensure that they have
written entirely original works and should not, in
general, publish manuscripts describing essentially
the same research in more than one journal.
Does your
research involve experimentation on animals? Please
provide the name of the ethical committee approving
these experiments and confirm the authors'
compliance with all relevant ethical regulations.
Suppose the work involves
the use of animal or human subjects. In that case,
the author should ensure that the manuscript
contains a statement that all procedures comply with
relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that
the appropriate institutional committee(s) have
approved them. Authors should include a statement
in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained
for experimentation with human subjects. The
privacy rights of human subjects must always be
observed.
All animal experiments
should comply with the
ARRIVE guidelinesand should be carried out in accordance
with the UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
and associated guidelines (UK
Animal Act 1986) or EU Directive 2010/63/EU
on the protection of animals used for scientific
purposes (EU
Directive 2010), or the US Public Health
Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory
Animals and, as applicable, the
Animal Welfare Act.
All authors
must declare any financial and personal
relationships with other people or
institutions/organizations that could unsuitably
affect their research work. Examples of potential
conflicts of interest include employment,
friendships or kinship relationships, consultancies,
stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony,
patent applications/registrations, and grants or
other forms of funding. All authors, including
those withoutcompeting interests to
declare, should create a declaration of competing
interest statement (which, where relevant, may
specify they have nothing to declare). If authors do
not have a CoI, then they must declare no potential
conflict of interest.
4.1. Guardianship of the scholarly
record
These guidelines have been written with all these requirements in mind, particularly recognizing the vital role of the publisher in supporting the significant efforts of journal editors and the often unsung volunteer work of peer reviewers in maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. Although ethical codes inevitably concentrate on the infractions that sometimes occur, it is a tribute to scholarly practice that the system works so well and that problems are comparatively rare. The publisher has a supporting, investing, and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications (STM;COPE
Codes of Conduct).
The
Unique Scientific Publishers takes its duties of
guardianship over the scholarly record seriously.
Our journals record "the minutes of science," and we
recognize our responsibilities as the keepers of
those "minutes" in all our policies, not least the
ethical guidelines we have adopted here.
The
Unique Scientific Publishers is adopting these
policies and procedures to support editors,
reviewers, and authors in performing their ethical
duties under these guidelines. We work with other
publishers and industry associations to set
standards for best practices on ethical matters,
errors, and retractions.
4.2. Safeguard editorial independence
We are committed to ensuring that the
potential for advertising, reprint, or other
commercial revenue has no impact or influence on
editorial decisions.
4.3. Collaborate to set industry best
practice
We promote best practices by opting for the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
guidelines and providing editors with
Crossref/Turnitin Similarity Check reports for all
submissions to our editorial systems.
4.4. Provide editors with technical,
procedural & legal support
We support editors in communications with
other journals or publishers where this is useful to
editors and are prepared to provide specialized
legal review and counsel if necessary.
4.5. Educate researchers on publishing
ethics
We also provide extensive education and advice
on publishing ethics standards, particularly for
early career researchers, by conducting various
workshops in institutions.
5.1. Publication decisions
The editor of a learned
journal is solely and independently responsible for
deciding which of the articles submitted to the
journal should be published. The validation of the
work in question and its importance to researchers
and readers must always underwrite such decisions.
The editor may be guided by the policies of the
journal's editorial board and constrained by such
legal requirements as shall then be in force
regarding issues such as libel, copyright
infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer
with other editors or reviewers in making these
decisions.
5.2. Peer review
The editor shall ensure that
the peer-review process is fair, unbiased, and
timely. At least two external and independent
reviewers must typically review research articles;
where necessary, the editor should seek additional
opinions.
The editor shall select
reviewers with suitable expertise in the relevant
field, considering the need for appropriate,
inclusive, and diverse representation. The editor
shall follow best practices to avoid the selection
of fraudulent peer reviewers (WAME
Best Practice). The editor shall review all
disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and
suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers to
determine whether there is any potential for bias.
5.3. Fair play
The editor should evaluate
manuscripts for their intellectual content without
regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual
orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin,
citizenship, or political philosophy. When
nominating potential editorial board members, the
editor shall consider the need for appropriate,
inclusive, and diverse representation.
The journal's editorial
policies should encourage transparency and complete,
honest reporting. The editor should ensure that peer
reviewers and authors clearly understand what is
expected of them. The editor shall use the
journal's standard electronic submission system for
all communications. The editor shall establish,
along with the publisher, a transparent mechanism
for appeal against editorial decisions.
5.4. Journal metrics
The editor must not attempt
to influence the journal's ranking by artificially
increasing any journal metric. In particular, the
editor shall not require that references to that (or
any other) journal's articles be included except for
genuine scholarly reasons, and authors should not be
required to include references to the editor's
articles or products and services in which the
editor has an interest.
5.5. Confidentiality
The editor must protect the
confidentiality of all material submitted to the
journal and all communications with reviewers unless
otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and
reviewers. In exceptional circumstances and in
consultation with the publisher, the editor may
share limited information with editors of other
journals where necessary to investigate suspected
research misconduct (COPE
Guidelines).
Unless the journal operates
an open peer-review system and/or reviewers have
agreed to disclose their names, the editor must
protect reviewers' identities.
Unpublished materials
disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used
in an editor's own research without the author's
express written consent. Privileged information or
ideas obtained through peer review must be
confidential and not used for personal advantage.
5.6. Declaration of Competing
Interests
Any potential editorial
conflicts of interest should be declared to the
publisher before the editor's appointment and
updated if and when new conflicts arise. The
publisher may publish such declarations in the
journal.
The editor must not be
involved in decisions about papers that he/she has
written him/herself or have been written by family
members, colleagues, or related to products or
services in which the editor has an interest.
Further, any such submission must be subject to all
of the journal's usual procedures, peer review must
be handled independently of the relevant
author/editor and their research groups, and there
must be a clear statement to this effect on any such
paper that is published.
The editor should work to
safeguard the integrity of the published record by
reviewing and assessing reported or suspected
misconduct (research, publication, reviewer, and
editorial) in conjunction with the publisher.
Such measures will generally
include contacting the author of the manuscript or
paper and giving due consideration to the respective
complaint or claims made, but may also include
further communications to the relevant institutions
and research bodies. The editor shall make proper
use of the publisher's systems to detect misconduct,
such as plagiarism.
An editor presented with
convincing evidence of misconduct should coordinate
with the publisher to arrange the prompt publication
of a correction, retraction, expression of concern,
or other correction to the record, as may be
relevant.
6.1. Contribution to Editorial
Decisions
Peer review helps the editor
make editorial decisions, and the communications
with the author may also assist the author in
improving the paper. Peer review is essential to
formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart
of the scientific method. In addition to the
specific ethics-related duties described below,
reviewers are asked to treat authors and their work
as they would like to be treated and observe good
reviewing etiquette.
Any selected referee who
feels unqualified to review the research reported in
a manuscript or knows its prompt review will be
impossible should notify the editor and decline to
participate in the review process.
6.2. Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for
review must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers must not share the review or information
about the paper with anyone or contact the authors
directly without permission from the editor.
Some editors encourage
discussion with colleagues or co-reviewing
exercises. Still, reviewers should discuss this
with the editor to ensure that confidentiality is
observed and that participants receive suitable
credit.
Unpublished materials
disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used
in a reviewer's own research without the author's
express written consent. Privileged information or
ideas obtained through peer review must be
confidential and not used for personal advantage.
6.3. Alertness to Ethical Issues
A reviewer should be alert
to potential ethical issues in the paper and bring
these to the editor's attention, including any
substantial similarity or overlap between the
manuscript under consideration and any other
published paper of which the reviewer has personal
knowledge. The relevant citation should accompany
any statement that had previously reported
observation, derivation, or argument.
6.4. Standards of Objectivity &
Competing Interests
Reviewers should conduct
reviews objectively. Reviewers should be aware of
personal bias and consider this when reviewing a
paper. Personal criticism of the author is
inappropriate. Referees should express their views
clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should consult the
editor before agreeing to review a paper if they
have potential conflicts of interest due to
competitive, collaborative, or other relationships
or connections with any authors, companies, or
institutions related to the paper.
Suppose a reviewer
suggests that an author include citations to the
reviewer's (or their associates') work. In that
case, this must be for genuine scientific reasons
and not to increase the reviewer's citation count or
enhance the visibility of their work (or that of
their associates).
7.1. Reporting Standards
Authors of manuscripts based
on original research should present an accurate
account of the work performed and an objective
discussion of its significance. Underlying data
should be represented accurately in the paper. A
paper should contain sufficient detail and
references to permit others to replicate the work.
Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements
constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Review and professional publication articles should
be accurate and objective, and clearly identify
editorial 'opinion' works.
7.2. Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to
provide the research data supporting their article
for editorial review and/or to comply with the open
data requirements of the journal. Authors should be
prepared to provide public access to such data, if
practicable, and should be prepared to retain such
data for a reasonable number of years after
publication. Authors may refer to their journal's
Guide for Authors for further details.
7.3. Originality and Acknowledgement
of Sources
The authors should ensure
that they have written entirely original works, and
if the authors have used the work and/or words of
others, that this has been appropriately cited or
quoted, and permission has been obtained where
necessary.
Proper acknowledgment of the
work of others must always be given. Authors should
cite publications that have influenced the reported
work and give the work appropriate context within
the larger scholarly record. Information obtained
privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or
discussion with third parties, must not be used or
reported without explicit, written permission from
the source.
Plagiarism takes many forms,
from 'passing off' another's article as the author's
own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of
another's paper (without attribution), to claiming
results from research conducted by others.
Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical
behavior and is unacceptable.
7.4. Multiple, Redundant, or
Concurrent Publication
An author should not
generally publish manuscripts describing the same
research in more than one journal or primary
publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more
than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical
behavior and is unacceptable.
In general, an author should
not submit for consideration in another journal a
paper that has been published previously, except in
the form of an abstract, as part of a published
lecture or academic thesis, or as an electronic
preprint.
Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g., clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Further details on acceptable forms of secondary publication can be found in the
ICMJE.
7.5. Confidentiality
Information obtained in the
course of confidential services, such as refereeing
manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used
without the explicit written permission of the
author of the work involved in these services.
7.6. Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited
to those who have contributed significantly to the
conception, design, execution, or interpretation of
the reported study. All those who have made
substantial contributions should be listed as
co-authors.
The acknowledgments section
should recognize others who have participated in
certain substantive aspects of the article (e.g.,
language editing or writing).
The corresponding author
should ensure that appropriate co-authors are
included in the article and that no inappropriate
co-authors are included. The corresponding author
must endure that all co-authors have seen and
approved the final version of the article and have
agreed to its submission for publication.
Authors are expected to
consider the list and order of authors carefully
before submitting their manuscript and provide the
definitive list of authors at the time of the
original submission. Only in exceptional
circumstances will the editor consider (at their
discretion) the addition, deletion, or rearrangement
of authors after the manuscript has been submitted,
and the author must flag any such request to the
editor. All authors must agree with any such
addition, removal, or rearrangement.
Authors take collective
responsibility for the work. Each author is
accountable for ensuring that questions related to
the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work
are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Agrobiological records have particular definitions
of authorship, which are based on medical journals
as defined by the ICMJE. The authors should ensure that
they comply with the policies of the relevant
journal.
7.7. Hazards
Subjects
Suppose the work involves
chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any
unusual hazards inherent in their use. In that case,
the author must identify these hazards in the
manuscript and clearly state that they may occur.
7.8. Declaration of Competing
Interests
WAME defines conflict of
interest as "a divergence
between an individual's
private interests (competing interests) and his or
her responsibilities to scientific and publishing
activities, such that a reasonable observer might
wonder if the individual's
behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations
of his or her competing interests"
(WAME
Editorial statement on COI). All authors
should disclose in their manuscript any financial
and personal relationships with other people or
organizations that could be viewed as
inappropriately influencing (bias) their work.
All sources of financial
support for the conduct of the research and/or
preparation of the article should be disclosed, as
should the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study
design; in the collection, analysis, and
interpretation of data; in the writing of the
report; and in the decision to submit the article
for publication. This should be stated if the
funding source(s) had no such involvement.
Examples of potential conflicts of interest that
should be disclosed include employment,
consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid
expert testimony, patent applications/registrations,
and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of
interest should be disclosed at the earliest
possible stage (WAME
Editorial statement on COI).
7.9.
Notification of Fundamental
Errors
When an author discovers a
significant error or inaccuracy in their own
published work, it is the author's
obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or
publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract
or correct the paper if deemed necessary by the
editor. Suppose the editor or the publisher learns
from a third party that a published work contains an
error. In that case, it is the obligation of the
author to cooperate with the editor, including
providing evidence to the editor where requested.
7.10.
Image Integrity
It is
not acceptable to enhance, obscure, move, remove, or
introduce a specific feature within an image.
Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color
balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not
obscure or eliminate any information present in the
original. Manipulating images for improved clarity
is accepted, but manipulation for other purposes
could be seen as scientific ethical abuse and will
be dealt with accordingly (Rossner
and Yamada 2004).
Authors
should comply with any specific policy for graphical
images applied by the relevant journal, e.g., by
providing the original images as supplementary
material with the article or depositing these in a
suitable repository.
7.11.
Clinical Trial Transparency
The
Unique Scientific Publishers supports clinical
trial transparency. For relevant journals, authors
are expected to conform to industry best standards
in clinical trial registration and presentation, for
example, the
CONSORT guidelines, as further set out in
the policies of the relevant journal (ICMJE).
