Authorship credit should be based on meeting the following criteria.
a. Substantial contribution to paper concept or design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
b. Drafting the article or reviewing and introducing fundamental changes in it;
c. Final approval of the version to be published.
All persons designated as authors and co-authors should meet these criteria. As co-authors of a paper there should be identified all persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported, and who therefore share responsibility its content and results. Authors should also appropriately recognize the contributions of technical staff and data professionals. All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship (e.g. financial support) should be listed in the section “Acknowledgements” (financial disclosure). Editors retain the right to request information about the contributions of each person in writing the article.
Authors should also be aware that the following phenomena are the examples of scientific misconduct and must be avoided: ghostwriting and ghostwriting authorship.
A group of co-authors should jointly make the decision about the order in which their names are given. During manuscript submission, the submitting author must provide contact information (full name, email address, institutional affiliation and mailing address) for all the co-authors. The author who submits the manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of notifying all co-authors of the manuscript being submitted. Corresponding author must fill in and sign the Statement of Originality (in case there are two authors or more), which should be submitted together with the manuscript.
All detected cases of scientific misconduct will be documented and the appropriate institutions and entities will be notified.
2. Conflicts of interest
Conflict of interest is a situation in which the process of research and publication may be corrupted or its results may be biased because of some other interests of its participants. It may concern any one or more of the participants of research and publication process – the author, the reviewer, or the editor. Conflicts of interest may occur for financial (e.g. employment opportunities, fees or other compensation arrangements, beneficial ownership of stock) or other reasons (e.g., personal relationships, pursuit of academic career, intellectual passion, political involvement etc.) that can reasonably be expected to influence motivations or results of actions of participants of the publication process.
Conflicts of interest constitute a serious threat to the integrity and objectivity of both scientific research and publishing. Therefore , best practice for authors, reviewers and editors alike, is to avoid conflicts of interest situations whenever possible.
All participants in publication process who are in the situation of a conflict of interest, must disclose this fact. Of special importance is that if the original research study reported in the manuscript or the preparation of the manuscript was supported by one or more grants, the title and number of the grant(s) and the name of the institution(s) that provided the grants or financial support to conduct, analyze or write-up the study, must be specified in the manuscript.
Editors of APJHSS may use information disclosed in conflict-of-interest and financial-support statements as a basis for editorial decisions. The corresponding author must either notify the editor at the time of submission that there is no conflict of interest to declare, or fairly and effectively communicate all conflicts of interest, which will then be acknowledged in the published article.
3. Reviewing and Editing
APHSS is a double blind peer-viewed journal. Submitted papers and short communication are evaluated by independent referees or Editorial Board members specialized in the article field. Our Reviewers evaluate submitted material’s scientific significance and novelty, define it’s accordance to general journal profile, scrutinize its content for compliance with the journal’s publication ethics. After the refereeing process is complete, the paper may be rejected, returned to the author for revisions, or accepted for publication.
The authors are responsible for the contents of their paper or short communication. Editors may request an author, when considered necessary, to elaborate on the content or technical details of the paper. Scientific editing might change format and correct the writing to render it compliant with editorial policy of the journal.
Pictures and graphs are special subject to editorial consideration, as their quantity should be optimal and only necessary in the content of papers. Pictures, graphs and textual content alike are subject to ethical standards concerning authorship and integrity. Additionally, whenever images are included in accounts of research process or results, or in data collections, the author must provide an accurate description of how the images originated.