Bioanalysis Journal Policies
Newlands Press titles endorse the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, issued by the International Committee for Medical Journal Editors, and the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics, and
GPP3.This information is also available at
www.future-science.com.
Manuscript submission & processing
Newlands Press titles publish a range of article types, including solicited and unsolicited reviews, perspectives and original research articles. Receipt of all manuscripts will be acknowledged within 1 week and authors will be notified as to whether the article is to progress to external review. Initial screening of articles by internal editorial staff will assess the topicality and importance of the subject, the clarity of presentation, and relevance to the audience of the journal in question. If you are inter- ested in submitting an article, or have any queries regarding article submission, please contact the Editorial Director (contact information can be found on our website at:
www.future-science.com). For new article proposals, the Editorial Director will require a brief article outline and working title in the first instance. We also have an active commissioning program whereby the Commissioning Editor, under the advice of the Editorial Board, solicits articles directly for publication.
External peer review: Through a rigorous peer-review process, Newlands Press titles aim to ensure that reviews are unbiased, scientifically accurate and clinically relevant. All articles are peer reviewed by three or more members of the International Editorial Board or other specialists selected on the basis of experience and expertise. Review is performed on a double-blind basis – the identities of peer reviewers and authors are kept confidential. Peer reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interests that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased appraisal (see Conflict of Interest Policy below). Peer reviewers provide general comments to the editor and both general and specific comments to the author(s).
Where an author believes that an editor has made an error in declining a paper, they may submit an appeal. The appeal let- ter should clearly state the reasons why the author(s) considers the decision to be incorrect and provide detailed, specific responses to any comments relating to the rejection of the review. Further advice from members of the journal’s Editorial Board and/or other external experts will be sought regarding eligibility for re-review.
Revision: Most manuscripts require some degree of revision prior to acceptance. Authors should provide two copies of the revised manuscript – one of which should be highlighted to show where changes have been made. Detailed responses to reviewers’ comments, in a covering letter/email, are also required. Manuscripts may be accepted at this point or may be subject to further peer review. The final decision on acceptability for publication lies with the journal editor.
Post-acceptance
Accepted manuscripts will undergo production in-house. This will involve type-setting, copy-editing, proof-reading and re-draw- ing of any graphics. Authors will receive proofs of their article for approval and sign off and will be asked to sign a transfer of copyright agreement, except in circumstances where the author is ineligible to do so (e.g., government employees in some countries).
Embargo policy
Following the acceptance of articles for publication, authors (and their institutions, etc.) are welcome to publicize the publi- cation; authors wishing to do so, should advise the editor of the details beforehand. No publicity relating to publication in a Newlands Press journal should be carried out while the manuscript is under consideration. However, prior publicity linked to presentations at meetings does not jeopardize publication in a Newlands Press journal. In cases where data may be of overwhelming public health importance, the above policy may be waived; should this be the case, the appropriate authorities responsible for public health should decide whether to disseminate information to physicians and the media in advance and should be responsible for this decision. The journal editor should be informed if these circumstances apply. Any queries relating to publicity of manuscripts should be directed to the journal editor.
Disclosure & conflict of interest policy
Authors must state explicitly whether financial and/or nonfinancial relationships exist that potentially conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript and any such potential conflict of interest (including sources of funding) should be summarized in a separate section of the published article. Authors must disclose whether they have received writing assis- tance and identify the sources of funding for such assistance. Authors declaring no conflict of interest are required to publish a statement to that effect within the article.
Authors must certify that they have disclosed relationships in which they (or a close family member): is employed, is a con- tractor, provides services, or has otherwise collaborated in commercial or scientific pursuits – even in the absence of direct monetary remuneration. Stock holdings and issued or pending patents of an author or family member should also be disclosed. This is list is not exclusive of other forms of financial involvement. A 36-month disclosure window should be used. Details of rel- evant conflicts of interests (or the lack of) must be declared in the ‘Disclosure’ section of the manuscript for all listed authors.
External peer reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they believe it appropriate. Should any such conflict of interest be declared, the journal editor will judge whether the reviewer’s comments should be recognized or will interpret the reviewer’s comments in the context of any such declaration.
Ethical conduct of research
For studies involving data relating to human or animal experimental investigations, appropriate institutional review board approval is required and should be described within the article. For those investigators who do not have formal ethics review committees, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki should be followed. For investigations involving human subjects, authors should explain how informed consent was obtained from the participants involved.
future science group
www.future-science.com
S131
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136
