Authorship is an explicit way of assigning responsibility and giving credit for intellectual work. These both are linked together. Authorship practices should be judged by how honestly they reflect actual contributions to the final product. Authorship has its importance for the reputation, academic promotion, and grant support of the individuals involved as well as to the strength and reputation of their institution.
All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. One or more authors should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to published article.
Authors are strongly encouraged to include a statement in the end noted to specify the actual contribution of each co-author to the completed work. 3BIO Journal of Biological Sciences, Technology and Management allows two co-authors to be specified as having contributed equally to the work being described.
Disputes sometimes arise about who should be listed as authors of an intellectual product and the order in which they should be listed. When disagreements over authorship arise, they can take a substantial toll on the good will, effectiveness, and reputation of the individuals involved and their academic community. Many such disagreements result from misunderstanding and failed communication among colleagues and might have been prevented by a clear, early understanding of standards for authorship that are shared by the academic community as a whole.
3BIO Journal of Biological Science, Technology and Management does not require all the authors of a research paper have to sign the letter of submission, nor do impose an order on the list of authors. Submission to 3BIO Journal of Biological Science, Technology and Management is taken by the journal to mean that all the listed authors have agreed all of the contents. The corresponding (submitting) author is responsible for having ensured that this agreement has been attained and for managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors, before and after publication. Any change to the authors list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors or the deletion or addition of authors needs to be approved by a signed letter from every author.
Minimum Requirements for Acknowledgments
List all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship, such as a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged.
Groups of persons who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship may be listed under a heading such as "clinical investigators" or "participating investigators," and their function or contribution should be described, e.g., "served as scientific advisors," "critically reviewed the study proposal," "collected data," or "provided and cared for study". Because readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions, all persons must have given written permission to be acknowledged.
Papers must be submitted with the understanding that they have not been published elsewhere and are not currently under consideration by another journal published by or any other publisher. The submitting (corresponding) author is responsible for ensuring that the article's publication has been approved by all the other co-authors. It is also the authors' responsibility to ensure that the articles emanating from a particular institution are submitted with the approval of the necessary institution. Only an acknowledgment from the editorial office officially establishes and confirms the date of receipt. Further correspondence and proofs will be sent to the corresponding author(s) before publication unless otherwise indicated. It is a condition for submission of a paper that the authors permit editing of the paper for readability. All enquiries concerning the publication of accepted papers should be addressed to email@example.com
Authors submitting a contribution to 3BIO Journal of Biological Science, Technology and Management who have related material under consideration or in press elsewhere should upload a clearly marked copy at the time of submission and draw the editor's attention to it in their cover letter. If a part of a contribution that an author wishes to submit to 3BIO Journal of Biological Science, Technology and Management has appeared or will appear elsewhere, the author must specify the details in the cover letter. Consideration by the 3BIO Journal of Biological Science, Technology and Management is possible if the main result, conclusion, or implications are not apparent from the other work, or if there are other factors, for example if the other work is published in a language other than English.
Author is responsible to get permission from previous publisher or copyright holder if an author is re-using any part of paper e.g., figure(s), published elsewhere, or that is copyrighted.
The editors consider all the materials in good faith that their journals have full permission to publish every part of the submitted material including illustrations.
Plagiarism is the use or close imitation of the language and ideas of another author and representation of them as one's own original work. Duplicate publication, sometimes called self-plagiarism, occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of his or her own published work without providing the appropriate references. This can range from getting an identical paper published in multiple journals, where authors add small amounts of new data to a previous paper.
Plagiarism can be said to have clearly occurred when large chunks of text have been copied and pasted. Such manuscripts would not be considered for publication in the Journals. But minor plagiarism without dishonest intent is relatively frequent, for example when an author reuses parts of an introduction from an earlier paper. The editors will judge any case of which they become aware (either by their own knowledge of and reading about the literature, or when alerted by referees) on its own merits.
After a manuscript is submitted, our Editors will screen the manuscript for plagiarism through a plagiarism checking software. If the result comes out as such that the level of similarity of the manuscript with other resources is above 25%, our Editors will return the manuscript to the authors for clarification and/or revision. If the similarity is above 80%, thus indicating that the manuscript has truly been published elsewhere, our Editors will decide to reject the manuscript altogether.
If a case of plagiarism comes to light after a paper is published in 3BIO Journal of Biological Science, Technology and Management (e.g. through an appeal from other authors), the journal will conduct a preliminary investigation. If plagiarism is found, the journal will contact the author's institute and funding agencies. A determination of misconduct will lead the Journal to run a statement, bidirectionally linked online to and from the original paper, to note the plagiarism and to provide a reference to the plagiarized material. The paper containing the plagiarism will also be obviously marked on each page of the PDF. Depending on the extent of the plagiarism, the paper may also be formally retracted.
3BIO Journal of Biological Science, Technology and Management’s reviewers have a responsibility to report suspected duplicate publication, fraud, plagiarism, or concerns about animal or human experimentation to the Editor. A reviewer may recognize and report that he/she is refereeing, or has recently refereed, a similar or identical paper for another journal by the same author(s). Readers may report that they have seen the same article elsewhere, or authors may see their own published work being plagiarized. In all cases we address ethical concerns diligently following an issue-specific standard practice as summarized below.
The first action of the journal Editor is to inform the Editorial Office of ITB Journal by supplying copies of 1) the relevant material and 2) a draft letter to the corresponding author asking for an explanation in a nonjudgmental manner. The Editorial Office must approve any correspondence before it is sent to the author. If the author’s explanation is unacceptable and it seems that serious unethical conduct has taken place, the matter is referred to the Publication Committee via Editorial Office. After deliberation, the Committee will decide whether the case is sufficiently serious to warrant a ban on future submissions to, and serving as a reviewer for, ITB Journals; and/or whether the offending author’s institution should be informed. The decision has to be approved by the Executive Cabinet of the ITB Journal Council, and the author has the right to appeal a sanction, with the opportunity to present his/her position.
If the infraction is less severe, the Editor, upon the advice of the Publication Committee, will send the author a letter of reprimand and remind the author of ITB Journal publication policies; if the manuscript has been published, the Editor may require the author to publish an apology in the journal to correct the record. If, through the author’s actions, ITB Journal has violated the copyright of another journal, the Publication Committee writes a letter of apology to the other journal.
In serious cases of fraud that result in retraction of the article, a retraction notice will be published in the journal and will be linked to the article in the online version. The online version will also be marked “retracted” with the retraction date.
3 BIO Journal of Biological Science, Technology and Management aims at rapid publication of high quality research while maintaining rigorous but sympathetic peer review process. Manuscripts (other than those that are of insufficient quality or unlikely to be competitive enough for publication) will be peer-reviewed by two or more experts in the fields, and a decision is returned to the authors in about one month. If due to special circumstance, the review process takes more time, authors will be informed by email. Manuscripts with significant results will be reviewed and published at the highest priority and speed. Possible decisions on a manuscript are:
- accepted as it is
- accepted after minor revision
- accepted after major revision
If minor revision is required, authors should return a revised version as soon as possible within 15 days. If major revision is required, authors should return a revised version within 25 days.
Authors are asked to facilitate the review process by providing the names and e-mail addresses of at least three suitable reviewers, on the understanding that the editor is not bound by any such nomination. Failure to follow this request may delay the handling of your paper, since the editorial office may specifically ask you to nominate potential reviewers for papers covering unfamiliar areas.