The role of chrysin on oxidative stress and the asymmetric dimethylarginine/ dimethylarginine dimethylaminohydrolase-1/nitric oxide synthase signaling pathway in an experimental hyperthyroidism model

Click the spelling rules for details in PDF format

Introduction

Peer-reviewed studies are those that embody and comply with the scientific method and thus ensure quality standards, improvement of performance, and credibility in science. Consequently, it is important that all stakeholders (authors, readers, researchers, publishers, referees, and editors) comply with ethical principles and standards. Within this framework, VetBio expects all stakeholders to have the following ethical responsibilities as a part of its publication ethics.

Acceptance of papers for the VetBio is undertaken by Editors. Editorial Board members adjudicate in the case of conflicting or adverse reports. All submissions to the Journal of Advances in VetBio Science and Techniques should be original studies. VetBio pays attention to the conformity of articles to Research and Publication Ethics. The editorial and publication processes of the journal are shaped in accordance with the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), Council of Science Editors (CSE), and Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), European Association of Science Editors (EASE), and the National Information Standards Organization (NISO). The journal is in conformity with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (doaj.org/bestpractice).

All submissions undergo a plagiarism control by the Editor using the web-based similarity detection software to confirm their originality as a natural necessity of keeping the rights of the authors and to meet the journal’s editorial responsibilities. The editor considers the report of plagiarism control in terms of not only numerical values of the overlap but also in other the ethical points that authors should pay attention in citations and then makes a decision to move the manuscript in further evaluation steps or not.

Assuming that the scientific studies submitted for publication in our journal are carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Regulation on Welfare and Protection of Animals Used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes with European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and Other Scientific Purposes and that all necessary institutional ethics and legal permissions are taken, journal management does not accept responsibility as a matter of responsibility. If the “Animal” element is used in the study, the authors must state that they protect animal rights in their studies and that they have taken approval from the relevant ethics committee. Our journal expects and supports the compliance of 3R (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) rules in the use of experimental animals in accordance with the European consensus-platform for alternatives strategies in scientific studies.

Approval of different ethics committee or permission (for example, clinical research ethics committee approval) during the evaluation of the discontinuation of the review of the articles that are required to receive the necessary authorizations are warned, the publication the process is continued after the necessary permissions are completed. The approval information should be added to the material and method section.

It is the authors' responsibility to ensure that all permits (such as work permits for wildlife) are obtained from the relevant institutions and organizations in accordance with international and national regulations. The journal cannot be held responsible for this matter.

Ethics of Experimentation

An approval of research protocols by an Animal Ethics Committee in accordance with international principles is required for experimental, clinical and drug studies and for some case reports that are carried out on animals. If required, ethics committee reports or an equivalent official document will be requested from the authors. For studies carried out on animals, the measures taken to prevent the pain and suffering of the animals should be stated clearly. The name of the ethics committee and the ethics committee approval number should be stated in the “Methods” section of the manuscript. For studies involving client-owned animals, authors must provide the information on informed consent from the client or the owner and adherence to a high standard (best practice) of veterinary care. The editor has the right to reject manuscripts on suspicion of animal welfare or research protocols that are not consistent with the international principles of animal research. The scientific and ethical responsibility of the research belongs to the authors.


For Authors

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. No data, text, or figures by others are presented as if they were the author’s own. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Authorship of the manuscript

Each individual listed as an author should fulfill the authorship criteria recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE -www.icmje.org). Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing, and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Multiple or duplicate submission

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable.

Conflicts of interest

Authors should - at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript) - disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the project number and source of financial support). Any conflict of interest must be included at the end of the manuscript.

Acknowledgment of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

Peer review

Authors are obliged to participate in the peer-review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to the editor’s requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval and copyright permissions.


For Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific endeavor.

Promptness

Any invited a referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgment of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or the overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited the referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.


Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

All manuscripts are judged based on the intellectual contents, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship or political values of the authors. Personal information related to the articles shall be kept confidential. All identified conflicts of interest of Editorial Board members and the observed conflicts of interest and plagiarism identified in manuscripts and published articles must be disclosed. The Editorial Board shall assume responsibility for making publication decisions for the manuscripts submitted, based on the evaluation of the candidate article, the policies of the editorial board and the copyright infringement rules. A double-blind review system with at least two reviewers is used to evaluate manuscripts for publication.

Editors have the right to reject the manuscripts without peer-review when the manuscript is on a topic outside the scope of the Journal, lacks technical merit, exhibits narrow regional scope and significance presents conflicting results, poorly written, represents a case of scientific misconduct. When the journal is overburdened with too many submissions, editors have the right to reject manuscripts without peer review based on their perceived merit.

Editors are responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles.


Rights granted to VetBio Journal

VetBio Journal reserves 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 the publishing policies of the journal have been violated.