• Journal Polices of Bioscience Biotechnology Research Communications
  (Author Ethical Statement / Copyright forms / Plagiarism Check Report)

  Authors
  

  Authors are specifically those who have made:

  Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and / or drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and / or  final approval of the version to be published.

  The corresponding author’s specific responsibilities include:

  • Manuscript correction and proof reading. Handling the revisions and re-submission of revised manuscripts up to the acceptance of the manuscripts. Agreeing to and signing the Author Publishing Copyright / Ethical Statement/ Plagiarism Level Check Certificate Forms on behalf of relevant co-authors.
  • Arranging for payment of an APC (article processing charge) where one is required. The affiliation of the corresponding author is used to determine eligibility for discounted or waived APCs under our journals Waiver Policies.
  • Acting on behalf of all co-authors in responding to queries from all sources postpublication, including questions relating to publishing ethics, reuse of content, or the availability of data, materials, resources etc.
  • Acknowledgments section in their publication with permission, for example to recognize the contributions of anyone who provided research or writing assistance.
  • We integrate with established and emerging industry standards to increase transparency in authorship (for example, ORCID).

Author Affiliations: Any article affiliations should represent the institution(s) at which the research presented was conducted and/or supported and/or approved. For non-research content, any affiliations should represent the institution(s) with which each author is currently affiliated.

Acknowledgements of funds / grants etc received for the submitted work must be mentioned before the section of references: This work was supported by ———- Name of Agency, department  / Grant number ——–  Year to ——- ( Name of Author (s)).

Where no specific funding has been provided for the research, we ask that corresponding authors use the following sentence: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and / or publication of this article.

Plagiarism Policy

According to Oxford University Dictionary, plagiarism is defined as using some ones else’s ideas, words, data, or other material produced by them without acknowledgement. It is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and representing them as one’s own original work and Biosc Biotech Res Comm condemns all forms of plagiarism, following a very strict and vigilant policy of removing this malady. Within the academia, it is considered dishonesty or fraud and offenders are subject to academic censure.

Peer Review Policy

Unbiased, independent, critical assessment is an intrinsic part of all scholarly work, including the scientific process. Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are not part of the editorial staff, and is, therefore, an important extension of the scientific process. Each article submitted to Biosc. Biotech. Res. Comm for publication is reviewed by at least two specialist reviewers of the concerned area. The dual review process is strictly followed and in certain controversial cases, the opinion of a 3^rd reviewer can also be sought.

Manuscript Processing

Upon on-line submission of the manuscript, the author will be acknowledged with a MS number, via e-mail. Initially an article will be reviewed by the Editorial team to judge the quality and format of the manuscript, relevance to the scope of the journal, compliance with instructions to authors check list and levels of similarity / accidental plagiarism.

Articles written in poor English language, or not conforming to instructions to authors of Biosc.Biotech.Res.Comm will either be rejected or returned to the authors as incomplete submission. Manuscripts deemed proper will be forwarded to at least two subject experts to provide their unbiased input on the overall quality of the reviewed manuscript as per standard international norms.

Acceptable manuscripts will be checked for data analysis and verification of references before the author is notified about the status of the paper with any suggestions for modifications strictly as reviewers comments and revisions asked. Editors will check at every step for full compliance and revision of all such articles in press. Finally accepted articles will then be forwarded for typesetting and formatting, and the galley proof will be sent to the authors for proof reading, before final publication in a time bound period. For detailed process of manuscript, please see the flow chart of  MS processing in Biosc.Biotech.Res.Comm.

Guidelines for Reviewers

An unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Please protect it from any form of exploitation. Don’t cite a manuscript or refer to the work it describes before it has been published and don’t use the information that it contains for the advancement of your own research or in discussions with colleagues. Adopt a positive, impartial attitude toward the manuscript under review, with the aim of promoting effective and constructive scientific communication.

If you believe that you cannot judge a given article impartially, please return it immediately to the editor. Reviews must be completed within 3 weeks. If you know that you cannot finish the review within that time, immediately return the manuscript to the editor.

In your review, consider the following aspects of the manuscript: –Adherence to style of the MS as set forth in Instructions to Authors of Biosc Biotech Res Comm.

• Adequacy of title, abstract and its contents. Language and expression of findings in the manuscript.
• Significance of research questions or subject studied.
• Originality of work: It should be checked through standard plagiarism software only.
• Appropriateness of approach or methodology and adequacy of experimental techniques.
• Appropriateness of figures and or tables and length of article.
• Experimental data its presentation and interpretation.
• Soundness of conclusions and interpretation and relevance of discussion of the manuscript.
• Appropriate literature citations as per Harvard Style of References with updated references.

Any help you can give in clarifying meaning in the manuscript will be appreciated. We prefer reviewers to use the manuscript comment review system, enabling the authors to make the necessary changes as suggested by the reviewers, which can be later checked for compliance.

If you wish to mark the text of the manuscript, use a pencil or make a photocopy, mark it, and return it together with the original. You can be particularly helpful in pointing out unnecessary illustrations and data that are presented in both tabular (and graphic) form and in detail in the text. Such redundancies are a waste of space and readers time.

A significant number of authors have not learnt how to organize data and will be benefit from your guidance. Do not discuss the paper with its authors. In your comments intended for transmission to the author, do not make any specific statement about the acceptability of a paper. Suggested revision should be stated as such and not expressed as conditions of acceptance. Present criticism dispassionately and avoid offensive remarks.

Organize your review so that an introductory paragraph summarizes the major findings of the article, gives your overall impression of the paper and highlights the major shortcomings. This paragraph should be followed by specific numbered comments which if appropriate may be subdivided into major and minor points. Confidential remarks directed to the editor should be typed (or handwritten) on a separate sheet, not on the review form. You might want to distinguish between revisions considered essential and those judged merely desirable.

Your criticisms, arguments and suggestions concerning the paper will be most useful to the editor and to the author if they are carefully documented. Do not make dogmatic, dismissive statements, particularly about the novelty of work. Substantiate your statements.

Reviewer’s recommendations are gratefully received by the editor. However, since editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, reviewers should not expect the editor to honour every recommendation.

Policy of Conflict of Interest

Conflict of interest exists when as author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationship are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). However, conflicts can also occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion. Increasingly, individual studies receive funding from commercial firms, private foundations, and the government. The conditions of this funding have the potential to bias and otherwise discredit the research.

When authors submit a manuscript, they are required to disclose all financial and personal relationships that might bias their work. To prevent ambiguity, authors must state explicitly whether potential conflicts do or do not exist. It is the discretion of editorial committee of  Biosc. Biotech.Res.Comm. to resolve any conflict of interest between the author (s) and reviewers. Editors may choose not to consider an article for publication if they feel that the research is biased by the sponsors funding the research project.

Complaint Policy of Biosc.Biotech.Res.Comm

Genuine complaints in Publication: Complaint or expressionof dissatisfaction made in honest intention of improvisation are always welcome, as they provide an opportunity and instant moment of attaining quality. The editorial team of Bioscience Biotechnology Research Communications shall strive hard to establish, along with the publisher, a transparent mechanism for appeal against editorial decisions or any related matter of publication. If still there are any genuine complaints related to ethical publishing, we are always open to them for the sake of maintaining quality and ethics of publication.

Please write your complaint with Journal title, Vol No/ Issue No /Year /Page numbers, full title of the MS and necessary author details along with type of complaint. The complaint must be about something that is within the jurisdiction of Bioscience Biotechnology Research Communications, its contents or process such as authorship, plagiarism, copy right violation, multiple, duplicate, or concurrent publications/simultaneous submissions etc.Similarly, undisclosed conflicts of interest, reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers or any bias of apparent discontentment, backed by logic and judicial discretion will be immediately looked into without any bias and discrimination.

If the Editor receives a complaint that any contribution to the Journal breaks intellectual property rights or contains material inaccuracies or otherwise unlawful materials, a detailed investigation may be requested into, with the parties involved, substantiating their materialistic claims in writing, following the law of natural justice. We assure that we will make a good faith determination to remove the allegedly wrongful material or take actions as per law. All the investigations and decisions are to be documented to the Journal.

Our aim is to ensure that Bioscience Biotechnology Research Communications follows best practices in publication and is of the highest quality, free from errors. However, we accept that occasionally mistakes might happen, which are inadvertently made or beyond human control, giving opportunity to all parties to decide the best to rectify.

Editorial Complaints Policy: The Managing Editor and staff of Bioscience Biotechnology Research Communications will make every efforts to put matters right as soon as possible in the most appropriate way, offering right of reply where necessary. As far as possible, we will investigate complaints in a blame-free manner, looking to see how systems can be improved to prevent mistakes occurring.

How to Make a Complaint: Complaints about editorial content should be made as soon as possible after publication, preferably in writing by email to editor@bbrc.in or by on-line submission at www.bbrc.in

Duplicate and Redundant Publication

Duplicate or redundant publication, or self-plagiarism, occurs when a work, or substantial parts of a work, is published more than once by the author (s) of the work without appropriate cross-referencing or justification for the overlap.

We expect our readers, reviewers and editors to raise any suspicions of duplicate or redundant publication, either by contacting the relevant editor or by emailing at editor@bbrc.in.  When authors submit manuscripts to our journals, these manuscripts should not be under consideration, accepted for publication or in press within a different journal, book or similar entity, unless a journal is explicit that it does not have an exclusive submission policy.

Retractions/ Corrections / Withdrawal

We will consider retractions, corrections or expressions of concern in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines. If an author is found to have made an error, the journal will issue a corrigendum. If the journal is found to have made an error, we will issue an erratum.

Retractions are usually reserved for articles that are so seriously flawed that their findings or conclusions should not be relied upon, or that contain substantial plagiarism or life-endangering content. Biosc Biotech Res Comm  that publishes accepted manuscripts, may make minor changes such as those which would likely occur during copyediting, typesetting or proofreading, but any substantive corrections will be carried out in line with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines.

Accepted articles in final stages of publication, if are withdrawn, will entail withdrawal fees. The request will be processed by the editorial board and only serious genuine reasons will be considered if possible. The decision of the editorial board will be final and not negotiable. Unethical withdrawal or no response from the authors to editorial board communication will be subjected to sanction a ban to all authors, and their institute will also be notified.

Editorial Committee of Bioscience Biotechnology Research Communications

The Editorial committee consisting of the Editor- in-Chief, Executive Editor, Associate Editors, Assistant Editor (s), Journal Managers and the Editorial Secretaries meet frequently to expedite the business of the journal. The editorial committee strictly follows the guidelines provided for  international quality and transparent  publication.

We strive to follow COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing  https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing  and encourage our publishing partners to uphold these same principles in general and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication which can be downloaded from http://www.icmje.org/

Advisory Board

An advisory board comprising of members with significant professional experience in different fields of biological and biomedical sciences helps the Editorial Committee of Bioisc. Biotech. Res. Comm  in  all policy matters when needed. Senior advisory board members from India as well as abroad are members of the journal. Each member has been selected due to the expertise and experience in the field of their specializations.
Journal Cover www.bbrc.in