Publication ethics and malpractice statement

 The Journal of Livestock Science and Technologies (JLST) is a peer reviewed journal. All parties involved in the process of publication of an article are expected to follow the standard ethical behavior based largely on Scopus Guidelines for Journal Editors. The relevant duties and expectations of authors, reviewers, and editors of the journal are listed below. The Journal of Livestock Science and Technologies encourages its editors, authors of the submitted manuscripts, and the invited reviewers to adhere to the guidelines and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

  Responsibilities of authors

 The manuscript must be the original work of the authors and has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere. The sources of any ideas and/or words in the manuscript that are not their own must be acknowledged through appropriate citations and/or quotes.

 An author should not normally publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in multiple journals or publication venues. Redundant publication is generally considered to constitute unethical behavior, and if discovered may result in a manuscript being rejected, or a published article being retracted.

 The authors should present an accurate account of the work performed, accompanied by an objective discussion of its significance. The data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. The manuscript should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. A manuscript will be rejected or a published article retracted should it contain fabricated data or fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements that constitute unethical behavior. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that may have any unusual hazards in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

 All sources of financial support should be stated clearly in the manuscript. Authors must obtain written permission to include any images or artwork for which they do not hold copyright in their articles, or to adapt any such images or artwork for inclusion in their articles.

 All authors take responsibility for their own contributions. Only those individuals who have made a substantive contribution should be listed as authors; those whose contributions are indirect or marginal (e.g., colleagues or supervisors who have reviewed drafts of the work or provided proofreading assistance, and heads of research institutes/centers/labs) should be named in an “Acknowledgments” section at the end of the article, immediately preceding the Reference List. The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the article, and that all listed co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and agreed to its publication.

 Where an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in an article of his/her that has been published in JLST, he/she has an obligation to promptly notify the editors and cooperates with them to correct the article or retract it as appropriate.

 Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with the manuscript for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if applicable, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

 Responsibilities of reviewers

 The reviewers are selected by the section editors on the basis of their specialty and experience, and are not paid for their contribution. They are asked not to accept manuscript review assignments for which they feel unqualified, or that they may have a potential conflict of interest in performing the review.

Privileged information or ideas obtained by reviewers through the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents, and must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the JLST’s Editor-in-Chief.

 When conducting their reviews, reviewers are asked to do so as objectively as possible, refraining from engaging in personal criticism of the author(s). They are encouraged to express their views clearly, explaining and justifying all recommendations made. They should always attempt to provide detailed and constructive feedback to assist the author(s) in improving their work, even if the manuscript is, in their opinion, not publishable.

 Reviewers should identify in their reviews relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s), together with any instances in which proper attribution of sources has not been provided. They should call to the responsible editor’s attention any major resemblances between a manuscript under consideration and other published articles or papers of which they are aware, as well as any concerns they might have in relation to the ethical acceptability of the research reported in the manuscript.

 Responsibilities of editors

 The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the submitted manuscripts should be published. He or she may consult with the Associate Editor and other members of the editorial board, as well as with reviewers, in making publication decisions.

 The editors will evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the race, color, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). They will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate. The editors will also seek evidence that ethical harms have been minimized in the conduct of the reported research.

 When evaluating a manuscript for publication, in addition to considering standard criteria pertaining to the rigor of the manuscript, the quality of its presentation, and its contribution to humanity’s stock of knowledge, the editors will also seek evidence that ethical harms have been minimized in the conduct of the reported research. They will question whether the benefits outweigh the harms in the particular study’s case. It is necessary to recognize that laws and regulations regarding research ethics and ethical approval vary worldwide. As such, the editors may need to seek clarification in this regard with the author(s) and request that they supply a letter from the relevant institutional ethics committee or board that approved the research.