Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences

Author Guidelines

Publication and effective date: [01.10.2026]

1. Scope and submission principles

The Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences (JAES) is a peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing original research articles, case reports, and invited or editor-approved reviews in environmental and animal sciences. Studies in biology, ecology, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, veterinary medicine, animal husbandry, and foods of animal origin must clearly relate to the journal’s current aims and scope.

Manuscripts may be submitted in Turkish or English. A submission must not be under simultaneous consideration by another journal or previously published as an article with the same content. Connections to theses, projects, conference abstracts, or preprints, including earlier accessible versions, must be disclosed at submission. All authors must approve the final submitted version and its submission to the journal.

Submit through the Submit Article link at https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jaes. The publication model and current schedule are announced on the journal’s homepage. Publication order does not depend solely on the initial submission date; completion of assessment and publication preparation is taken into account.

2. Submission files and double-blind peer review

Submit a separate title page and an anonymized main manuscript. Use an editable Word file (.docx; .doc where necessary). Tables must be editable rather than images. Figures must appear in the manuscript and also be uploaded separately at an appropriate resolution.

The title page contains the Turkish and English titles, author names, affiliations and addresses, email addresses, ORCID identifiers, and corresponding author’s contact details. Thesis/project disclosures, acknowledgements, and identifying funding information are retained in this file during review.

The anonymized manuscript must not contain author names, institutional addresses, acknowledgements, or identifying file properties. Check Word comments and tracked changes. Identifying ethics committee or project details may be marked as masked in the review copy; complete information must remain available on the title page and in documents supplied to the editor. All required information must be restored in the accepted version. Scientifically necessary citations to authors’ own work must not be deleted; use neutral third-person wording.

Include a cover letter, required ethics approvals/permits, the applicable copyright or publishing agreement, and supplementary data where relevant. The corresponding author must ensure that author details and order in the submission system match the title page.

3. General format and page counting

Use A4 paper, 3 cm margins on all sides, Times New Roman 12-point font, and 1.5 line spacing. Abstracts are single-spaced. Main section headings are bold, uppercase, and left-aligned; subheadings are bold and in sentence case. Place page numbers at the bottom centre. Use continuous line numbering in the main manuscript; line numbers are not required on the separate title page.

The page count is the combined length of the title page and main manuscript in this format at submission. It includes Turkish and English titles, author details, abstracts, text, declarations, references, tables, and figures. Separately uploaded copies of figures already included in the text are not counted twice. A separate title page does not increase the overall page allowance. Font size, spacing, or margins must not be reduced to meet the limit.

4. Article types and length limits

A manuscript exceeding the standard limit may be considered only if the editor approves the scientific need for the additional length. The maximum may not be exceeded; shorten the text or, with editorial approval, move appropriate material to supplementary files. Supplementary files must not be used to remove essential methods or findings in a way that impedes assessment.

Exceeding the standard limit incurs an additional layout and typesetting fee of 50% of the applicable tax-inclusive standard single-manuscript subscription fee. The total price of a multiple-manuscript package is not the calculation base. An increase caused by the journal’s layout alone does not incur a fee. Length increases arising from revisions required by reviewers or editors are not charged automatically; the editor assesses them while maintaining the maximum limits. See Section 15 and the Author Subscription and Fee Policy for details.

5. Title page and author details

The title should be concise, informative, and representative of the study. Use initial capitals for words in Turkish and English titles, taking account of proper names and the conventions of the relevant language. Present the title in the manuscript’s language first.

List authors without academic titles, with an initial capital for given names and surnames in uppercase. Link affiliations using superscript numbers and mark the corresponding author with an asterisk (*). Provide each author’s institution, department, city, country, email address, and ORCID. Supply the corresponding author’s postal address and contact telephone number to the editor; publication of the telephone number is not mandatory.

Disclose thesis or project connections separately on the title page. Any change to the author list or order must be reported to the editor with a justification and written agreement from all authors.

6. Abstracts and keywords

Every manuscript must include a Turkish Öz and an English Abstract, with the abstract in the manuscript’s language presented first. Research abstracts describe the objective, methods, main findings, and conclusion; case abstracts describe the distinctive features and significance of the case; review abstracts explain the scope, purpose, and principal conclusions. Avoid unnecessary abbreviations and references.

Provide no more than six keywords in each language. Arrange them alphabetically in their respective language, separate them with commas, and end the list with a full stop. The two language versions of the abstracts and keywords must agree in meaning.

7. Main text structure

Original research: INTRODUCTION, MATERIALS AND METHODS, RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. Results and discussion may be combined, followed by a separate conclusion. The introduction identifies the research gap and objective. Methods provide sufficient detail for replication, results present observations, and discussion compares findings with the literature and addresses limitations.

Case report: INTRODUCTION, CASE REPORT, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION. Describe the relevant material, examination methods, findings, and follow-up where applicable. Identifiable personal information or information about an animal’s owner must not be disclosed without the necessary permission.

Review: INTRODUCTION, topic-specific sections, and CONCLUSION. Explain the scope, literature selection, and assessment approach. Systematic reviews must report the search strategy, data sources, and inclusion/exclusion criteria.

The conclusion presents evidence-supported conclusions, limitations, and appropriate recommendations. No prescribed opening phrase is required. Follow the main text with necessary acknowledgements, declarations, and REFERENCES.

8. Methods and statistical reporting

Clearly describe sampling location and timing, experimental or observational design, sample size, replicates, control groups, and measurement methods. Provide technical details and software versions. Prefer generic names; include device, kit, or product brands/models and manufacturers where necessary for reproducibility.

Describe statistical analysis in a separate subsection at the end of Materials and Methods. Specify tests, assumption checks, significance thresholds, and adjustments. Clearly distinguish means, standard deviations, and standard errors, and report sample sizes. Report effect sizes and confidence intervals where appropriate.

Use SI units. Define abbreviations at first use. Italicize genus and species names. Use a decimal comma in Turkish text and a decimal point in English text, consistently within each language.

9. Tables figures and supplementary files

Number tables and figures separately in their order of first mention. Refer to them explicitly as Table 1 or Figure 1. Graphs, photographs, and drawings are designated as figures. Place table titles above tables and figure captions below figures; provide titles and captions in both Turkish and English.

Place tables and figures near their first relevant discussion. Explain abbreviations, units, symbols, and statistical markers in notes. Do not unnecessarily duplicate the same data in both a table and a graph.

Also supply figures separately in JPEG format at a minimum of 300 dpi at their intended display size. Labels and scales must be readable, and images must not be altered in ways that misrepresent results. Provide attribution and reuse permission where required for material from other sources. Name supplementary files descriptively and cite them in the main text.

10. Research ethics and author declarations

For research requiring ethics approval, state the authorized committee’s name, approval date, and approval number in the methods and the relevant ethics declaration, and provide the documentation to the editor. Derivation from a thesis does not, by itself, establish an exemption. For studies not requiring approval or qualifying for an exemption, provide the rationale and any exemption document issued by the competent institution. Requirements applicable at the time and place of the research are taken into account.

For animal studies, explain ethical compliance, animal welfare, and relevant permissions. For research involving human participants or personal data, state the necessary ethics approval and informed consent. Where applicable, document compliance with competent authorities’ permit and notification requirements for field sampling, protected species, use of biological material, or notifiable animal diseases.

Before the references, include appropriately titled statements on Ethics Approval and Permissions, Author Contributions, Conflicts of Interest, Funding, Data Availability, and, where applicable, Use of Artificial Intelligence. Explicitly declare the absence of funding or conflicts where relevant. Funding statements identify the funder, project number, and funder’s role. Data statements specify the location of data or reasons for restricted access; confidential data need not be openly disclosed.

If generative AI has been used, disclose the tool, version where available, purpose, and sections in which it was used. AI cannot be listed as an author. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy of all content, data, and references. An explanatory disclosure is required rather than a numerical “AI percentage”.

11. Citations and references

The journal’s current referencing style is APA, 6th edition. Use author–date citations and arrange the reference list alphabetically by the first author’s surname. Every citation must have a matching reference, and every listed reference must be cited. Distinguish works by the same author in the same year using letters such as a and b.

Cite single-author works as (Yılmaz, 2024) and two-author works as (Yılmaz & Kaya, 2024). For three to five authors, list all surnames on first citation; subsequently use the first surname followed by “et al.” in English or “vd.” in Turkish. For six or more authors, use the shortened form from the first citation. Arrange multiple works within one parenthesis alphabetically and separate them with semicolons. These names are formatting examples only.

In the reference list, include all authors for up to seven authors. For eight or more, list the first six, an ellipsis, and the last author. Italicize applicable elements, such as journal titles and volume numbers or book titles, according to APA 6. Include a DOI where available; do not invent missing DOIs or bibliographic information.

Existing reference-count requirements are retained: original research must include at least 20 references, case reports at least 10, and reviews no more than 40. References must be relevant and necessary; citation of the journal or its editors is not mandatory.

The following are formatting schemas, not references to actual publications:

Journal article: Surname, A. A., & Surname, B. B. (Year). Article title. Journal Title, volume(issue), page range. doi:DOI

Book: Surname, A. A. (Year). Book title (Edition). Place of publication: Publisher.

Book chapter: Surname, A. A. (Year). Chapter title. In B. B. Surname (Ed.), Book title (pp. xx–xx). Place of publication: Publisher.

Thesis: Surname, A. A. (Year). Thesis title (Type of thesis). University, city, country. Retrieval address where available.

Web source or report: Author/Organization. (Year). Title. Publisher or retrieval address. Add a retrieval date for online content that may change.

Software: Developer/Organization. (Year). Software name (Version) [Computer software]. Publisher or URL.

12. Initial checks peer review and revision

Initial checks cover file completeness, scope, format, ethics documents, and declarations. Corrections may be requested, or a manuscript may be rejected on scientific/editorial grounds. The corresponding author’s subscription and available entitlement are verified before the first reviewer invitation.

The journal uses double-blind peer review. Eligible manuscripts are sent to at least two independent subject specialists for assessment. The authorized editor makes the final acceptance or rejection decision based on reports and scientific assessment. Payments or waivers do not influence that decision.

For revisions, submit a point-by-point response to reviewer/editor comments, a clean revised manuscript, and a version showing changes if requested. Keep the response file anonymous during review. Explain scientifically justified decisions not to implement suggestions, and meet the stated revision deadline or request an extension.

13. Subscription requirements and current fees

These guidelines operate together with the Author Subscription and Fee Policy effective on the same date. Reader access is free. Authors may subscribe before or at submission; payment of the basic fee must be completed before the first reviewer invitation. The corresponding author must hold the subscription; another co-author’s subscription alone is insufficient.

The TRY tariff applies when the subscribing corresponding author declares an address in Türkiye; the alternative EUR or USD tariff applies to a declared address abroad. Citizenship, manuscript language, and payment by another person or organization do not change the tariff basis. The second, third, and fourth manuscripts receive discounts of 10%, 15%, and 20%, respectively, from the standard single-manuscript fee. For more than four submissions, contact the finance office in writing; the fee, coverage, and exact expiry date are provided before payment.

The calendar year in which the subscription starts counts as year one. Standard entitlement expires at the end of that year; two-, three-, and four-manuscript entitlements expire at the end of the second, third, and fourth calendar years, respectively. Manuscript allowances do not renew annually. A manuscript submitted and covered before expiry completes review and, if accepted, publication under the existing payment. After expiry, no new submission or replacement for a manuscript subsequently rejected may be made under that entitlement.

Active editors receive complimentary Gold coverage, section editors Silver coverage, and initial screening editors Standard coverage. The respective total allowances and validity rules apply, without automatic annual renewal. Activities outside coverage are subject to the fee policy. A manuscript authored by an editor is handled by another editor without a conflict of interest; the author-editor takes no part in assessing their own submission.

Current payment accounts, registration procedures, and detailed financial terms appear in the Author Subscription and Fee Policy. Financial correspondence: jaes-tr@hotmail.com. A subscription does not guarantee scientific acceptance or publication.

14. Rejection withdrawal and suspension

Editorial or peer-review rejection does not qualify for a cash refund. Rejection does not consume the relevant entitlement; another manuscript may be submitted within the subscription’s validity. The new manuscript is assessed independently.

The corresponding author may request withdrawal in writing with all authors’ knowledge and agreement. A refund may be requested for withdrawal during initial checks before the first reviewer invitation; the finance office assesses the request. Coverage already used for other manuscripts in a multiple-manuscript subscription is not refunded on this basis. Voluntary withdrawal after the first reviewer invitation does not qualify for a refund.

Authors may request in writing that the entitlement associated with a manuscript withdrawn after peer review begins be placed on hold. It may be used for a replacement manuscript within the original subscription period; the validity period is neither paused nor extended. Other manuscripts are unaffected. Retention of a fee does not authorize publication of a withdrawn manuscript.

Acceptance or DOI assignment does not remove the need for ethical investigation or correction of the publication record. The editor assesses withdrawal requests concerning unpublished manuscripts. Published articles are not silently deleted; necessary corrections or retraction notices are handled under the journal’s post-publication policy.

15. Acceptance proofs and additional production fees

After acceptance, complete author details and ethics and funding declarations must be restored, and the corresponding author must carefully check the typeset proof. Routine proof review, minor typographical corrections, and correction of errors introduced by the journal are free of charge.

If substantial author-requested changes to tables, figures, or text after typesetting and delivery of the proof require retypesetting, the fee is 50% of the applicable tax-inclusive standard single-manuscript subscription fee. Where both excess length and such retypesetting apply to the same manuscript, the combined additional fee cannot exceed 50%. The amounts are TRY 2,400 for the domestic tariff or EUR 125 or USD 100 for the international tariff. The reason and amount are communicated before work begins, and written agreement is obtained.

Changes affecting data, results, or interpretation require scientific assessment and, where necessary, renewed peer review. An additional payment does not guarantee approval of a change. Corrections necessary to maintain the accuracy of the published record are not prevented on payment grounds.

16. Open access copyright and permissions

The open access licence identified on the journal’s copyright page is Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Reuse requires appropriate attribution, a licence link, and an indication of changes where made. Full licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Authors must respect third-party rights and provide permission documents where necessary. Rights and obligations concerning copyright transfer or publishing authorization are governed by the journal’s applicable copyright/publishing agreement. The required agreement must be completed with all authors’ approval. Licence information must be consistent on the article webpage and in the published file.

17. Final checks and effective date

Before submission, check the article type, title page and anonymized manuscript, bilingual abstracts, total page count, figure/table files, citation–reference matching, ethics permissions, author declarations, and ORCID details. The corresponding author must meet the valid-subscription requirement before the first reviewer invitation.

These guidelines take effect on the date announced on the journal’s official website. Existing subscriptions retain their agreed fees, coverage, and validity periods when financial provisions are applied. Publish the Turkish and English guidelines and fee policy with the same version and date, and redirect superseded duplicate instructions to the current text.

Editorial Office, Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences
 

This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We accept all terms and conditions of COPE about plagiarism and in case, any attempt of plagiarism is brought to our attention accompanied by convincing evidence, we act based on flowcharts and workflows determined in COPE. The production of an article in an associate audited journal is a fundamental building hinder in the improvement of a rational and regarded system of information. It is an immediate impression of the nature of crafted by the creators and the organizations that help them. Associate evaluated articles support and encapsulate the logical technique. It is subsequently imperative to heaps of expected moral conduct for all gatherings associated with the demonstration of distributing: the creator, the journal manager, the companion commentator, the distributor, and the general public of society-claimed or supported journals. All submissions will be checked with plagiarism software in 2 stages: New Submission and After Acceptance from the editorial boards.

Latest statistics of the manuscript publication process:

Evaluation period (Elapsed time between post and decision of a paper) 90-150 days
Early publication time (Elapsed time between post and early publication of a paper) 90-150 days
Publication time (Elapsed time between post and publication of a paper) 120-150 days

Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences (JAES) as a member of Anatolian Academic Sciences (AAS), co-published by TUBİTAK ULAKBIM DERGIPARK and DERGI PLATFORM, is committed to apply ethics of publication, based on the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices. You may find the journal’s code of publication ethics, here.

Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences (JAES) aims to be a main channel of data communication, sharing of ideas and information to the scientific researching community. It is mandatory for us to follow certain code of ethics and it is advices to adhere strictly to the following code of ethics, which will enhance the quality of the published works heavily. This currently written code of ethics is focusing to provide guidance on the proper behavior of editors, authors and reviewers in the process of scientific publication.

Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences (JAES) is committed to follow and apply “International Standards for Authors” of Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading the Journal’s reviewing and publishing process and dealing with their issues. You may find the International Standards for Authors, here. Authors should read the standard and apply it on their works, completely. Authors submitting a paper confirm that the understanding that the manuscript have been read and approved by all authors and that all authors agree to the submission of the manuscript to the Journal. In addition, authors are advised to follow the following code of ethics strictly Submit manuscripts, which are their originals works or of the work, they are associated with during their tenure.
Submitted manuscripts should contain original and new results, data, and their ideas, which are not submitted for publishing to other publications or published elsewhere. Fabrication of data and results, intellectual property theft and plagiarism are highly unacceptable, it is beyond the ethics of an author. Information obtained via various media should be provided in the manuscript only with prior permission from the owner of the source of information or data. They should properly cite the work they are referring; authors are advised to crosscheck the reference before submission of manuscript. They may not promote in any form via any media to get their works published. No article should have an author who is not directly involved in the work for any means or reasons.
Authors and co-authors are requested to review and ensure the accuracy and validity of all the results prior to submission. Any potential conflict of interest should be informed to the editor in advance. Authors are bound by the Creative Commons licensing policy of publication. All authors are requested to submit the copyright transfer form without failure once they receive the acceptance of their article for publication.
Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences (JAES) is committed to follow and apply “International Standards for Editors” of Committee on Publication Ethics in designing and leading the Journal’s reviewing and publishing process and dealing with their issues. You may find the International Standards for Editors, here. The journal's editors should read the standard and apply it in their editorial tasks and procedures, completely.
The term editor is a common terminology used to refer Chief Editor of any journal, Content editor, Section Editor (An expert who is the manager of reviewing process in a subject centered section), and Editorial board members. Editors of the JAES are insisted to have full responsibility for editorial and technical decisions of the journal. Any editor or office bearer should not intervene or give comment on any editorial decisions taken on any manuscript by the concerned editor. Editors are requested to give unbiased considerations for the articles submitted. JAES aims for rapid publication, editors are advised to process the manuscripts promptly and diligently.
Editors are the sole responsible persons for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript, it may be subjected to peer review but the final decision is bound to the concerned editor. Any decision taken or matter of concern about a submitted article should not be revealed to anyone by an editor. If one of the editor is willing to publish an article the article should be processed by another editor. Editor should refrain from using the information, data, theories, or interpretations of any submitted manuscript in her/his own work until that manuscript is in press.
Reviewers are the main members contributing for the benefit of the journal being a peer reviewed (double-blind review) journal they are insisted not to disclose their identity in any form.
A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified or if the timely review cannot be done by him/her or if the article has a conflict of interest. All submissions should be treated as confidential, editorial approval might be given for any outside person’s advice received. No reviewer should pass on the article submitted to him/her for review to another reviewer in his own concern, it should be declined immediately. Reviewers being the base of the whole quality process should ensure that the articles published should be of high quality and original work. He may inform the editor if he finds the article submitted to him for review is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.
There are no hard and fast rules to analysis an article, this can be done on case-to-case basis considering the worthiness, quality, and originality of the article submitted.
In general, cases the following may be checked in a review

· Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to author guidelines
· Purpose and Objective of the article
· Method of using transitions in the article
· Introduction given and the conclusion/ suggestions provided
· References provided to substantiate the content
· Grammar, punctuation and spelling · Plagiarism issues
· Suitability of the article to the need

A reviewer’s comment decides the acceptance or rejection of an article and they are one major element in a peer review process. All our reviewers are requested to go through the articles submitted to them for review in detail and give the review comments without any bias, which will increase the quality of our journals.
Being an association dedicated for the researcher fraternity, we all should ensure that the code of ethics formed is followed in all possible ways. Being a not-for-profit body it is the internal responsibility of a person whom should have to follow the codes, there is no enforcement to follow.

COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts
Journal of Anatolian Environmental and Animal Sciences is committed to follow and apply guidelines and flowcharts of Committee on Publication Ethics in its reviewing and publishing process and issues.

COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices
1. Editors
Chief Editors is accountable for everything published in the journal. This means the editors
1.1 strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
1.2 strive to constantly improve their journal;
1.3 have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
1.4 champion freedom of expression;
1.5 maintain the integrity of the academic record;
1.6 preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
1.7 always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Best Practice for Editors would include actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal’s processes in the light of new findings supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics assessing the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behavior and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behavior and discourage misconduct ensuring that any press releases issued by their journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context.

2. Readers
Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.
Best practice for editors would include: Ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers including statistical review, ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified, adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists, considering developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles, adopting authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work) and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors)

3. informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation

4. Relations with authors
4.1 Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
4.2 Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
4.3 New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
4.4 A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
4.5 Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
4.6 Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
4.7 Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.

Best practice for editors would include: Reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines, publishing relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication, ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests), respecting requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and practicable, publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct, publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles.

5. Relations with reviewers
5.1 Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
5.2 Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
5.3 Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.

Best practice for editors would include: Encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate data manipulation and presentation), encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism, considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches), sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks, seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal, encouraging academic institutions to recognize peer review activities as part of the scholarly process, monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard, developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance, ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews, ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for their journal and adding new reviewers as needed, using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases), following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct.

6. Relations with editorial board members
6.1 Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.
Best practice for editors would include: Having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review, identifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal, regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board, providing clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include: acting as ambassadors for the journal, supporting and promoting the journal, seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions, reviewing submissions to the journal, accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area, attending and contributing to editorial board meetings, consulting editorial board members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenge.

7. Relations with AAS
7.1 The relationship of editors to AAS and the owner is based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.
7.2 Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from AAS.
7.3 Editors have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with AAS.
7.4 The terms of this contract is in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.

Best practice for editors would include: Communicating regularly with AAS

8. Editorial and peer review processes
8.1 Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely.
8.2 Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.

Best practice for editors would include: ensuring that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal management, keeping informed about research into peer review and technological advances, adopting peer review methods best suited for their journal and the research community it serves, reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible, referring troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE flowcharts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected, considering the appointment of an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally.

9. Quality assurance
9.1 Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
Best practice for editors would include: Having systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or plagiarised text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised, basing decisions about journal house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of reporting (e.g. adopting structured abstracts, applying guidance) rather than simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference.

10. Protecting individual data
10.1 Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, however, they should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions. It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognize themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.
Best practice for editors would include: Publishing their policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable personal details or images) and explaining this clearly to authors, Note that consent to take part in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal details, images or quotations.

11. Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals)
11.1 Editors should endeavour to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally Declaration of Helsinki for clinical research, and the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research.
11.2 Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors should recognize that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
Best practice for editors would include: Being prepared to request evidence of ethical research approval and to question authors about ethical aspects (such as how research participant consent was obtained or what methods were employed to minimize animal suffering) if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed, ensuring that reports of clinical trials cite compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice, appointing a journal ethics advisor or panel to advise on specific cases and review journal policies periodically.

12. Dealing with possible misconduct
12.1 Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
12.2 Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
12.3 Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable.
12.4 Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.
12.5 Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.

13. Ensuring the integrity of the academic record
13.1 Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
13.2 Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions.
Best practice for editors would include: Taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication (e.g. by requiring all clinical trials to be registered)
ensuring that published material is securely archived (e.g. via online permanent repositories, such as PubMed Central), having systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available.

14. Intellectual property
14.1 Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with Negah Publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Best practice for editors would include: Adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised), supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism, being prepared to work with Negah Publisher to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether their journal holds the copyright.

15. Encouraging debate
15.1 Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal.
15.2 Authors of criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond.
15.3 Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
Best practice for editors would include: Being open to research that challenges previous work published in the journal.
16. Complaints
16.1 Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.
16.2 Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.

17. Commercial considerations
17.1 Journals should have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments).
17.2 Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing sponsored supplements.
17.3 Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction needs to be included in which case it should be clearly identified.
Best practice for editors would include: Publishing a general description of their journal’s income sources (e.g. the proportions received from display advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, page charges, etc.), ensuring that the peer review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal, ensuring that items in sponsored supplements are accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and decisions about such supplements are not influenced by commercial considerations.

18. Conflicts of interest
18.1 Editors should use COPE/JAES form and procedure for managing the conflicts of interest issues.
18.2 Journals should have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review.