All original papers published in AJPOR must undergo a peer review process. The peer review process should be anonymous. At the time of review, the reviewer should not be told who the author of the paper is. The author of the paper should not be told who the reviewer is.
The completed, anonymous review forms shall normally be given to the paper’s authors to enable them to revise their paper.
Reviewers may be chosen by an editor. The editorial board may provide recommendations for reviewers if asked to do so.
Normally, three reviewers will be given a paper and asked to review the paper within three weeks. Extensions may be given at the discretion of the editor. Alternative reviewers may be sought if the initial reviewer does not complete a review. The decision to accept or reject a paper will be made by the editor based on the recommendation of at least two reviewers. If a paper is to be modified, the modified paper should be re-submitted for the editor’s final approval.
Copy-editing normally takes place after the modified paper is submitted. The copy-editor shall edit the paper to make it easier to understand and to correct any errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. Copy-editors may consult with the authors for clarification of meaning if necessary. A final (post-copy-editing) version of the paper will be sent to the editor-in-chief and the authors prior to publication. If the authors have any objections to the copy-editor’s changes, they can suggest further modifications.
The editor-in-chief makes the final decision about what is included in an issue of AJPOR.
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
For Reviewers:
I. Qualifications
If a reviewer believes they are unqualified to review a certain paper, they should refuse the assignment.
If a reviewer has any kind of conflict of interest or knows the author’s identity, they should refuse the assignment.
II. Punctuality
If a reviewer will not be able to complete a review on time, they should let the editor know as soon as possible so that an extension can be given or a replacement reviewer found.
III. Confidentiality
A reviewer should never disclose the contents of an unpublished paper, including discussing the work with colleagues or using any information in their own work.
For Writers:
I. Previous Publication
Original papers, poll reviews, research notes, and book reviews may not have been previously published in any language either in print or online. By submitting any of these items, authors are affirming that this is their original, previously unpublished work.
There is a section introducing work previously published in other languages. Information about the previous publication shall be included.
II. Plagiarism
Plagiarism is defined as copying the work of another, in part or in whole, and claiming it is one’s own. Plagiarism will not be tolerated. All quotations or references to another’s ideas must be properly cited.
If a paper is found to be plagiarized, it will be rejected. If the discovery is not made until after publication, the paper will be retracted.
III. Data Fabrication
Data fabrication is defined as any falsification of results. This includes, but is not limited to, reporting results different from the ones actually collected; giving inaccurate or deliberately misleading information about the data collection process; and reporting results of a study not actually conducted.
Data fabrication of any kind will not be tolerated. If data fabrication is discovered in a submitted paper, the paper shall be rejected. If data fabrication is discovered after publication, the paper shall be retracted.
For Editors:
I. Equal Opportunity
Papers shall be evaluated on their own merit without regard to race, gender identity and sexual orientation, color, religion, nationality, or political affiliation.
II. Confidentiality
Editors must do their best to protect the identity of unpublished authors and of reviewers.
The contents of submitted papers should be regarded as confidential. Editors may not quote or otherwise use the contents of any paper pre-publication without the author’s written consent.
Policy of a Violation of Ethics Code
If an editor, editorial board, reviewer, or, in the case of a published paper, reader, feels that an author has violated the ethics guidelines, a special ethics committee of at least three editors and/or editorial board members shall discuss what should be done. The author shall be consulted and given a chance to defend themselves. The committee will then make a final decision to reject/retract a paper or to dismiss the accusations as untrue. Meetings of the special ethics committee may take place by e-mail, phone, or any other method.
If an author feels that an editor or reviewer has violated the ethical guidelines, they should report it to another of the editors. A special ethics committee of at least three editors and/or editorial board members shall discuss the situation. The author will be asked to explain why they feel that ethical guidelines have been violated. The accused editor or reviewer will be given an opportunity to defend themselves. The committee will then make a final decision to dismiss the editor/reviewer, send them a letter of censure, or dismiss the accusations as untrue. Meetings of the special ethics committee may take place by e-mail, phone, or any other method.
The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statements take effect as from April 21, 2016, when it was first established.
These guidelines were compiled after consulting the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.