Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

1. Publication ethics are central to scholarly scientific research publishing to win the trust and the confidence of the research community. Authors, reviewers, editors and publishers are important stakeholders of the publication process and each one of these elements must adhere to the standard ethical practices to enhance the authenticity and the originality of the published work.
2. International Journal of Zoology and Applied Biosciences (IJZAB)   follows the ethical policies during publication set out by the Commission on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any cases of ethical misconduct are treated very seriously and will be dealt with in accordance with the COPE guidelines.

Duties of Authors

Manuscript Submission

1. Manuscripts that have been submitted should not have been published before or be in the process of being considered for publication.
2. Original research, accurate theoretical hypotheses, and precise experimental results must all be included in every article, and this data must all be appropriately described in the publication.
3. The Authors work should enable an unbiased debate of the relevance of the article's submission.

Reporting standards

1. Authors of reports on original research ought to give a truthful summary of the work done and an unbiased analysis of its relevance.
2. The paper should appropriately depict the underlying data. A paper should have enough information and citations to let someone else duplicate the work.
3. False or deliberately inaccurate statements are inappropriate and represent unethical behaviour.
4. Articles for reviews and professional publications should also be truthful and impartial.

Data access and retention

1. If raw data related to a manuscript is requested for editorial review, authors should be prepared to allow public access to that data, if possible, and, in any case, to maintain that data for a reasonable amount of time following publication.

Originality and plagiarism

1. The authors should make sure that their writing is wholly unique and that, if they do utilise someone else's words or work, they have properly cited or quoted them.
2. Plagiarism can take many different forms, such as misrepresenting one work as the author's own, copying or summarising significant portions of another paper without giving credit, or claiming the findings of other people's study.
3. All forms of plagiarism are forbidden and represent unethical publishing behaviour.

Multiple publications

1. In general, an author shouldn't submit articles that effectively describe the same research to more than one journal or primary publication.
2.  It is unacceptable to simultaneously submit the same work to multiple journals, which is considered unethical publishing behaviour.
3. In general, an author shouldn't submit an article that has already been published for consideration in another publication. 

Acknowledgment of sources

1. Always give due credit to other people's contributions.
2. Citations for works that had a significant impact on understanding the nature of the reported work are required.
3. Private information received through conversations, letters, or discussions with third parties is not to be used or reported upon without the source's express, written consent.
4. Without the author's express written consent, any information gained during the course of confidential services, such as reviewing grant applications or manuscripts, may not be used.

Authorship of the paper

1. Only individuals who significantly contributed to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported study should be given the privilege of authorship.
2. Co-authors should be named for everyone who contributed significantly.
3. Other people who have contributed to the research study in meaningful ways should be recognised or mentioned as contributors when applicable.
4. The corresponding author is responsible for making sure that the manuscript has all necessary co-authors, none of whom should be, and that all co-authors have seen, approved, and agreed to the paper's submission for publication.

Changes to Authorship

1. This policy addresses changes to the authorship of accepted submissions, such as the addition, deletion, or rearranging of author names. Requests to add or remove an author, or to rearrange the author names, must be sent to the Journal Manager from the accepted manuscript's corresponding author before the manuscript is published in an online issue.
2. These requests must include (a) the justification for the addition or removal of the author, or the rearrangement of the author names, and (b) written confirmation (email, fax, letter) from all authors that they agree with the addition, removal, or rearrangement.
3. This involves authorization from the author who is being added to or removed from the list of authors.
4. The Journal editor will pass requests that the corresponding author does not send to that author, who must then follow the steps outlined above. Keep in mind that (1) the Journal editor will communicate any such requests to the Journal Editors and (2) publication of the accepted manuscript in an online issue is postponed until authorship has been established.
5. Any requests to add, subtract, or rearrange author names in an article published in an online issue after the accepted manuscript has been published there shall adhere to the aforementioned policies and result in a corrigendum.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

1. The author must make it apparent in the manuscript whether the work uses any chemicals, techniques, or tools that have any unusual risks inherent in their use.
2. The author should make sure the article contains a statement that all procedures were carried out in accordance with applicable laws and institutional policies and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has authorised them if the work involves the use of human or animal subjects.
3. Informed consent for experiments involving human participants should be disclosed by the authors in the report. Human subjects' private rights must always be respected.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

1. Any financial or other significant conflict of interest that could be taken to have an impact on the findings or interpretation of a manuscript should be disclosed by all authors in the publication.
2. Disclosure of all funding sources for the project is required. Employment, consulting agreements, stock ownership, honoraria, expert witness fees, patent applications and registrations, grants, and other financial support are a few examples of potential conflicts of interest that need to be reported. At the earliest opportunity, such conflicts of interest should be revealed.

Proofs

1. Within two to three days of receiving them, corrected proofs need to be sent back to the publisher. The publisher will make every effort to guarantee speedy publishing. Therefore, it will be welcomed if the manuscripts and figures follow the journal's style right away.

Appeal against the editorial decision

1. The authors have the right to appeal against any editorial decision. A statement with rebuttal should be sent directly to the Editor-in-Chief.

Fundamental errors in published works

1. It is the responsibility of the author to promptly contact the journal editor or publisher when he or she finds a serious error or inaccuracy in their own published work and to work with the editor to retract or amend the piece.
2. The author must promptly retract or revise the paper or give the editor proof that the original paper was accurate if the editor or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a serious error.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

1. Peer review helps editors make editorial decisions and may help authors improve their submissions through editorial interactions with editors.
2. The core of scientific endeavour is peer review, which is a crucial element of formal scholarly communication. All academics who want to contribute to the scientific method must undertake a reasonable amount of reviewing.

Promptness

1. Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research presented in a submission or realises that it will be impossible to complete the review promptly should notify the editors right away and decline the invitation to review so that substitute reviewers can be recruited.

Confidentiality

1. Manuscripts submitted for review are secret documents and should be treated as such; they should not be shown to or discussed with anyone unless the Editor-in-Chief has given permission to do so (and only in very rare and any specific situations). This is true for invited reviewers who choose not to participate in the review.

Standards of objectivity

1. Reviews should be undertaken impartially, remarks made with clarity and justification, and then used by the writers to enhance their article. It is wrong to criticise the authors personally.

Acknowledgment of sources

1. Reviewers should point out pertinent published works that the authors have not cited. Any claim that is based on an observation, deduction, or argument that has already been recorded in another publication needs to be supported by the appropriate citation. A reviewer should also let the editors know if they have any personal knowledge of any significant similarities or overlaps between the article being considered and any other material (public or unpublished).

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

1. Any invited referee who has relationships or connections with any of the authors, businesses or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein that could be construed as competitive, cooperative, or other relationships or connections should immediately notify the editors to declare their relationships or connections and decline the invitation to review so that substitute reviewers can be contacted.
2. Without the authors' express written authorization, a reviewer may not use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript in their own work. It is required that any confidential information or ideas received through peer review not be used for the reviewer's own personal gain. This is true for invited reviewers who choose not to participate in the review.

Duties of Editors

Fair play and editorial independence

1. Without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religion, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation, editors evaluate submitted manuscripts solely on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study's validity, clarity, and relevance) and relevance to the journal's scope.
2. Government policies or those of any other external organisations have no bearing on the decisions to edit and publish. The whole editorial content of the magazine, as well as the date of its publication, are completely under the control of the Editor-in-Chief.

Confidentiality

1. Other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, if necessary, editors and editorial staff will not reveal any information about a submitted article to anyone else.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

1. Without the authors' express written approval, editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information revealed in a submitted manuscript for their own research.
2. Editors will maintain the confidentiality of any privileged information or ideas they acquire while working on the text, and they will not exploit them for their own benefit.
3. Editors will ask another member of the editorial board to handle manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, competitive, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, businesses, or institutions associated with the papers.

Publication decisions

1. All submitted manuscripts that are being considered for publication go through peer review by at least two subject-matter experts, according to the editors.
2. Based on the validity of the work in question, its significance to researchers and readers, the reviewers' comments, and any current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism, the Editor-in-Chief determines which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published. When making this choice, the Editor-in-Chief may consult with other editors or reviewers.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

1. When ethical questions are brought up regarding a submitted manuscript or published paper, editors will respond (together with the publisher).
2. Even if an act of unethical publishing activity is found years after publication, it will still be investigated. IJZAB editors handle situations involving possible misconduct in accordance with the COPE Flowcharts.
3. If the investigation reveals that the ethical concern is valid, the journal will publish a correction, retraction, statement of concern, or other remark that may be pertinent.

Duties of Rishan Publication

Fair play

1. Without taking into account the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophies, the publisher should assess manuscripts for their intellectual merit.

Confidentiality

1. Other than the corresponding author and reviewers, the publisher and editors are not permitted to share any information about a manuscript that has been submitted.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

1. Without the author's express written approval, any unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted work cannot be used in the publisher's own study.
2. Peer review's privileged knowledge or ideas must be kept secret and not used for one's own benefit.
3. All contributors should be required to disclose any pertinent competing interests, and the publisher should make revisions if any emerge after the publication.
4. If additional action is required, it should be performed, such as publishing a retraction or expressing concern.

Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

1. The publisher will work closely with the editors to take all necessary steps to clarify the issue and correct the offending article in cases of suspected or established scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism.
2. This covers the speedy release of an update, clarification, or, in the worst scenario, the retraction of the problematic piece of work. 
3. The publisher and editors must work together to identify and stop the publication of papers that contain research misconduct. Under no circumstances should this misconduct be encouraged or knowingly permitted to occur.

Access to journal content

1. The publisher is dedicated to the ongoing accessibility and preservation of scholarly research articles, and through working with organisations and preserving our own digital archive, we guarantee accessibility.