About the Journal
- FOCUS AND SCOPE
Journal of Biochemistry, Microbiology and Biotechnology (JOBIMB) (e-ISSN 2289-5779) publishes research papers, short communications, mini review and review articles. The journal covers fields in basic and applied research in biochemistry, microbiology and biotechnology that contributes in the improvement and advancement in basic knowledge and application in areas of agriculture, medicine, environmental science and engineering, analysis, bioremediation, bioresources, bioprocess, biosensor, bioinformatics, bioengineering, veterinary, food production, molecular biology, genetic engineering and emerging cross multidisciplinary areas in education, halal products, halal science and synthetic biology.
- PEER REVIEW PROCESS
All manuscripts are reviewed by at least two reviewers. Authors are encouraged to suggest up to three reviewers. Final decisions will be made after authors have carried out all of the corrections recommended by the reviewers. Normal turn-around time for evaluation of manuscripts is between five and seven months from the date of receipt. Authors can opt for fast track review for a fee.
- PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
(based on Elsevier policies and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)
DUTIES OF AUTHORS
Standards of Reporting
Authors of original research reports should provide an accurate account of the work done as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data should be accurately represented in the paper. A paper should include enough detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. "Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unethical and are unacceptable." Review and professional publication articles should be accurate and objective, and editorial opinion pieces should be clearly labelled as such.
Access to Data and retention
Authors may be requested to include raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data if possible, and should in any case be ready to preserve such data for a decent period after publication.
Plagiarism and originality
The authors should make sure that their works are completely original, and that if they have used the work and/or words of others, they have properly referenced or quoted them. Plagiarism may take several forms, ranging from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing large portions of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from other people's study. Plagiarism, in any form, is immoral publishing behaviour that must be avoided.
Publications that are multiple, redundant or concurrent
In general, an author should not submit manuscripts to more than one journal or primary publication detailing basically the same study. Submitting the same manuscript to several journals at the same time is unethical and unacceptable publishing conduct. In general, an author may not submit a previously published paper for consideration in another journal. Such types of papers (for example, guidelines and translations) may be published in several journals if certain requirements are met. The authors and editors of the concerned journals must consent to the secondary release, which must represent the primary document's data and interpretation. In the secondary publication, the primary reference must be cited.
Source acknowledgement
It is still necessary to give proper credit to others' efforts. Authors should cite publications that influenced the essence of the work they are reporting. Without the source's explicit, written permission, information obtained privately, such as through conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, may not be used or reported. Without the express written consent of the author of the work involved in these services, information gathered in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, cannot be used.
Manuscript Authorship
Only those who made a significant contribution to the study's conception, design, execution, or interpretation should be listed as authors. Co-authors should include someone who has made a substantial contribution (so its mean that manuscript at least have author and co-author). Other authors should be noted or identified as contributors if they have contributed to any substantive aspects of the research project. The corresponding author should make sure that the paper has all acceptable co-authors and no incorrect co-authors, and that all co-authors have seen and accepted the final version of the paper before submitting it for publication. If the work involves the use of substances, processes, or equipment that pose some unusual risks, the author must make this clear in the manuscript.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that could be interpreted as influencing the outcome or analysis of their manuscript should be disclosed by all writers in their manuscript. All sources of funding for the project should be made public. Jobs, consultancies, equity ownership, honoraria, compensated expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding are examples of possible conflicts of interest that should be disclosed. Potential conflicts of interest should be revealed as soon as possible.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author finds a serious mistake or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, it is the author's responsibility to inform the journal editor or publisher as soon as possible and to comply with the editor in retracting or correcting the article. If a third party informs the editor or publisher that a published work contains a serious mistake, the author must promptly delete or amend the article, or provide proof to the editor that the original paper is correct.
DUTIES OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Publication decisions
A peer-reviewed journal's editor is in charge of deciding the articles should be published in the journal. The validity of the work in question, as well as its relevance to researchers and readers, must always guide such decisions. The editorial board's policy may guide the editor, and the editor may be bound by any applicable legal requirements for libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism at the time. The editor may seek advice from other editors or reviewers while making this decision.
Fair play
An editor must assess manuscripts based on their intellectual material, regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
Confidentiality
The corresponding author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher, as applicable, are the only people who should know about a manuscript that has been sent to the editor.
Conflicts of interest and disclosure
Without the author's express written permission, unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript cannot be included in an editor's own study. Confidential knowledge or suggestions gained through peer review must be kept private and not used for personal gain. Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing and considering manuscripts in which they have competing, collaborative, or other relationships or associations with some of the authors, firms, or (possibly) organisations associated with the papers (i.e., ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board to do so instead). All authors should be required to report any applicable competitive interests, and editors should publish corrections if competing interests are discovered after publication. Other reasonable actions, such as the publishing of a retraction or an expression of concern, should be taken if necessary.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
When an editor receives an ethical complaint about a submitted manuscript or published article, he or she may work with the publisher to take reasonable action (or society). Such steps will typically include contacting the manuscript or paper's author and giving due consideration to the respective complaint or statements made, but may also require additional correspondence to appropriate organisations and research bodies, and, if the complaint is upheld, the publishing of a correction, retraction, statement of concern, or other relevant notice. Even if it is discovered years after publication, any alleged act of unethical publishing activity must be investigated.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review supports the writer in making editorial decisions, and it can also assist the author in developing the paper by editorial correspondence with the author. Peer review is an important part of formal academic correspondence and is central to the scientific process.
Promptness
Any appointed referee who believes he or she is unqualified to review the research stated in a manuscript or recognizes that timely review is unlikely should inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts submitted for approval must be considered as private records. They must not be shown to or shared with someone else unless the editor has given permission.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be carried out with a degree of objectivity. It is not permissible to criticise the author personally. Referees should express their opinions clearly and with evidence to back them up.
Source acknowledgement
Reviewers should look for similar published work that the writers have not mentioned. The claim that an observation, derivation, or argument has previously been published should be followed by a citation. Every significant resemblance or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper about which the reviewer has personal knowledge should be brought to the editor's attention.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Without the author's express written permission, unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript cannot be included in a reviewer's own study. Confidential knowledge or suggestions gained through peer review must be kept private and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should avoid considering manuscripts in which they have competing, collaborative, or other partnerships or associations with any of the writers, businesses, or organisations associated with the papers.
4. OPEN ACCESS POLICY
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
5. ARCHIVING
This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration.
6. ADVERTISING POLICY
The journal accepts online advertising.
7. PUBLICATION FREQUENCY
The journal is published twice a year in July and December.
8. TEMPLATE FOR DECLARATION OF GENERATIVE AI AND AI-ASSISTED TECHNOLOGIES
While preparing this manuscript, we utilized AI-based tools such as [insert specific tools, e.g., ChatGPT, ScholarAI, Grammarly] to assist in tasks related to [specify, e.g., data collection, analysis, and manuscript editing]. These tools were employed as supplementary aids and did not contribute to the interpretation of data or the drawing of scientific conclusions. The final interpretation, conclusions, and overall scholarly content, including the articulation of arguments, are the authors' sole responsibility. The authors have reviewed and edited the content after using these tools and assume full responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of the published work
9. POST-PUBLICATION DISCUSSIONS AND CORRECTIONS
Our journal recognizes the importance of post-publication discussions on published research and encourages such discourse to enhance the scientific dialogue.
Post-publication discussions may be published online after undergoing review and are typically accompanied by a response from the original authors. For detailed submission criteria and the peer review process for post-publication discussions, authors should refer to the "Instructions to Authors" available on the journal's website.
Handling Post-Publication Issues
To ensure the integrity of scientific research, our journal thoroughly investigates concerns raised by authors, readers, or any other stakeholders. Authors are always given the opportunity to respond to complaints or comments. Reviewers may be asked to reassess the original data, and consultations with experts may occur to resolve the issue. Depending on the findings, the following actions may be taken:
- A Corrigendum may be published to address errors or inaccuracies in the original publication. After the issue is raised, the authors submit corrections, which are reviewed by the editorial team before publication.
- An Addendum may be issued to provide additional information or clarification. The authors submit the supplementary information, which is peer-reviewed and approved before being appended to the original article.
- An Erratum may be released to correct errors made by the publisher during the publication process. These are identified by the authors or readers, then reviewed and approved by the editorial team.
- An Editor’s Note and/or Editorial Expression of Concern (EEoC) may be published during ongoing investigations. This process includes reviewing the concerns, consulting with experts or reviewers, and providing updates until the investigation concludes.
- The article may be retracted if serious issues, such as research misconduct, are confirmed. The investigation process involves data review, consultation with the authors and experts, and ultimately, the retraction notice is published if misconduct is validated.
If the investigation reveals significant concerns, such as fraud or academic misconduct, the author’s affiliated institution may be informed of the findings.
Our journal's primary goal is transparency and maintaining scientific integrity, not targeting individuals. If institutional investigations result in publicly available reports, readers may be directed to those. During the investigation, which may take time, an Editor’s Note or Editorial Expression of Concern (EEoC) will notify the readers about the issues raised, as recommended by the internationally recognized Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Once the investigation concludes, any issued Editor’s Note or EEoC will be replaced by a final corrective action, such as a corrigendum, erratum, addendum, or retraction.
10. RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
Research misconduct in scholarly publications is categorized into several key types, and measures to prevent and address these issues are outlined below. The recommended actions for each type of misconduct are based on guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and aligned with the Malaysian Code of Responsible Conduct in Research (MCRCR). Visit the MCRCR website for more information: https://www.mcrcr.gov.my.
Due Process for Addressing Research Misconduct
Our journal follows a systematic protocol for handling allegations of misconduct, both pre- and post-publication. Flowcharts are provided to illustrate how ethical concerns in submitted or published manuscripts are addressed.
- Documentation of the Claim
The journal's publication team coordinates with the complainant to document the issue, addressing key questions such as the nature of the ethical issue, the parties involved, and its significance.
- Involvement of Author(s)
The authors are contacted to respond to the claim, and their explanations are reviewed by the Ethics Advisory Panel, which includes senior researchers, legal experts, and the journal’s editorial team. The final decision is forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for action, with the Ethics Advisory Panel maintaining oversight.
- Involvement of External Committees
When necessary, external bodies such as other journals, funding agencies, or institutional ethics boards are consulted to resolve complex issues. COPE or MCRCR may also be approached for advice on handling certain cases.
Types of Misconduct
- Data Fabrication and Falsification
Fabrication involves creating false data or experiments that never occurred, while falsification refers to manipulating research processes or data to misrepresent findings.
Recommended Action:
The corresponding author is asked to justify the data. If they cannot provide adequate justification, their institution or employer may be involved. The matter is resolved following COPE and MCRCR protocols.
- Duplicate Submission and Redundant Publication
Duplicate submission involves submitting the same study to multiple journals, while redundant publication refers to publishing the same data in multiple studies.
Recommended Action:
The journal compares the content of both submissions. If found guilty, the corresponding author is contacted, and the institution may be informed. COPE guidelines are followed.
- Plagiarism
Plagiarism refers to using someone else's work without proper attribution.
Recommended Action:
The journal uses plagiarism detection software to assess overlaps. If significant plagiarism is detected, the author is contacted to provide an explanation. If the issue persists, the institution is informed.
- Authorship Issues
All authors must meet the criteria set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Changes to the authorship list must be approved by all authors and the Editor-in-Chief.
Recommended Action:
Disputes are resolved by following COPE and ICMJE guidelines.
- Undeclared Conflict of Interest (CoI)
A conflict of interest arises when personal or financial considerations may bias the research.
Recommended Action:
The journal contacts the involved authors or institutions to investigate the undeclared CoI. The matter is resolved according to MCRCR and COPE guidelines.
- Manipulation of Peer Review
Any manipulation of the peer-review process, such as influencing reviewers or withholding relevant information, is prohibited.
Recommended Action:
The reviewer or author involved in such behavior is contacted, and if the issue persists, external institutions may be notified, adhering to COPE protocols.
- Citation Manipulation
Self-citation or coercive citation practices intended to inflate citation counts are considered misconduct.
Recommended Action:
The journal identifies and addresses any undue citations, requiring authors to justify their inclusion. COPE’s guidelines on citation manipulation are followed.
- Violation of Research Ethics
This includes issues such as failure to obtain informed consent, unethical treatment of animals, or breaches in data confidentiality.
Recommended Action:
Ethical concerns are referred to the relevant institutions, following both COPE and MCRCR guidelines.
For detailed COPE guidelines, visit: https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts
For MCRCR guidelines, visit: https://www.mcrcr.gov.my
