About the Journal
AIMS & SCOPE
American International Journal of Biology and Life Sciences is an internationally refereed journal, published by the American Center of Science and Education, United States. The journal is published in both print and online versions. The online version is free access and download. The subject areas include, but are not limited to the following fields:
- Developmental Biology
- Molecular Biology
- Biophysics, and Biotechnology
- Life Science
- Anatomy, Botany
- 2-4 Issues
PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
For a peer-reviewed journal, the publication of articles plays an essential role in the development of a coherent network of knowledge. It is, therefore, essential that all publishers, editors, authors, and reviewers, in the process of publishing the journals, conduct themselves in accordance with the highest level of professional ethics and standards.
- The publisher has the following responsibilities:
We follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.
- The publisher is dedicated to supporting the vast efforts of the editors, the academic contributions of authors, and the respected volunteer work undertaken by reviewers.
- The publisher is also responsible for ensuring that the publication system works smoothly and that ethical guidelines are applied to assist the editor, author, and reviewer in performing their ethical duties.
- The editor has the following responsibilities:
We follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. In addition, some key points are listed below.
- The editor should acknowledge receipt of submitted manuscripts within two working days of receipt and ensure an efficient, fair, and timely review process.
- The editor should ensure that submitted manuscripts are processed in a confidential manner, and that no content of the manuscripts will be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
- The editor should recuse himself or herself from processing manuscripts if he or she has any conflict of interest with any of the authors or institutions related to the manuscripts.
- The editor should not disclose the names and other details of the reviewers to a third party without the permission of the reviewers.
- The editor has the right to make the final decision on whether to accept or reject a manuscript with reference to the significance, originality, and clarity of the manuscript and its relevance to the journal.
- The editor should by no means make any effort to oblige the authors to cite his or her journal either as an implied or explicit condition of accepting their manuscripts for publication.
- The editor should not use for his or her own research any part of any data or work reported in submitted and as yet unpublished articles.
- The editor should respond promptly and take reasonable measures when an ethical complaint occurs concerning a submitted manuscript or a published paper, and the editor should immediately contact and consult with the author. In this case, a written formal retraction or correction may also be required.
- The author has the following responsibilities:
- The author should not submit concurrent manuscripts (or manuscripts essentially describing the same subject matter) to multiple journals. Likewise, an author should not submit any paper previously published anywhere to the journals for consideration. The publication of articles on the specific subject matter, such as clinical guidelines and translations, in more than one journal, is acceptable if certain conditions are met.
- The author should present a precise and brief report of his or her research and an impartial description of its significance.
- The author should honestly gather and interpret his or her research data. Publishers, editors, reviewers, and readers are entitled to request the author to provide the raw data for his or her research for the convenience of editorial review and public access. If practicable, the author should retain such data for any possible use after publication.
- The author should guarantee that the works he or she has submitted are original. If the author has used work and/or words by others, appropriate citations are required. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
- The author should indicate explicitly all sources that have supported the research and also declare any conflict(s) of interest.
- The author should give due acknowledgment to all of those who have made contributions to the research. Those who have contributed significantly to the research should be listed as co-authors. The author should ensure that all co-authors have affirmed the final version of the paper and have agreed on its final publication.
- The author should promptly inform the journal editor of any obvious error(s) in his or her published paper and cooperate earnestly with the editor in retraction or correction of the paper. If the editor is notified by any party other than the author that the published paper contains an obvious error, the author should write a retraction or make the correction based on the medium of publication.
- The reviewer has the following responsibilities:
- The reviewer who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or affirms that he or she cannot meet the deadline for completion of the review should immediately notify the editor and excuse himself or herself from the process of reviewing this manuscript.
- The reviewer should inform the editor and recuse himself or herself from reviewing the manuscript if there is a conflict of interest. Specifically, the reviewer should recuse himself or herself from reviewing any manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has an obvious personal or academic relationship if the relationship could introduce bias or the reasonable perception of bias.
- The reviewer should treat the manuscript in a confidential manner. The manuscript should not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
- The reviewer should approach the peer-review job objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
- The reviewer should not use for his or her own research any part of any data or work reported in submitted and as yet unpublished articles.
- The reviewer should immediately notify the editor of any similarities between the manuscript under review and another paper either published or under consideration by another journal. The reviewer should immediately call to the editor’s attention a manuscript containing plagiarized material or falsified data.
- Change or Modification of Published Paper:
Replacement: Papers published can be replaced if the author(s) sends an updated paper. Before accepting replacement requests, the editorial board and Executive Editor should talk with the author(s) sufficiently, and at least three reviewers should check the advances. If the paper was agreed to be replaced, the following will be implemented:
- The paper in the journal database will be replaced.
- The link in the online publication site will be replaced.
- The next phrase or similar phrase stating the reason will be shown below the paper title in the Table of Contents and journal. Volume page: (This paper was replaced because the author(s) sent an updated version. Contact the editor if you want to check the old version).
- The old version should be kept separately, and if someone wants to check the old version, the editor can send the PDF to him/her.
- Note that the replacement is acceptable only one time, and only for technological advances.
Removal: Papers published will be removed if reviewers, readers, librarians, publishers, or other subjects noticed significant errors or plagiarism. Before removing a paper, the editorial board and Executive Editor should talk with authors sufficiently and should provide enough time to have authors’ explanations. If the paper was agreed to be removed, the following will be implemented:
- The paper in the journal database will be removed.
- The link in the online publication site will be removed.
- The next phrase or similar phrase stating the reason will be shown below the paper title in the Table of Contents and journal volume page: (This paper was removed because of plagiarism).
Double Submission: If the double submission was found or noticed from other sources, the editorial board should check the status. If the double submission was confirmed as an intentional thing:
- The review process will be terminated.
- The reason should be sent to reviewers, editorial boards, and authors.
- All authors’ names will be marked as a blacklist, and these authors can not submit any paper to all ACSE journals for three years
Double Publication: If the double publication was found or noticed from other sources, the editorial board should check the status. If the double publication was confirmed as an intentional thing,
- This will be reported to the editorial board and author(s).
- This will be sent to the publisher published the same (or very similar) paper.
- Paper will be removed according to the “Removal” part in Section 5.
- All authors’ names will be marked as a blacklist, and these authors cannot submit any paper to all ACSE journals for three years.
Plagiarism: If plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) was found or noticed from other sources, the editorial board should check the status. If the plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) was confirmed as an intentional thing,
- This will be reported to the editorial board and authors.
- This will be sent to the publisher who published the same or similar paper.
- Paper will be removed according to the “Removal” part in Section 5.
- All authors’ names will be marked as a blacklist, and these authors cannot submit any paper to all ACSE journals for five years.
- The policy of Screening for Plagiarism
The publisher and journal have a policy of “Zero Tolerance on Plagiarism”. We check the plagiarism issue through two methods: reviewer check and plagiarism prevention tool (https://www.turnitin.com).
All submissions will be checked by Turnitin before being sent to reviewers.
Keep a Similarity Index <30% and single-source matches are not<5%
- Copyright Policy
Copyrights of all articles published in CRIBFB are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work.
All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license.
Authors have the rights to reuse, republish, archive, and distribute their own articles after publication, and undertake to permit others to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon this work non-commercially provided the original work is properly cited. The full guidance that applies to the CC-BY license can be found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Deposit Policy / Archiving Policy
We follow the SHERPA/RoMEO green archiving policy. Both pre-print and post-print or publisher’s version/PDF can be archived, without restrictions. This journal utilizes the LOCKSS, CLOCKSS, OpenAIRE, ZENODO, OSF system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration.
- Open Access Policy
We follow the Gold Open Access way in journal publishing: Authors publish in Redfame journals that provide immediate open access to all of their articles on the publisher’s website.
Open Access Publishing refers to the free availability of peer-reviewed papers on the worldwide internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full manuscripts. However, you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.), and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
The Open Access Policy grants ACSE the right to license articles for free use. Alternatively, the authors (or their institution or funding agency) pay an article processing charge to finance the operation of the journals.
- Submission Policy
All manuscripts should be written in English and prepared according to the Author Guide.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the authorities responsible where the work was carried out. However, we accept submissions that have previously appeared on preprint servers (for example arXiv, bioRxiv, Nature Precedings, Philica, Social Science Research Network, and Vixra); have previously been presented at conferences, or have previously appeared in other “non-journal” venues (for example blogs or posters). Authors are responsible for updating the archived preprint with the journal reference (including DOI) and a link to the published articles on the appropriate journal website upon publication.
Any manuscripts out of the journal’s scope or containing plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, are rejected. All submissions will be checked by Turnitin before being sent to reviewers.
- Waiver Policy
As an Open Access publisher, ACSE charges an article processing charge to cover the publication costs.
The waiver policy is only available to the journal reviewers and editorial board members, so long as they performed the assigned review task punctually and seriously. We do not waive or reduce APCs in any other cases.
- Refund Policy
All products and services are sold “as is”. The author assumes responsibility for the payment, and no refunds will be issued.
- Review Policy
The journal has adopted a double-blind reviewing policy, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process. Please remove all identifying features from the main document itself, ensuring that the Authors' identity is not revealed. However, this does not preclude Authors from citing their own works. However, Authors must cite their works in a manner that does not make explicit their identity.
Acceptable: "Karim (2013) has indicated that . . ."
Acceptable: "Some scholars have indicated that . . . (e.g., Karim, 2013; Karim & Mahbub, 2018)"
The journal operates a double-blind review process. All contributions will be initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final.
- Double-Blind Peer Review
The journal uses a double-blind review, which means the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. To facilitate this, please include the following separately:
Title page (with author details): This should include the title, authors' names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and any Declaration of Interest statement, and a complete address for the corresponding author including an e-mail address.
Main document (without author details): The main body of the paper (including the references, figures, tables, and any acknowledgments) should not include any identifying information, such as the authors' names or affiliations.
Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model. Some advantages of this model are listed below.
- Author anonymity limits reviewer bias, for example, based on an author's gender, country of origin, academic status, or previous publication history.
- Articles written by prestigious or renowned authors are considered on the basis of the content of their papers, rather than their reputation.
- Bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter, or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity. The reviewers of ACSE JOURNAL exemplify best practices in a given review situation.
- The Peer-Review Process
The peer-review process can be broadly summarized into 8 steps, although these steps can vary slightly between ACSE JOURNAL. See below.
- Submission of Paper
The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to the journal. For USA contributors, this is usually via an online system. For international scholars/contributors, ACSE JOURNAL accepts submissions by email or online, which is indicated on the submission information.
- Editorial Office Assessment
The journal checks the paper’s composition and arrangement against the journal’s Author Guidelines to make sure it includes the required sections and stylizations. The quality of the paper is not assessed at this point.
- Appraisal by the Editor-in-Chief
The Editor-in-Chief checks that the paper is appropriate for the journal and is sufficiently original and interesting. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.
- Invitation to Reviewers
The Editor-in-Chief sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. As responses are received, further invitations are issued, if necessary, until the required number of acceptances is obtained – commonly this is 3, but there is some variation between journals.
- Review is Conducted
The reviewer sets time aside to read the paper several times. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
- Journal Evaluates the Reviews
The Editor-in-Chief considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the Editor-in-Chief may invite an additional reviewer so as to get an extra opinion before making a decision
- The Decision is Communicated
The Editor-in-Chief sends a decision email to the author including any relevant reviewer comments. Whether the comments are anonymous or not will depend on the type of peer review that the journal operates.
- Last Steps
If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the Editor-in-Chief may include constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested this follow-up review might be done by the Editor-in-Chief.
- Cope Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
ACSE Journals provides the membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as an option for all of its journal Editors. COPE has developed Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, to which the Editors can refer for guidance. Read the COPE guidelines below or visit their website to download the PDF.
Peer reviewers play a role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The peer-review process depends to a large extent on the trust and willing participation of the scholarly community and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer review process but may come to the role without any guidance and be unaware of their ethical obligations. Journals have an obligation to provide transparent policies for peer review, and reviewers have an obligation to conduct reviews in an ethical and accountable manner. Clear communication between the journal and the reviewers is essential to facilitate a consistent, fair, and timely review. COPE has heard cases from its members related to peer review issues and bases these guidelines, in part, on the collective experience and wisdom of the COPE Forum participants. It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for editors and publishers in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.
Peer review, for the purposes of these guidelines, refers to reviews provided on manuscript submissions to journals, but can also include reviews for other platforms and apply to public commenting that can occur pre- or post-publication. Reviews of other materials such as preprints, grants, books, conference proceeding submissions, registered reports (preregistered protocols), or data will have a similar underlying ethical framework, but the process will vary depending on the source material and the type of review requested. The model of peer review will also influence elements of the process.
- Final Check-List Before Submission
Please ensure that:
- The manuscript has been 'spell-checked and 'grammar checked.
- Note that submitted manuscripts will not go through language-focused copy editing with the journal prior to or after acceptance; language-focused copy editing is the responsibility of the authors prior to submission.
- Please prepare the manuscript for blind review; whenever possible, please use author names and references. For self-citations but make sure that you use the third person to discuss the work (see “Review Policy” above).
- All references mentioned in the Reference List are cited in the text, and vice versa.
- Permission has been obtained for use of copyrighted material from other sources (including the Internet).
- A competing interest’s statement is provided, even if the authors have no competing interests to declare.
- Journal policies detailed in this guide have been reviewed.
- Submission Declaration
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere including electronically in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the copyright holder. In instances where authors prepare multiple submissions using the same dataset or use partially overlapping variables in two or more articles, this needs to be declared upfront in the letter to the editor. Masked reference(s) to previous studies based on the same dataset need to be included in the manuscript itself so the reader can understand the novelty of the new study in relation to the previous articles. Please consult the APA manual on piecemeal publications. In cases where the manuscript is part of a larger project (e.g., prospective longitudinal study, an intervention study with numerous arms, etc.) in which other partly overlapping publications already exist, or are planned in parallel to the submitted manuscript, need to be declared in the accompanying letter to the Editor-in-Chief. Authors are asked to be upfront declaring such manuscripts. A manuscript may be returned if the degree of overlap is found to be too large.
- Similarity Check Process
ACSE JOURNALS is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. All authors submitting their works to the journal for publication as original articles attest that the submitted works represent their authors’ contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works. The Similarity Check process can be broadly employed by the use of Turnitin software, although these steps can vary slightly between ACSE Journals.
For example, per the Journal "Code of Ethics" authors are expected to adhere to the guidelines outlined: Journal may consider submitted manuscripts for possible publication only if the following two conditions are satisfactory: (1) a maximum overall acceptable similarity index must be less than 30 % (< 30% in total), excluding the citations and references and the bibliography. (2) a maximum acceptable similarity index from any single source must be less than 5 % ( < 5% per source).
- Submission-Review-Acceptance-Production-Publication-Indexing Process
The submission-review-acceptance-publication process can be broadly summarized into 7 steps, although these steps can vary slightly between CRIBFB Journals. See below.
Step 1: Desk Editor-in-Chief’s decision on the article submitted
For example, check Submission Consent Form, APC agreement, APA style format, Publication Ethics, and Publication Malpractice, and CrossCheck screening: the Turnitin software to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts. Authors can be assured that ACSE Journals are committed to actively combating plagiarism and publishing original research.
[Editorial Board and Selection Policy: Please note that the Editorial Board of the ACSE Journals will be very selective, accepting only the articles on the basis of scholarly merit, research significance, research integrity, and compliance with the journal style guidelines (APA). ACSE Journals and Editorial Board respect and promote all authors and contributors on the basis of research ability and experience without considering race, citizenship, or any of narrow frames of reference.]
Step 2: External Reviewers Board’s decision on the scholarly merits of the content of the article.
If the article successfully passes the requirements of submission and the first round of screening and Plagiarism checking, then the paper goes to external reviews, which will take another 1 to 2 weeks from then.
[Important: After the external reviews are completed if the paper gets accepted in favor of publication in the journal then an invoice of APC will be followed. Based on an invoice the author should make a payment for APC. Before the paper finally gets accepted any payment does not count any credit toward its acceptance for publication.]
Step 3: Editorial Copy Editor’s decision on editorial copy editing
For example, double-check citations in text and references, tables and figures, heading and subheadings, etc. If the article finally gets accepted for publication and the author has paid APC for their publication on the journal, then the paper goes to Copy Editor and Typesetter, which will take another 1 to 2 weeks from then.
Step 4: Production Editor’s decision on the full information of the article
For example, check DOI number, authors’ name, affiliation, contact information, pagination, etc. If the article has been checked and edited by Copy Editor and Typesetter and then finally has approved for Production and Printing, then the paper goes to Production Editor, which will take another 1 to 2 weeks from then.
Step 5: Printing Editor’s decision on printed hard copies
For example, check the mailing address of printed hard copies to the authors. This process takes another 1 to 2 weeks from then.
Step 6: Online Publishing Editor’s decision on online PDF attachments.
This process takes another 1 to 2 weeks from then.
Step 7: Indexing Editor’s decision on Google scholar and other indexing.
This process takes another 1 to 2 weeks from then, although these steps can vary slightly between indexing agencies.
ACSE Journals accept submissions on a rolling basis and publish accepted articles on the first-in-first-out method.
PAPER SUBMISSION GUIDELINES
Paper Submission Guidelines