Acta Natura et Scientia follows certain ethical standards for publication, existing to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and due credit for original ideas. Acta Natura et Scientia is connected to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), abides by its Code of Conduct, and aims to adhere to its Best Practice Guidelines.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March 7). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org/about/guide/journal-editors
Authors who submit papers to Acta Natura et Scientia certify that his/her work is original and is not published or under publication consideration elsewhere. Also, the authors confirm that submitted papers have not been copied or plagiarized, in whole or in part, from other papers or studies. The authors certify that he/she does not have potential conflicts of interest or partial benefits associated with his or her papers.
Acta Natura et Scientia will check for plagiarism in all submitted articles prior to publication. If plagiarism is detected at any stage of the publication process, the author will be instructed to rewrite the manuscript. Every submission will be scanned by Turnitin® to prevent plagiarism. If any manuscript is 30% plagiarized the article will be rejected and the author will be notified. We strongly recommend that authors check the paper content before submitting it for publication. Plagiarism can be checked by using free online software.
Acta Natura et Scientia is committed to objective and fair blind peer reviews of submitted papers and the prevention of any actual or potential conflicts of interest between writers and reviewers.
All editors of Acta Natura et Scientia are independent in their evaluations and decisions in the journal. No external and/or internal factor can affect their decisions. If the editors are exposed to any kind of positive and/or negative constraints, they keep the right to take legal action against those involved in the constraint. On the other hand, editors are responsible for their decisions in the journal. The editor-in-chief is the only person responsible for journal content and on-time publishing.
Editors and members of the Editorial Board of the journal are forbidden to share submitted materials with third parties other than section editors, statistical editors, Language editors, copy editors, design editors and ombudsman when needed, and to use the submitted materials themselves. If there is a conflict of interest among an editor and an author or institution of the author in terms of cooperation or competition, then another member of the Editorial board is assigned to manage the evaluation process.
The editors provide peer review of submitted manuscripts by assigning at least two reviewers expert in the field. The editor-in-chief is responsible for the decision of publishing a manuscript considering the importance of the manuscripts for researchers and readers, reviewer reports, plagiarism, and copyright infringement as legal issues. Editor-in-chief can discuss with other editors and reviewers for his/her decision.
Peer-reviewing of a submitted manuscript is the control of its scientific content, scientific layout and suitability according to the principles of the journal, and delivery of the reviewer's opinion for unsuitable manuscript content to ensure suitability. The reviewing process, not only enables reviewers to forward their evaluations about the manuscripts to the editors but also gives them the opportunity to improve the contents of the manuscripts.
If a reviewer assigned for evaluation of a manuscript is an expert in a field of science other than the manuscript content, is far into the subject of the manuscript, is short of time for evaluation or possess a conflict of interest, then he/she should inform the assigning editor and ask his/her withdrawal. If the content of the manuscript fits the expertise field of the reviewer, then he/she should complete the evaluation and send the report to the editor as soon as possible.
Reviewers assigned for evaluation of manuscripts approve in advance that the manuscripts are secret documents and do not share any information about these documents with third parties except the editors involved in the evaluation. Reviewers continue not to share information even after the manuscripts are accepted or rejected for publication.
If it is suspected of using an idea in the manuscript that is sent for evaluation to the reviewer without permission, the flowchart of COPE “What to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author's ideas or data?” is followed.
Reviewers should construct their criticisms on scientific background and include scientific evidence in their statements. All comments raised by the reviewers to improve the manuscripts should be clear and direct and written in a manner far away from disturbing the author's feelings. Insulting and derogatory statements should be avoided.
Reviewers should determine quotations in the manuscripts used without citing a reference. Statements, observations, conclusions, or evidence in published articles should be quoted with the citation of the related reference. Reviewers should also be sure about the reality of the presence of quotations in the cited reference(s).
If a reviewer is in a situation by being involved in one or more interests with the author(s), he/she should inform the editor of the assigning editor and ask his/her withdrawal.
Authors of original research articles should present the results and discuss them with them in a proper way. Since the methodological contents of the articles should be reproducible, the authors should be clear in their statements and should not purposely report wrong or missing data. Authors of review type articles are not recommended to write such articles if they are not an expert in the field of their review topics or when they do not have enough background information or related former studies.
Authors may be asked to present their raw data when needed (ethical cases etc.). Therefore, raw data of the manuscripts should be kept in safety to present if needed. The storage period of raw data following publications should be at least 10 years.
The authors of submitted manuscripts should be sure that their manuscripts are original or include cited references for quotations.
It is not an approved way to produce more than one publication reporting on the same research. The authors should pay attention to such cases and they should not submit the same manuscript to different journals simultaneously.
Only the following persons should be included in the manuscripts as responsible authors:
Contributors other than the above list (technical assistance, helpers in writing and editing, general contributions, etc.) should not be involved in the authors' list but can be listed in the acknowledgements section. The corresponding authors of manuscripts should provide a separate listing of contributors as authors and those to be involved in the acknowledgements section.
Authors should clearly declare any kind of conflict of interest in their manuscripts. The absence of a conflict of interest in the topic of the manuscripts should also be declared. The most common types of conflict of interest are financial supports, education, or other types of funds, personal or institutional relations, and affiliations. All sources of financial supports (with their grant or other reference numbers) of the studies should be declared.
Authors should not use personally obtained information (conversations, correspondences, or discussions with bystanders) unless they have the permission of their sources. Information about private documents or refereeing of grant applications should not be used without the permission of the authorities providing the related service.
Authors are obliged to be involved in the peer-review process and should cooperate in responding to raw data, evidence for ethical approvals, patient approvals, and copyright release form requests of editors and their explanations. Authors should respond either in a positive or a negative way to revision suggestions generated by the peer-review process. They should be sure to include their counter views in their negative responses.
Please note: It is unethical to submit a manuscript to more than one journal concurrently.
Acta Natura et Scientia endorses the ARRIVE guidelines (www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVE) for reporting experiments using live animals. Authors and reviewers can use the ARRIVE guidelines as a checklist, which can be found at www.nc3rs.org.uk/ARRIVEchecklist.
Manuscripts containing original research on animal subjects must have been approved by an ethical review committee. The project identification code, date of approval, and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board must be cited in the Methods Section.
For research involving animals, any potentially derived benefits must be significant in relation to harm suffered by participating animals. Authors should particularly ensure that their research complies with the commonly accepted "3Rs":
Editor or members of the editorial board are not responsible for the author's opinions and manuscript contents. Authors are responsible for the ethical originality of and possible errors in their manuscripts. They are also responsible for all errors based on page editing before their proofreading. On the other hand, errors taking place after proofreading are the responsibility of the journal directors.
Note: The author should make corrections in 2 months, otherwise the paper will be rejected.
Note: The Editorial Board takes responsibility for making publication decisions on submitted manuscripts based on the reviewer’s evaluation of the manuscript, the policies of the journal editorial board, and legal efforts to prevent plagiarism, libel, and copyright infringement.