Editorial Policies
- COPE Recommendation for Conflict of Interest (specific to editors)
- Advertisement Policies
- Editorial Policies
- Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
- Publisher Policies
- Creative Commons License
- Editorial Process
- Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (specific to editors)
- COPE Recommendation for Plagiarism
- Peer Review Process
- COPE Recommendation for Conflict of Interest (Specific to Editors)
The African Journal of Pig Farming (AJPF) adheres to the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding conflicts of interest specific to editors. Editors are required to disclose any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could potentially influence their editorial decisions. Transparency in the editorial process is paramount, and editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict exists, such as submissions by colleagues, collaborators, or close associates. In such cases, an alternate editor or an independent external reviewer will be appointed to maintain objectivity. Editors must also avoid favoritism and ensure decisions are based solely on the academic merit of the submission, free from commercial or political pressures. The journal ensures that editorial practices align with ethical standards, preserving trust in the review and publication process.
2. Advertisement Policies
AJPF accepts advertisements relevant to agriculture, animal science, and related fields to support the journal’s open-access operations. All advertisements are vetted for ethical standards, accuracy, and relevance to ensure they align with the journal’s mission and values. AJPF does not endorse advertised products or services and clearly distinguishes advertisements from editorial content to avoid conflicts of interest. Advertisements must comply with legal and ethical guidelines and should not promote misleading, harmful, or discriminatory practices. The journal reserves the right to reject advertisements that conflict with its objectives or editorial integrity.
3. Editorial Policies
AJPF’s editorial policies are designed to uphold the highest standards of academic publishing. The editorial team ensures a fair, transparent, and unbiased review process. Manuscripts are evaluated for originality, relevance, and scientific rigor. Editors maintain confidentiality throughout the review process and are committed to publishing content that advances the pig farming industry. The journal encourages submissions that adhere to ethical guidelines, including those related to research involving animals and humans. Editors are responsible for addressing ethical concerns, handling appeals, and implementing corrections or retractions when necessary.
4. Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
AJPF follows COPE’s standards for ethical publishing and strictly opposes all forms of malpractice, including plagiarism, falsification of data, and unethical authorship practices. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to uphold integrity in all aspects of the publishing process. Ethical approval and informed consent are mandatory for research involving humans or animals. AJPF ensures transparency, addresses misconduct allegations promptly, and reserves the right to retract articles in cases of proven malpractice.
5. Publisher Policies
The publisher of AJPF is committed to maintaining transparency, inclusivity, and accessibility in academic publishing. Publisher policies are aligned with global standards, ensuring ethical practices in manuscript handling, peer review, and open access dissemination. The publisher supports the editorial board in addressing ethical concerns and upholding COPE recommendations. Additionally, it ensures that publication costs are manageable for authors, offering waivers when appropriate.
6. Creative Commons License
AJPF publishes under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), allowing unrestricted use, sharing, and adaptation of content with proper attribution. This license maximizes the reach and impact of published research while ensuring credit to the original authors. Authors agree to this licensing policy upon manuscript acceptance, promoting open access and knowledge sharing globally.
7. Editorial Process
AJPF follows a structured editorial process to ensure high-quality publications. Submissions are initially screened for adherence to journal guidelines. Qualified manuscripts undergo a double-blind peer review process, where at least two experts evaluate the submission. Editors make final decisions based on reviewers’ feedback, ensuring fairness and objectivity. The process also includes plagiarism checks, ethical evaluations, and revisions before publication.
8. Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (Specific to Editors)
Editors at AJPF must disclose any financial or non-financial interests that could bias their decisions. This includes financial investments, institutional affiliations, or close relationships with authors. In cases of conflict, editors must recuse themselves and delegate the manuscript to another team member to ensure impartiality. The journal’s commitment to transparency prevents any compromise in editorial integrity.
9. COPE Recommendation for Plagiarism
AJPF aligns with COPE’s recommendations to prevent and address plagiarism. All submissions are screened using advanced plagiarism detection software to identify overlaps with published work. Authors are expected to cite sources properly and avoid self-plagiarism. Plagiarized submissions are rejected, and repeat offenses may lead to blacklisting. Post-publication, any detected plagiarism will result in article retraction and public notification.
10. Peer Review Process
The peer review process at AJPF ensures the scientific quality and credibility of published work. Submissions undergo a double-blind review, where reviewers and authors remain anonymous to prevent bias. Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methodology, relevance, and clarity. Feedback is provided constructively, helping authors improve their work. Editors make decisions based on reviewers’ recommendations, ensuring transparency and fairness.
