Editorial Policies

Editorial responsibilities

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal will be published. The decisions are made based exclusively on the manuscript's merit. They must be free from any racial, gender, sexual, religious, ethnic, or political bias. When making decisions the Editor-in-Chief is also guided by the editorial policy and legal provisions relating to defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Members of the Editorial Board including the Editor-in-Chief must hold no conflict of interest with regard to the articles they consider for publication. Members who feel they might be perceived as being involved in such a conflict do not participate in the decision process for a particular manuscript.

The information and ideas presented in submitted manuscripts shall be kept confidential. Information and ideas contained in unpublished materials must not be used for personal gain without the written consent of the authors.

Editors and the editorial staff shall take all reasonable measures to ensure that the authors/reviewers remain anonymous during and after the evaluation process in accordance with the type of reviewing in use.

The Editorial Board is obliged to assist reviewers with additional information on the manuscript, including the results of checking manuscript for plagiarism.

COPE

By submitting a manuscript to this journal, each author explicitly confirms that the manuscript meets the highest ethical standards for authors and coauthors. Our ethic statements are based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors proposed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which is a charity registered in the UK. It is concerned with the integrity of peer-reviewed publications in science, particularly biomedicine.

ICMJE

The Editors of Journal of Biological Engineering Research and Review endorse the policies of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, including those that cover overlapping publications.

The following duties outlined for editors, reviewers and authors are based on the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. Editors, authors, and reviewers will also adhere to the journal submission guideline policies.

Responsibilities of the Editor and Editorial Board
Publication decisions: The decision to publish an article submitted to the Journal of Biological Engineering Research and Review is taken by the editorial board. The editor must stick to the contemporary regulations pertaining to libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism that are effective. He is entitled to carry out decision-making in consultation with reviewers or members of the editorial board.

Fair play: an editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality: the editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Reviewers Responsibilities

Reviewer is responsible to both the author and the editor in regard to the manuscript. Peer review is the principal mechanism by which the quality of research is judged. Most funding decisions in science and the academic advancement of scientists are based on peer-reviewed publications.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Confidentiality: - Reviews and reviewer comments should be held confidentially. Manuscripts or copies of the process shouldn't be retained with the reviewers after the process is commenced.

Constructive Evaluation: - Decisions and judgment should be constructive that provides legible insight to author without any controversy or inefficiencies with the review process

Competence: -Reviewer with passable expertise will serve the purpose to complete the review. People lacking adequate expertise should feel responsible and can decline the review.

Impartiality and Integrity: - Reviewer decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, scope of the journal rather on financial, racial, ethnic origin etc. of the authors.

Timeliness and Responsiveness: - Reviewer should be responsible to complete the review within the relevant time and should take all necessary steps to fulfill the limitations of the journal.

Author's Responsibilities
Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of their original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Manuscripts will follow the submission guidelines of the journal.

Originality: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal.

Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in the research work.

Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.

Data Access and Retention: Authors should provide raw data related to their manuscript for editorial review and must retain such data.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If at any point of time, the author(s) discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in submitted manuscript, then the error or inaccuracy must be reported to the editor.

Submission policies

Submission of a manuscript to a JBERR journal implies that all authors have read and agreed to its content and that the manuscript conforms to the journal’s policies. When you submit a manuscript to Journal of Biological Engineering Research and Review, we will take it to imply that the manuscript has not already been published or submitted elsewhere. If similar or related work has been published or submitted elsewhere, then you must provide a copy with the submitted manuscript. You may not submit your manuscript elsewhere while it is under consideration at Journal of Biological Engineering Research and Review.

The primary affiliation for each author should be the institution where the majority of their work was done. If an author has subsequently moved, the current address may also be stated. Journal of Biological Engineering Research and Review remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. If the manuscript includes personal communications, please provide a written statement of permission from any person who is quoted. Permission by email is acceptable.

We reserve the right to reject a paper even after it has been accepted if it becomes apparent that there are serious problems with its scientific content, or our publishing policies have been violated.

Authorship

To give appropriate credit to each author, the individual contributions of authors should be specified in the manuscript. An 'author' is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study. According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines, to qualify as an author one should have:

· made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;

· been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content;

· given final approval of the version to be published. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content; and

· agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

· Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, alone, does not usually justify authorship.

Acknowledgements

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an ‘acknowledgements’ section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support.

Changes in authorship

In line with COPE guidelines, JBERR requires written confirmation from all authors that they agree with any proposed changes in authorship of submitted manuscripts or published articles. This confirmation must be via direct email from each author. It is the corresponding author’s responsibility to ensure that all authors confirm that they agree with the proposed changes. If there is disagreement amongst the authors concerning authorship and a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, the authors must contact their institution(s) for a resolution. It is not the Editor’s responsibility to resolve authorship disputes.

Closed peer review

Journal of Biological Engineering Research and Review operate a closed peer review process. Reviewers will be treated anonymously and the pre-publication history of each article will not be made available online. All submissions to JBERR are assessed by an Editor, who will decide whether they are suitable for peer review. Submissions felt to be suitable for consideration will be sent for peer review with appropriate independent experts. Editors will make a decision based on the reviewers’ reports and authors are sent these reports along with the editorial decision on their manuscript. Authors should note that even in light of one positive report, concerns raised by another reviewer may fundamentally undermine the study and result in the manuscript being rejected.

Confidentiality

Editors will treat all manuscripts submitted to all JBERR in confidence. Reviewers are also required to treat manuscripts confidentially. JBERR will not share manuscripts with third parties outside of JBERR except in cases of suspected misconduct. See our Misconduct policy for further information. Manuscripts may be shared with other Editors at JBERR, unless authors indicate on submission that they do not wish for their manuscript to be passed on beyond the journal they submitted to.

Guidelines for retracting articles

Journal of Biological Engineering Research and Review takes its responsibility to maintain the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record of our content for all end users very seriously. Journal of Biological Engineering Research and Review places great importance on the authority of articles after they have been published and our policy is based on best practice in the academic publishing community.

It is a general principle of scholarly communication that the editor of a learned journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal shall be published. In making this decision, the editor is guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. An outcome of this principle is the importance of the scholarly archive as a permanent, historic record of the transactions of scholarship. Articles that have been published shall remain extant, exact and unaltered as far as is possible. However, very occasionally circumstances may arise where an article is published that must later be retracted or even removed. Such actions must not be undertaken lightly and can only occur under exceptional circumstances, such as:

Article Withdrawal

Only used for Articles in Press which represent early versions of articles and sometimes contain errors, or may have been accidentally submitted twice. Occasionally, but less frequently, the articles may represent infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like.

Article Retraction

Infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like. Occasionally a retraction will be used to correct errors in submission or publication.

Article Removal

Legal limitations upon the publisher, copyright holder or author(s).

Article Replacement

Identification of false or inaccurate data that, if acted upon, would pose a serious health risk..

Maintaining the integrity of the academic record

Encouraging academic integrity

· Request evidence of ethical research approval for all relevant submissions and be prepared to question authors about aspects such as how patient consent was obtained or what methods were employed to minimize animal suffering.

· Ensure that reports of clinical trials cite compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice and other relevant guidelines to safeguard participant.

· Ensure that reports of experiments on, or studies of, animals cite compliance with the US Department of Health and Human Services Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals or other relevant guidelines.

· Consider appointing a journal ethics panel to advise on specific cases and review journal policies periodically.

Ensuring the integrity of the academic record

· Take steps to reduce covert redundant publication, e.g. by requiring all clinical trials to be registered.

· Ensure that published material is securely archived (e.g. Via online permanent repositories, such as Index Copernicus, PubMed Central etc.).

· Have systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available.

Preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.
Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence. Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Research Ethics

All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors will follow the Misconduct policy and may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s)’ institution or ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.

Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data

Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. If a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, this should also be detailed in the manuscript (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption). Further information and documentation to support this should be made available to Editors on request. Manuscripts may be rejected if the Editor considers that the research has not been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.

Retrospective ethics approval

If a study has not been submitted to an ethics committee prior to commencing, retrospective ethics approval usually cannot be obtained and it may not be possible to consider the manuscript for peer review. How to proceed in such cases is at the Editor(s)’ discretion.

New clinical tools and procedures

Authors reporting the use of a new procedure or tool in a clinical setting, for example as a technical advance or case report, must give a clear justification in the manuscript for why the new procedure or tool was deemed more appropriate than usual clinical practice to meet the patient’s clinical need. Such justification is not required if the new procedure is already approved for clinical use at the authors’ institution. Authors will be expected to have obtained ethics committee approval and informed patient consent for any experimental use of a novel procedure or tool where a clear clinical advantage based on clinical need was not apparent before treatment.

Informed consent

For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript.

Consent for publication of individual patient data

For all manuscripts that include details, images, or videos relating to individual participants, written informed consent for the publication of these must be obtained from the participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript. If the participant has died, then consent for publication must be sought from the next of kin of the participant. You can use our consent form to obtain consent for publication from the participant(s), or a consent form from your own institution or region if you prefer. This documentation must be made available to Editors on request, and will be treated confidentially. In cases where images are entirely unidentifiable and there are no details on individuals reported within the manuscript, consent for publication of images may not be required. The final decision on whether consent to publish is required lies with the Editor.

Research involving animals

Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The Basel Declaration outlines fundamental principles to adhere to when conducting research in animals and the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) has also published ethical guidelines.

A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines (e.g. the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe) and/or ethical approval (including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate) must be included in the manuscript. If a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, this should also be detailed in the manuscript (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption and the reasons for the exemption). The Editor will take account of animal welfare issues and reserves the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.

For experimental studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also document informed consent from the client or owner and adherence to a high standard (best practice) of veterinary care.

Field studies and other non-experimental research on animals must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines and/or appropriate permissions or licences must be included in the manuscript. We recommend that authors comply with the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction.

Authors are strongly encouraged to conform to the Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines, developed by the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), for reporting animal studies.

For studies reporting livestock trials with production, health and food-safety outcomes, authors are encouraged to adhere to the Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials in Livestock and Food Safety (REFLECT).

Research involving plants

Experimental research on plants (either cultivated or wild) including collection of plant material, must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines. Field studies should be conducted in accordance with local legislation, and the manuscript should include a statement specifying the appropriate permissions and/or licences. We recommend that authors comply with the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Voucher specimens must be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collection providing access to deposited material. They should include details on the site of collection(GPS coordinates), date of collection, and document the part(s) used in the study where appropriate. Information on the voucher specimen and who identified it must be included in the manuscript.

Copyright/Libel

Authors are responsible for the legal correctness of their manuscripts. JBERR has a legal responsibility to ensure that its Journal do not publish material that infringes copyright or includes libellous or defamatory content. If a manuscript is perceived to contain potentially libellous content the Editors, with assistance from the publisher if required, will work with authors to remove the potentially problematic sections. Manuscripts containing material that infringes copyright or is potentially libellous or defamatory will be rejected.

Figures

Authors must have permission from the copyright holder to reproduce any figures that are covered by copyright and cite the original source. Documentary evidence to support this permission must be made available to the Editor on request. Figures reproduced from those published under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 may be reproduced, but only with correct attribution.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Competing Interests/Conflict of Interest

JBERR requires authors to declare all competing interests in relation to their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘competing interests’ section at the end of the manuscript listing all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read “The author(s) declare(s) that they have no competing interests”. Editors may ask for further information relating to competing interests.

Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests and will be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.

What constitutes a competing interest?

Competing interests may be financial or non-financial. A competing interest exists when the authors’ interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment if they were to become public after the publication of the article. Please see Commercial organizations for more information relating to competing interests on manuscripts from commercial organizations.

Financial competing interests

· Financial competing interests include (but are not limited to):

· Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the article, either now or in the future.

· Holding stocks or shares in an organization that may in any way gain or lose financially from the publication of the article, either now or in the future.

· Holding, or currently applying for, patents relating to the content of the manuscript.

· Receiving reimbursements, fees, funding, or salary from an organization that holds or has applied for patents relating to the content of the manuscript.

Non-financial competing interests

Non-financial competing interests include (but are not limited to) political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, and intellectual competing interests. If, after reading these guidelines, you are unsure whether you have a competing interest, please contact the Editor.

Commercial organizations

Authors from pharmaceutical companies, or other commercial organizations that sponsor clinical trials, should declare these as competing interests on submission. They should also adhere to the Good Publication Practice guidelines for pharmaceutical companies, which are designed to ensure that publications are produced in a responsible and ethical manner. The guidelines also apply to any companies or individuals that work on industry-sponsored publications, such as freelance writers, contract research organizations and communications companies. JBERR will not publish "advertorial" content.

Misconduct

JBERR takes seriously all allegations of potential misconduct. JBERR Journal follow COPE guidelines outlining how to deal with cases of suspected misconduct.

In cases of suspected research or publication misconduct, it may be necessary for Editors to contact and share manuscripts with third parties, for example, author(s)’ institution(s) and ethics committee(s).

Research misconduct

All research involving humans (including human data and human material) and animals must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework (see our Ethics policy for further information). If there is suspicion that research has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors may reject a manuscript and may inform third parties, for example, author(s)’ institution(s) and ethics committee(s).

Publication misconduct

JBERR Journal will follow COPE guidelines outlining how to deal with cases of potential publication misconduct.

Image manipulation

· All digital images in manuscripts considered for publication will be scrutinized for any indication of manipulation that is inconsistent with the following guidelines. Manipulation that violates these guidelines may result in delays in manuscript processing or rejection, or retraction of a published article.

· No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced.

· The grouping of images from different parts of the same gel, or from different gels, fields, or exposures, must be made explicit by the arrangement of the figure (i.e. using dividing lines) and in the text of the figure legend.

· Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if they are applied to every pixel in the image and as long as they do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information present in the original, including the background. Non-linear adjustments (e.g. changes to gamma settings) must be disclosed in the figure legend.

· Any questions raised during or after the peer review process will be referred to the Editors, who will request the original data from the author(s) for comparison with the prepared figures. If the original data cannot be produced, the manuscript may be rejected or, in the case of a published article, retracted. Any case in which the manipulation affects the interpretation of the data will result in rejection or retraction. Cases of suspected misconduct will be reported to the author(s)’ institution(s).

Plagiarism

JBERR uses plagiarism detection software. If plagiarism is identified, COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Appeals or complaints

Appeals

Authors have the right to appeal rejection of their manuscript. Appeals should be based on the scientific content of the manuscript and its suitability for publication rather than concerns about the process. Authors wishing to appeal a rejection should contact the Editor of the specific journal. Authors should note that new submissions are prioritized over appeals, so authors may not receive a decision on their appeal immediately. The Editor’s decision on the appeal is final.

Complaints

Authors wishing to make a complaint should, in the first instance, contact the Editor of the specific journal who will make them aware of the individual journal’s complaints procedure. For complains that cannot be resolved with the Editor (for example, complaints about the Editors themselves), the authors should contact Shanti Braj Educational and Welfare Society, the publisher.