Journal of Biometry Studies (JofBS) follows certain ethical standards for publication, existing to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and due credit for original ideas. JofBS is connected to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), abides by its Code of Conduct, and aims to adhere to its Best Practice Guidelines. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March 7). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/about/guide/journal-editors
Author who submits any paper to JofBS certify that their work is original and is not published or under publication consideration elsewhere. Also, authors confirm that submitted papers have not been copied or plagiarized, in whole or in part, from other papers or studies. Authors certify that he/she does not have potential conflicts of interest or partial benefits associated with his or her papers.
JofBS will check for plagiarism in all submitted articles prior to publication. If plagiarism is detected at any stage of the publication process, the author will be instructed to rewrite the manuscript. Every submission will be scanned by any plagiarism software to prevent plagiarism. If any manuscript has over 20% similarity, the article will be rejected and the author will be notified. We strongly recommend the authors to check the similarity ratio of manuscript before submitting. Plagiarism can be checked by using any free online software.
JofBS is committed to objective and fair blind peer reviews of submitted papers and the prevention of any actual or potential conflicts of interest between writers and reviewers.
Responsibilities of Editors and The Editorial Board
Editorial responsibilities and independence
All editors of JofBS are independent in their evaluations and decisions in the journal. No external and/or internal factor can affect their decisions. If the editors are exposed to any kind of positive and/or negative constraints, they keep the right to take legal action against those involved in the constraint. On the other hand, editors are responsible for their decisions in the journal. The editor-in-chief is the only person responsible for journal content and on-time publishing.
Privacy and conflict of interest
The members of Editorial Board are forbidden to share submitted materials with third parties other than section editors, language editors, copy editors, design editors and ombudsman when needed, and to use the submitted materials themselves. If there is a conflict of interest among an editor and an author or institution of the author in terms of cooperation or competition, then another member of the Editorial board is assigned to manage the evaluation process.
Editors provide peer review of submitted manuscripts by assigning at least two reviewers expert in the field. Editor-in-chief is responsible in decision of publishing a manuscript considering the importance of the manuscripts for researchers and readers, reviewer reports, plagiarism and copyright infringement as legal issues. Editor-in-chief can discuss with other editors and reviewers for his/her decision.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Contribution to editor’s decision
Peer-reviewing of a submitted manuscript is the control of its scientific content, scientific layout and suitability according to the principles of the journal, and delivery of the reviewer’s opinion for unsuitable manuscript content to ensure suitability. The reviewing process, not only enables reviewers to forward their evaluations about the manuscripts to the editors but also give them the opportunity to improve the contents of the manuscripts.
If a reviewer assigned for evaluation of a manuscript is of an expert in a field of science other than the manuscript content, is far to the subject of the manuscript, is short of time for evaluation or possess a conflict of interest, then he/she should inform the assigning editor and ask his/her withdrawal. If the content of the manuscript fits the expertise field of the reviewer, then he/she should complete the evaluation and send the report to the editor before the deadline.
Reviewers assigned for evaluation of manuscripts approve in advance that the manuscripts are secret documents and do not share any information about these documents with third parties except the editors involved in the evaluation. Reviewers continue to not to share information even after the manuscripts are accepted or rejected for publication.
If it is suspected of using an idea in the manuscript that is sent for evaluation to the reviewer without permission, the flowchart of COPE “What to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data?” is followed.
Standards of objectivity
Reviewers should construct their criticisms on a scientific background and include scientific evidences in their statements. All comments raised by the reviewers to improve the manuscripts should be clear and direct and written in a manner far away from disturbing author’s feelings. Insulting and derogatory statements should be avoided.
Suitability of the cited references
Reviewers should determine quotations in the manuscripts used without citing a reference. Statements, observations, conclusions or evidences in published articles should be quoted with the citation of the related reference. Reviewers should also be sure about the reality of presence of quotations in the cited reference(s).
Conflict of interests
If a reviewer is in a situation by being involved in one or more interests with the author(s), he/she should inform the editor the assigning editor and ask his/her withdrawal.
Responsibilities of The Authors
Authors of original research articles should present the results and discuss with them in a proper way. Since the methodological contents of the articles should be reproducible, the authors should be clear in their statements and should not purposely report wrong or missing data. Authors of review type articles are not recommended to write such articles if they are not an expert in the field of their review topics or when they do not have enough background information or related former studies.
Data accessing and retainment
Authors may be asked to present their raw-data when needed (ethical cases etc.). Therefore, raw-data of the manuscripts should be kept in safety to present if needed. The storage period of raw-data following publications should be at least 10 years.
Originality and plagiarism
The authors of submitted manuscripts should be sure that their manuscripts are original or include cited references for quotations.
Multiple, repeated, unnecessary or simultaneous submissions
It is not an approved way to produce more than one publication reporting on the same research. The authors should pay attention to such cases and they should not submit the same manuscript to different journals simultaneously.
Authorship of manuscripts
Only the following persons should be included in the manuscripts as responsible authors:
Contributors other than the above list (technical assistance, helpers in writing and editing, general contributions, etc.) should not be involved in the authors list but can be listed in acknowledgements section. The corresponding authors of manuscripts should provide the separate listing of contributors as authors and those to be involved in acknowledgements section.
Conflict of interests
Authors should clearly declare any kind of conflict of interests in their manuscripts. Absence of conflict of interests about the topic of the manuscripts should also be declared. The most common types of conflict of interests are financial supports, education or other types of funds, personal or institutional relations and affiliations. All sources of financial supports (with their grant or other reference numbers) of the studies should be declared.
Authors should not use personally obtained information (conversations, correspondences or discussions with bystanders) unless they have the permission of their sources. Information about private documents or refereeing of grant applications should not be used without the permission of the authorities providing the related service.
Authors are obliged to be involved in the peer review process and should cooperate by responding raw data, evidence for ethical approvals, patient approvals and copyright release form requests of editors and their explanations. Authors should respond either in a positive or a negative way to revision suggestions generated by the peer review process. They should be sure to include their counter views in their negative responses.
Submitting authors must confirm the following:
Please note: It is unethical to submit a manuscript to more than one journal concurrently.
Reviewers must confirm the following:
Editors must confirm the following:
Ethical guidelines for the use of animals in research
JofBS endorses the ARRIVE guidelines (www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE) for reporting experiments using live animals. Authors and reviewers can use the ARRIVE guidelines as a checklist, which can be found at www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVEchecklist
Manuscripts containing original research on animal subjects must have been approved by an ethical review committee. The project identification code, date of approval and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board must be cited in the Methods section.
For research involving animals, any potentially derived benefits must be significant in relation to harm suffered by participating animals. Authors should particularly ensure that their research complies with the commonly accepted “3Rs”:
Editor or members of the editorial board are not responsible for the author’s opinions and manuscript contents. Authors are responsible for the ethical originality of and possible errors in their manuscripts. They are also responsible for all errors based on page editing before their proofreading. On the other hand, errors taking place after proofreading are in responsibility of the journal directors.