IJECE Home Editorial Board Indexing For Readers Current Issue Archives Annual Subscription For Authors Paper Submission Copyrights Infringement Publication Ethics Topics Publication Charges Mode of Payment Paper Template Copyright Form

Dear All Associated Users of AJMS: It gives us immense pleasure to publish the current issue of AJMS Vol 12 No 1 (2021). We started our journey from 2010 with an online edition of AJMS. Slowly we progressed with the support of our committed and strong team of Editorial board members and launched the printed edition in the year 2015 and we further expanded our publication frequency from quarterly issue to bimonthly issue. With the overwhelming response and support from our users, we now take a leap to publish monthly issue from this year (2021) onwards. With the current expansion of edition, we make it clear that we have not made any compromise in the quality of articles which we publish in AJMS. We have been striving hard to serve the potential authors who has entrusted on us and chosen our journal to publish their manuscripts, making our journal as their journal of choice! On submission, the manuscripts are assigned to editor and section editor for initial review process, followed by assigning the manuscript to three reviewers of which two are internal reviewers and one outside the editorial board (external reviewer). The blind review process in our journal takes six to eight weeks’, sometimes even earlier depending on the reviewers and the decision is made once the review report is submitted to the editor. Sometimes the delay in turnaround time happens which is unavoidable due to late response from reviewers and from the authors. We insist the authors to communicate with the editor soon the review reports are sent to them for revisions. This would further shrink the time of publication from submission. The reviewers and the editorial board members are solely responsible for taking initial decision of the article but the final decision is based on the Editor. The best part of our journal is we respond to each and every author promptly and do not ignore any queries. The details of the journal can be viewed by clicking the links of particular sections- Focus and Scope, Peer Review Process, Open Access Policy, Publication Frequency, Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, Duties of Reviewers, Duties of Authors, Indexing of Asian Journal of Medical Sciences can be viewed by this link-https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AJMS/about Submission Preparation Checklist, Author Guidelines, Plagiarism Policy can be viewed by following this link-https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/AJMS/about/submissions Authors are advised to go through the guidelines and then submit their manuscripts We look forward to further enhance the quality of article in AJMS and we will strive hard to ensure this journal goes global, in the future. Thank you all for your support and entrusting on us. Prof. Dr. Arun Kumar Editor-in-Chief, Asian Journal of Medical Sciences

Get full-text (via PubEx)

Conflict of Interest - Serious Issue on Publication Ethics for Indian Medical Journals

Journal of Nepal Medical Association ◽

10.31729/jnma.1790 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 52 (190) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Kusal K. Das ◽

Tejaswini Vallabha ◽

Jaydeb Ray ◽

P.S.N. Murthy

Keyword(s):

Conflict Of Interest ◽

Editorial Policy ◽

Editorial Staff ◽

Board Members ◽

Publication Ethics ◽

Medical Sciences ◽

Medical Journals ◽

Indian Medical ◽

Peer Reviewers

Background: There are several vested interest lies on research publication hence the editorial policy is the sole important factor to control and regulate ethical publications in medical sciences especially on ‘conflict of interest’ issue.Aim: the study was aimed to assess on awareness of ‘conflict of interest’ issue in medical research and publication among the editorial staff, peer reviewers and authors of Indian medical journals.Methods: 61 authors who have published research articles recently in Indian medical journals (2008-2012), 56 peer reviewers who reviewed the manuscripts during same period and 35 editorial board members of various Indian medical journals were assessed by questionnaire and telephone interview regarding their understanding and knowledge on ‘conflict of interest’ issue for ethical publication.Results: Only 12% of the authors knew about the ‘conflict of interest’ issue and 19% of the medical authors have just heard about it! Out of 12% of authors who knew ‘conflict of interest’ issue only 5% provided that statement to the journals. Among the peer reviewers only 30% knew about ‘conflict of interest’ of which 91.5% stated that they do not bother about this issue while reviewing the manuscripts! But interestingly 75% of the peer reviewers confessed that they had a bias on the topics written by their friends or students! Among the editorial board members of Indian medical journals only 25% have any idea on ‘conflict of interest issue’.Conclusions: Results clearly shows poor understanding of ‘conflict of interest’ like important ethical issue among Indian medical scientists or journals.Keywords: authors; conflict of Interest; editorial members; peer reviewers; Indian Medical Journals.

Get full-text (via PubEx)

Peer Review Declaration

IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science ◽

10.1088/1755-1315/916/1/011002 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 916 (1) ◽

pp. 011002

Keyword(s):

Urban Planning ◽

Peer Review ◽

Original Work ◽

Review Process ◽

Acceptance Rate ◽

Paper Format ◽

E Mail ◽

Single Blind ◽

Paper Submission

Abstract Type of peer review Single – blind Criteria of accepting / declining paper All accepted papers must meet the following criteria: 1. The topic is in the coverage topics of the conference 2. The paper is an original work and has not been published 3. Pass the plagiarism test 4. The paper is written in a good English 5. Follow the proceeding format The editorial board gave an opportunity to resubmit as long as the paper met points (1), (2) and (3) of the acceptance criteria Conference submission system All abstract and papers were submitted to the conference editorial board using the conference submission system: http://icpeu.teknik.ub.ac.id/final-paper-submission/ Number of submissions received 84 papers Number of submissions sent for review 84 papers Number of submissions accepted 70 (36 papers were selected for publications in IOP - EES) Acceptance Rate (%) 83.3% Average number of reviews per paper 5 reviews per paper including 3 reviews for the content and 2 reviews for paper format Total number of reviewers involved 3 persons as follows: • Johanes Parlindungan, ST., MT, PhD (PIC) • Imma Widyawati Agustin, ST., MT., Ph.D • Dr. Techn. Christia Mediana, ST., M.Eng Any additional info on review process The conference editorial board applied two addition checks: • Plagiarism check using www.grammarly.com • Language / grammatical check done by a professional proofreader Contact person for queries: Johannes Parlindungan, ST., MT, PhD Department of Regional and Urban Planning, Universitas Brawijaya E-mail: [email protected]

Get full-text (via PubEx)

Evaluation on the Sensitivity of the Freshwater Tropical Worm, Branchiura sowerbyi (Beddard, 1892) to the Pyrethroid Pesticide, Bifenthrin

Research & Reviews: Journal of Ecology ◽

10.37591/rrjoe.v9i1.2706 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Shubhajit Saha ◽

Kishore Dhara ◽

Nimai Chandra Saha

Keyword(s):

Open Access ◽

Mortality Rate ◽

Publication Ethics ◽

Branchiura Sowerbyi ◽

Author Guideline ◽

Content Search ◽

Pyrethroid Pesticide ◽

Journal Content ◽

The Relationship

Research & Reviews: Journal of Ecology CURRENT ISSUE Atom logo RSS2 logo RSS1 logo Journal Help SUBSCRIPTION Login to verify subscription USER Username Password Remember me NOTIFICATIONS View Subscribe JOURNAL CONTENT Search Search Scope All Browse By Issue By Author By Title Other Journals FONT SIZE INFORMATION For Readers For Authors For Librarians HOME ABOUT LOGIN REGISTER SEARCH CURRENT ARCHIVES ANNOUNCEMENTS AUTHOR GUIDELINE REFERENCING PATTERN EDITORIAL BOARD PUBLICATION ETHICS& MALPRACTICE STATEMENT PUBLICATION ETHICS & MALPRACTICE STATEMENT Home > Vol 9, No 1 (2020) > Saha Open Access Open Access Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access Evaluation on the Sensitivity of the Freshwater Tropical Worm, Branchiura sowerbyi (Beddard, 1892) to the Pyrethroid Pesticide, Bifenthrin Shubhajit Saha, Kishore Dhara, Nimai Chandra Saha Abstract In the present study, acute toxicity of the pyrethroid pesticide, bifenthrin, was evaluated under the experimental condition to the freshwater tropical oligochaete worm, Branchiura sowerbyi. The 96 h LC50 with 95% confidence limits of B. sowerbyi was 1.043(0.721-1.327) μg/l. None of the unexposed control test animal died during the experiment. Relation between each concentration and mortality rate during 24–96 h was found to be correlated. The mortality rate varied significantly (p<0.05) with the increasing concentration for the organisms at all the exposure concentrations except 3.50 μg/l, 4.50 μg/l and 5.00 μg/l (p>0.05) at all the exposure times. The relationship between rate of mortality and exposure times was also found to be significant (p<0.01). The effect of bifenthrin on the ethological changes of the oligochaete worm was directly proportional to the increasing dose of the toxicant.

Get full-text (via PubEx)

Challenges in publication ethics

Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England ◽

10.1308/rcsann.2016.0104 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 98 (04) ◽

pp. 241-243

Author(s):

V Barbour ◽

B Astaneh ◽

M Irfan

Keyword(s):

Best Practice ◽

Medical Profession ◽

Scientific Misconduct ◽

Personal Responsibility ◽

Code Of Conduct ◽

Publication Ethics ◽

Final Decision ◽

Journal Editors ◽

The Impact

‘Some editors are failed writers, but so are most writers.’ TS Eliot (1888–1965) Have you ever wondered what medical journal editors do? Most editors in the medical field are unpaid and the work is part of the wider culture of service provided by so many in the medical profession. Together with the editorial board and the publisher, an editor will decide the direction of the journal. For instance, decisions are made about what sort of material should be published. One of the most common tasks, however, is the daily screening of manuscripts submitted for publication, many of which are rejected without peer review owing to poor quality, redundant material or the subject of the article being beyond the scope of the journal. After deciding which peer reviewers to send an article to, the editor must make a final decision on a manuscript, which may not necessarily concur with the advice given by the reviewers. With this comes a huge amount of personal responsibility and one to the organisation the editor represents. Take the example of George Lundberg, the editor of JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, who was fired from his position after 17 years with the alleged faux pas of rushing to publish an article to coincide with the Clinton impeachment hearings ‘to extract political leverage.’ Lundberg published research showing that 60% of college students surveyed in 1991 did not think that engaging in oral sex was classed as actually ‘having sex.’ 1 While neither the methods used in the survey nor the results were disputed, the timing of the publication at an awkward political juncture was. Extrapolating this, editors are therefore not just responsible for the content of what is published but also the impact of publications in the wider arena. Editors must also handle a great deal of correspondence, including author queries and complaints, and respond to them in a timely manner. Communication with the team, the publisher, authors and readers is a vital skill. Finally, the editor needs to deal with the journal’s ethical policy when examples of plagiarism, author disputes or other forms of misconduct are evident. Breaches of publication ethics are forms of scientific misconduct that can undermine science and challenge editors, many of whom have little formal training in this field. In this respect, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), founded in 1997 as a voluntary body, has become a central player. COPE provides a discussion forum and advice as well as guidelines for scientific editors with the aim of finding practical ways to deal with forms of misconduct. The Annals is a member of COPE and follows its code of conduct for journal editors. 2 It is a privilege that the current chair of COPE, Dr Barbour, and her colleagues have written this final article in the medical publishing series about challenges in publication ethics. I hope you have found this series useful and enjoyed reading the range of articles we have published from many experts in their fields. JYOTI SHAH Commissioning Editor References 1. Sanders SA , Reinisch JM . Would you say you ‘had sex’ if…? JAMA 1999 ; 281 : 275 – 277 . 2. Committee on Publication Ethics . Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors . Harleston, UK : COPE ; 2011 .

Get full-text (via PubEx)

Article Tools Print this article Indexing metadata How to cite item Email this article Email the author About The Authors Tri Eko Susilorini Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Animal Husbandry, University of Brawijaya Indonesia Kuswati Kuswati Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Animal Husbandry, University of Brawijaya Indonesia Sucik Maylinda Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Animal Husbandry, University of Brawijaya Indonesia About RJLS Aim and Scope Editorial Board Reviewer Acknowledgement Publication Ethics Visitor Statistic Information for Author Author Guidelines (online version) Online Submission Guideline Online Registration Author Fees Download Template User You are logged in as... riris_rjlsub My Profile Log Out Tools Mendeley User Guide Insert Citation using Mendeley Journal Index Visitor Statistic Notifications View (28 new) Manage Journal Content Search Search Scope Browse By Issue By Author By Title Information For Readers For Authors For Librarians Keywords Antihypertensive Bali Strait Black Cincau (Mesona palustris BL) Effervescent Powder Coastal damage Financial Food composition ICP11 Litopenaeus vannamei Malondialdehyde Pandanus Plankton abundance RFLP Restoration plans for coastal villages Sardinella lemuru Sprinkle Stock Identification Village regulation WSSV Yellow stripe trevally and Morphometric mature B cells Polymorphism of Growth Hormone Gene in Selecting Etawah Crossbred (PE) Goats

Research Journal of Life Science ◽

10.21776/ub.rjls.2017.004.02.8 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 4 (2) ◽

pp. 153-158

Author(s):

Tri Eko Susilorini ◽

Kuswati Kuswati ◽

Sucik Maylinda

Keyword(s):

Animal Husbandry ◽

Food Composition ◽

Animal Production ◽

Publication Ethics ◽

Growth Hormone Gene ◽

Content Search ◽

Online Submission ◽

Yellow Stripe ◽

Coastal Damage

Get full-text (via PubEx)