Facebook Twitter Linkedin
  home bred bred bred bred bred bred bred  
lilbul Academia Journal of Biotechnology
lilbul Journal of Business and Economic     Management
lilbul  Academia Journal of Medicinal Plants
lilbul Academia Journal of Environmental     Sciences
lilbul Academia Journal of Agricultural     Research
lilbul Academia Journal of Educational     Research
lilbul Academia Journal of Food Research
lilbul Academia Journal of Scientific     Research
lilbul Academia Journal of Microbiology    Research
lilbul  Engineering and Technology
lilbul Academia Journal of Pharmacy and     Pharmacology
lilbul Medicine and Medical Sciences
btn Conference Publishing
btn Grants Application
btn  Impact Factor
btn Conference Partners and Sponsors
btn Partners and Indexing Bodies
btn Building New Future Journals. Start a     new journal with Academia Publishing.     Write and submit your proposal
btn Indexed by CABI

ajar ban

Publishing Policy

Please note that AJAR adopts the rules and guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), a forum for publishers and editors (download PDF) to discuss and investigate the ethical integrity of work published in or submitted to peer reviewed journals.


Authors must not submit the same work, in whole or in part, to two places of publication at the same time, or at any time while the manuscript is under review at ACADEMIA PUBLISHING. It is also improper for an Author to submit a manuscript describing essentially the same research to more than one place of publication, unless it is a resubmission of a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication.

The manuscript must not have been previously published or accepted for publication elsewhere, either in whole (including book chapters) or in part (including paragraphs of text or exhibits), whether in English or another language.

Plagiarism and Self-Plagiarism:
All work in the manuscript should be free of any plagiarism, falsification, fabrications, or omission of significant material. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” another's paper as the Author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper without attribution, to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. If exact sentences or paragraphs that appear in another work by the Author are included in the manuscript, the material must be put in quotation marks and appropriately cited.

Cases of plagiarism and redundancy will be handled according to the practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (download PDF).

Conflicts of Interest:
Authors should avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest throughout the research process. A conflict of interest is some fact known to a participant in the publication process that if revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived (or an Author, Reviewer, or Editor feel defensive). Conflicts of interest may influence the judgment of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors. Possible conflicts often are not immediately apparent to others. They may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial. Financial interests may include employment, research funding (received or pending), stock or share ownership, patents, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies, non-financial support, or any fiduciary interest in the company. The perception of a conflict of interest is nearly as important as an actual conflict, since both erode trust.

All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Authors may withhold the names of specific sponsors if they provide an adequate and full description of the sponsor's nature and interest.

Double-Blind Review:
ACADEMIA PUBLISHING follows a double-blind review process, whereby Authors do not know Reviewers and vice versa. Authors should respect the confidentiality of the review process and should not reveal themselves to Reviewers, and vice versa.

Authors should report their findings fully and should not omit data that are relevant within the context of the research question(s). Results should be reported whether they support or contradict expected outcomes. Authors should take particular care to present relevant qualifications to their research or to the findings and interpretations of them. Underlying assumptions, theories, methods, measures and research designs relevant to the findings and interpretations of their work should be disclosed.

The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit peers with access to the same dataset to repeat the work.

If an Author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own work, it is the Author's obligation to promptly notify the journal Editor and cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper.

All Co-Authors of papers should have made significant contributions to the work and share accountability for the results. Authorship and credit should be shared in proportion to the various parties' contributions. Authors should take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have contributed. Other contributions should be cited in the manuscript's Acknowledgements or an endnote.

Authors should normally list a student as the principal Co-Author on multiple-authored publications that substantially derive from the student's dissertation or thesis.

Human Subjects:
Authors have a responsibility to preserve and protect the privacy, dignity, well-being and freedom of human subjects and research participants. Informed consent should be sought from all human subjects, and if confidentiality or anonymity is requested it should be honored.

Copyright Law:
Authors should check their manuscripts for possible breaches of copyright law (e.g., where permissions are needed for quotations, artwork or tables taken from other publications) and secure the necessary permissions before submission.

Authors should avoid anything in the text of the manuscript that might be actionable, such as defamation. Authors should avoid using sexist and biased language that could be interpreted as denigrating to ethnic or other groups; for example, plural rather than single pronouns ("they" rather than "he") are recommended.

Authors should be prompt with their manuscript revisions. If an Author cannot meet the deadline given, the Author should contact the ACADEMIA PUBLISHING Managing Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or withdrawal from the review process should be chosen.

Post publication:
ACADEMIA PUBLISHING holds the copyright to all published articles.
ACADEMIA PUBLISHING authors must ask for permission to publish their article (or a selection from the article) elsewhere, such as a ACADEMIA PUBLISHING article later appearing as a book chapter or as a translation.

Reviewing for journals is a professional activity that provides value for the profession as a whole, and should be encouraged. Scholars who submit manuscripts to ACADEMIA PUBLISHING are normally expected to reciprocate by accepting an invitation to review for the Journal.

Right of Refusal:
Refusals to review a manuscript are from time to time necessary. For example, a Reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a manuscript should refuse to review the manuscript. Reviewers should refuse to review a manuscript if there is a potential conflict of interest.

Double-Blind Review:
ACADEMIA PUBLISHING has a double-blind review process. Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts where they have provided written comments on the manuscript or an earlier version to the Author. If a Reviewer knows the identity of an Author or Co-Author, this would normally be grounds for refusal to review. Reviewers also have a responsibility to avoid writing, doing or saying anything that could identify them to an Author.

Conflict of Interest:
Normally, Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts in which they have any conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, financial, institutional, personal, or other relationships or connections with any of the companies, institutions, or people connected to the papers. Reviewers who might have a conflict of interest on a particular manuscript should reveal that conflict to the Editor, who will then determine their appropriate level of involvement.

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly and professionally. Reviewers should avoid personal biases in their comments and judgments.

Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the review process. It is important to recognize that the manuscript is confidential. Reviewers should not discuss the manuscript with anyone other than the ACADEMIA PUBLISHING Editor, nor should they discuss any information from the manuscript without permission.


In evaluating the manuscript and crafting comments to the Author(s), Reviewers should always keep in mind that their review captures their scholarly judgment about the manuscript. Reviewers should be honest with the Author in terms of their concerns about the manuscript.

Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. If a Reviewer cannot meet the deadline given, the Reviewer should contact the ACADEMIA PUBLISHING Managing Editor as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or a new Reviewer should be chosen.


Editor have the responsibility for acceptance or rejection of manuscripts rests with the Editors. Doing so normally entails advice from Reviewers; however, manuscripts that Editors deem clearly inappropriate may be rejected without such review.

Editors have the duty to judge manuscripts only on their scholarly merits. Editors should operate without personal or ideological favoritism or malice.

Conflict of Interest:
Editors should avoid any practice that gives rise to a conflict of interest or the reasonable appearance of one.

Double-Blind Review:
ACADEMIA PUBLISHING follows a double-blind review process, whereby Authors do not know Reviewers and vice versa. Where articles appear in the Journal that were not double-blind reviewed, the standard of review should be clearly stated in the printed Acknowledgements accompanying the article.

Editors and their editorial staff including student workers shall not disclose information about a manuscript to anyone other than Reviewers and Authors.

Review Quality:
Normally, three Reviewers should be invited to comment on a manuscript, but a minimum of two Reviewers is acceptable. Authors may request that certain Reviewers not be used, but this decision should be left to Editor's discretion.

Editors should take steps to ensure the timely review of all manuscripts and respond promptly to inquiries from Authors about the status of a review.

Decision Quality:
Editors should write high-quality editorial letters that integrate reviewer comments and offer additional suggestions to the Author. Editors should not send a decision letter, without explanation, attached to a set of reviewer comments.

An Editor presented with convincing evidence by a Reviewer that the substance or conclusion of an unpublished manuscript is erroneous should promptly inform the Author. If similar evidence is presented for a published manuscript, the Editor should ensure prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as appropriate.

The Editor-in-Chief should respect the Journal's constituents (readers, Authors, Reviewers, Editors, editorial staff and publisher), and work to ensure the honesty and integrity of the Journal's contents and continuous improvement in journal quality.


Copyright © 2014 Academia Publishing. All rights reserved