Ethical Guidelines for the Alexandria Journal of Biotechnology

The Alexandria Journal of Biotechnology is devoted to advancing ethical research and publication practices, guided by a set of principles that uphold the integrity of scientific knowledge. Our commitment to ethical publishing is rooted in the highest standards and values of academia. We expect all individuals involved in the publication process to adhere to these ethical principles:

For Authors:

Originality and Plagiarism Avoidance: Authors must ensure that their submitted work is entirely original and has not been published elsewhere. Proper citations and references should be provided when referring to prior work, and any form of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is deemed unacceptable.

Authorship Criteria:

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the research and manuscript preparation. All authors should be listed and have consented to the final version of the manuscript, with any changes to authorship collectively agreed upon.

Data Transparency and Reproducibility:

Authors are responsible for providing accurate and complete data associated with their research. Data should be openly available, and authors should be ready to grant access to raw data upon request.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

 Authors must disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that could potentially impact the research or its interpretation. These disclosures should be clearly stated in the manuscript.

Ethical Approvals:

Research involving human subjects or animals should have obtained the necessary ethical approvals, and authors should provide details of these approvals in the manuscript.

Artificial Intelligence Generated Content (AIGC) tools, such as ChatGPT and others using extensive language models, lack the capacity to independently initiate original research without human author guidance. They also cannot assume responsibility for a published work or research design, a fundamental requirement typically associated with authorship. Additionally, AIGC tools lack legal standing and the capability to assert or transfer copyright ownership. Therefore, in alignment with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position statement on AI tools, these tools cannot fulfill the role of an article author and should not be credited as such. Authors using such tools should transparently describe their use in the Methods or Acknowledgments section, with the author assuming full responsibility for the accuracy of generated information and proper referencing of underlying work. Note that tools for spelling, grammar, and general editing are not covered by these guidelines. The decision on the suitability or permissibility of an AIGC tool's use rests with the journal editor or relevant editorial policies.

For Reviewers:

• Confidentiality: Reviewers are expected to treat all submitted manuscripts with utmost confidentiality and refrain from sharing the manuscript or its contents without prior authorization from the editor.
• Objective Evaluation: Reviewers should provide objective, constructive, and unbiased feedback on the manuscript, with personal or professional biases not influencing their evaluations.
• Timeliness: Reviewers should complete assessments promptly within the specified timeframe, notifying the editor in case of anticipated delays.
• Declaration of Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that may impact their ability to provide an impartial review, declining to evaluate the manuscript if a significant conflict exists.

For Editors:

Fair and Impartial Editorial Handling: Editors should treat each manuscript impartially and fairly, regardless of authors' identities, affiliations, or funding sources, basing editorial decisions solely on the manuscript's quality and contribution to the field.

• Confidentiality: Editors and their staff should maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts, refraining from disclosing information about the manuscript to individuals not involved in the peer review process.
• Publication Decisions: Editorial decisions should be made solely on the manuscript's merit and significance to the scientific community, with commercial considerations playing no role.
• Addressing Ethical Concerns: Editors should thoroughly investigate and address any ethical concerns or allegations of misconduct, handling such matters transparently and justly.
• Disclosure of Potential Conflicts: Editors should disclose any potential conflicts of interest and abstain from handling manuscripts in which they have a personal, financial, or academic interest that could compromise impartiality.
• Correction and Retraction: Editors should be prepared to publish corrections, clarifications, or retractions if errors or ethical issues are identified in published work.

At the Alexandria Journal of Biotechnology, we consider authors, reviewers, and editors as crucial contributors to the integrity of the scientific publication process. Our unwavering commitment to maintaining the highest ethical standards in publishing is essential, and we appreciate the cooperation of all stakeholders in upholding these principles. Violations may result in appropriate actions, including manuscript rejection, article withdrawal, or reporting to relevant institutions and authorities.

Revised Journal Editorial Process for Academic Excellence

The Alexandria Journal of Biotechnology is deeply committed to upholding the highest standards of academic rigor and integrity in publishing research papers. Our editorial process has been refined to enhance transparency, thoroughness, and fairness, prioritizing the scientific validity and robustness of submitted manuscripts across methodological, analytical, statistical, and ethical dimensions. We emphasize allowing the scientific community to assess the impact of the work. Here is a concise overview of our editorial process:

Stage 1: Preliminary Evaluation

Upon manuscript submission, a meticulous review is conducted to ensure strict compliance with Nature Research's editorial and publishing policies. This phase involves a comprehensive examination of various aspects, including authorship, conflicts of interest, ethical approvals, and plagiarism. Our primary goal is to provide authors with constructive feedback while upholding the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing.

Stage 2: Expert Assessment by Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts that pass the initial quality check are entrusted to esteemed members of our Editorial Board, active researchers in their fields. They conduct a meticulous evaluation to determine the manuscript's suitability for peer review. The selection of peer reviewers considers factors such as expertise, experience, and potential conflicts of interest. While we welcome authors' suggestions for potential reviewers, the final decision rests with our Editorial Board. Authors can exclude up to three individuals or laboratories from the peer review process, and reviewer identities are kept confidential unless requested by the reviewer.

Stage 3: Rigorous Peer Review

Dedicated peer reviewers, recognized experts, assess the technical soundness and scientific validity of methodologies, analyses, and interpretations. We expect these aspects to be meticulously executed, ethically sound, and supported by robust data. Peer reviewers provide comprehensive written reports with detailed feedback.

Stage 4: Decision-Making Process Transparency

The Editorial Board Member overseeing the manuscript makes an informed decision, which may include acceptance, requests for revisions, or rejection. Initial decisions are typically provided within 45 days of submission.

Revisions for Scholarly Excellence

If revisions are requested, authors receive clear guidance and a specific deadline for submitting a revised manuscript. Authors are expected to address reviewers' comments comprehensively. The manuscript may undergo additional review rounds as determined by the Editorial Board Member. Our aim is for accepted manuscripts to undergo a single round of revision to streamline the publication process. Editorial support is available to assist authors throughout this process.

Publication Preparation with Academic Precision

Upon resolution of all editorial issues, the manuscript is accepted and prepared for online publication. Authors review the proof for scientific accuracy, with modifications limited to the title, author list, or scientific inaccuracies, subject to approval by our publishing team.

Appeals for Objectivity in Decision-Making

Authors can request a reevaluation if they believe the rejection decision was influenced by scientific misconceptions or reviewer bias. Appeals are subject to availability and may take several weeks to process. Each manuscript is allowed one appeal, initiated after the peer review process. Final determinations rest with the Editorial Board Member, with reversals contingent on substantial errors or indications of bias. Our refined editorial process is dedicated to elevating the quality and integrity of published articles.