Submission Preparation ChecklistAs part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
- The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
- The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file format.
- Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
- The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
- The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.
1. Editor Responsibility
Editor of JSHAE evaluates submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (quality, originality, research validity, clarity) as well as its relevance to the journalâ€™s aim and scope, regardless of the authorsâ€™ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation.
Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The editor has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage.
The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation and quality of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
2. Author Responsibility
Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as the objective/s discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. The accepted similarity of the submitted articles for publication consideration in JSHAE is less than 10%. The corresponding Authors should clearly confirm and acknowledge the originality of their submitted manuscript in the cover letter to the Editor while they are submitting a paper.
Data Access and Retention
If necessary, authors will be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data. Also, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editorsâ€™ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewersâ€™ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Authors must clearly acknowledge in the cover letter that the paper was not published before and is not under revision for any journalâ€™s publication.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be given through the Cover Letter. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should acknowledge in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the authorâ€™s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
3. Reviewer Responsibility
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author also assist the author in improving the paper and revised it based on the given comments.
Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the Journalâ€™s editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.
Abstract of the submitted papersâ€™ must be sent to the selected Reviewers while inviting them to Review. This is to inform the Reviewers on the area of the research and the content of the submitted paper. Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process. The initially given time to the Reviewers for their review is 4 weeks. This can be extended based on the Reviewersâ€™ requirement due to the Editorâ€™s decision.
JSHAE follows a double-blind peer-review process, whereby authors do not know reviewers and vice versa. Peer review is fundamental to the scientific publication process and the dissemination of sound science.
The manuscript must be sent to the Reviewers in anonymous status (without a name or any sign of the Authorâ€™s identity). Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the Executive Editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers will be asked to fill in the JSHAE Evaluation Form to give their complete comments on the paper for its originality, quality, and research validity. Moreover, reviewers required stating in their review report using "Manuscript Evaluation Form" if the article fulfils the criteria below which are based on JSHAE archiving policy on Review criteria:
- Theoretical/Conceptual Soundness: The article should make reference to previous research or theories in the reported study. The theory, if any, behind the research should be logically applied and thoroughly justified. It should correctly interpret and appropriately synthesize relevant prior research. And finally, are the hypotheses, if any, derived from the theory to be tested, clearly stated, and are they actually tested.
- Methodological Soundness: Qualitative or quantitative empirical studies reported on should have a systematic and coherent method of study. The article should include a clear account of the study's project background, objectives, subjects, methodology (methods should be the most recent, if not, the relevance/ appropriateness should be questioned), data analysis, and conclusions. The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgement of its limitations. Are the appropriate analytical techniques applied to the data collected, and the results correctly interpreted? Are the conclusions and/or implications correctly derived from the research findings?
- Contribution: Does the article advance knowledge in/of the discipline? Are the findings and their implications noteworthy? Is the paper of interest to many people in the field or at least one segment of it (e.g., academics, practitioners, public policymakers, consumers etc.)? The article should also discuss the implications of the reported project, and/or report on any conclusions or products which may be of relevance to future research, development or practice.
- Communication: The article should be of acceptable quality in terms of linguistic accuracy, clarity and coherence. Is the article clearly written and the major points easily grasped? Is the article laid out in a logical format? Data presentation/ tabulation: Any irrelevant tables/ figures should be checked. The reviewer should comment on the major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
Apart from above criteria, reviewers are also requested to complete rating section of the Manuscript Evaluation Form by selecting appropriate rate in terms of; Clarity of formal structure, Suitability of title to the contents, Abstract sufficiently informative, Originality/Novelty, Methodology sufficiently described, Methodology appropriate to study, Results / Conclusions supported by data analysis, Clarity in the presentation of findings, Scientific soundness, Bibliography adequate and relevant.
Moreover, reviewers are asked for their detailed comments to the Author. The reviewer's comments should be constructive, professional and be sufficiently specific in order to help the author improve the article when revising it for publication or re-submission to JSHAE journal (in the event that it is rejected by JSHAE). If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the Editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so. Reviewers also give their recommendation on the decision to the manuscriptâ€™s publication to the Editor.
JSHAE selects its reviewers as experts in the scientific topics addressed in the articles they review. They provide a written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research with the aims to improve the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal. Individuals who do not have such expertise will not be selected as reviewers.
Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics are periodically assessed by the Executive Editor to assure optimal journal performance. These ratings also contribute to decisions on reappointment to the JSHAE Editorial Board and to ongoing review requests. Individual performance data on Reviewers are available to the Editors but otherwise kept confidential. Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive.
Publication Ethics & Acknowledgement of Sources
Plagiarism is scientific misconduct and is an unacceptable violation of publication ethics. It should be dealt with promptly. The journalâ€™s editors and reviewers are the primary means of detecting plagiarism in manuscripts submitted to JSHAE. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the Editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
4. Publisher Responsibility
Handling of unethical publishing behaviour
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
Access to journal content
The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive. The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and to ensure accessibility by converting and upgrading digital file formats to comply with new technology standards.
Peer Review Policy
â€œThe practice of peer review is to ensure that only good is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining high standards. Transport policy and all manuscript are peer-reviewed following the procedure outlined below.â€
â€œSpecial issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, Conference organizers, or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office. Prospective organizers of a special issue should not contact the editor in the first instance to agree the appropriateness of the content, the number and size of the papers, the refereeing process, and the timescale for receipt of final copy after reviewing.â€