Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika
Chief EditorYashpal Singh Malik
Print ISSN 0303-3821
Online ISSN 0976-4631
NAAS Rating 3.07
Chief EditorYashpal Singh Malik
Print ISSN 0303-3821
Online ISSN 0976-4631
NAAS Rating 3.07
Agricultural Research Communication Centre (ARCC) keeps the records of the communication and popularization of agricultural & animal sciences researches since 1967 with highly experienced scientists from all over India on its editorial board.
Its mission is the fast communication of the researches related to agricultural and animal sciences through its initial publication of two journals - Indian Journal of Agricultural Research” and “Indian Journal of Animal Research under the banner “Agricultural Research Communication Center” (ARCC).
Now, publishing seven world-class research periodicals, ARCC is growing rapidly both in name and influence. At ARCC journals, we adhere to the notion of ethical practice and stop the abuse of scientific research works with the highest of standards.
What makes us unique?
An Excellent Contribution towards Fast Dissemination of Scientific Research
ARCC Journals has led to a significant increase in scientific manpower in India along with the rise of agricultural universities, institutions, schemes, and projects.
An Extensive & Specialized Coverage of various Agriculture & Animal Husbandry Disciplines
The ARCC journals cover the aspects of agricultural and animal research in a specialized and efficient manner.
A Large Network of Scientific Research in India and Abroad
The 7 journals published by ARCC cover and are sent PAN India, and other major countries of the world. Thousands of individual scientists, agricultural libraries, and hard-working farmers are the regular subscribers of the journals.
Specialization within the Discipline
The most important contribution is the extensive and specialized coverage of important aspects within agriculture, animal and dairy science.
Publication Ethics – The Definition
Publication ethics are the guidelines that are developed to ensure world-class scientific publications, public’s faith in scientific research, and proper credit for authors’ original ideas and work.
They are also the main ingredient for the growth of scientific community so at ARCC journals, we adhere to the notion of ethical practice thus stop the abuse of scientific research works with the highest of standards and it is discussed below:
Transparency is another imperative part of the publication process but is often neglected.
The authors, peer reviewers, and the editor-in-chief together make the task of publishing the journal a smooth process. The disclosure of the research from the peer reviews and actions taken by the editor on those reports ease conflicts properly.
This proper analysis of the report lets the author and the editor publish a systematic and effective report on a scientific subject.
It also includes revealing the identity of the peers, the history of their peer reviews, and the team involved in the journal writing process.
The principles of transparency in detail:
Website: ARCC journal’s website and its text demonstrate the care that has been taken to establish and maintain high standards. It doesn’t contain any information that might mislead authors or readers, including any attempt to copy another journal’s site. arccjournals.com/
Name of the journal: ARCC Journals are having a unique name and cannot be confused with any journal or that might misguide authors and readers about ARCC Journals origins or its link with other journals. arccjournals.com/journals
Registration with ARCC: All authors must register with ARCC Journals before submitting an article. Author must be logged in to their ARCC account to submit the manuscript. arccjournals.com/signup
Peer-review policy and process: At ARCC’s website it’s clearly stated that it is a peer-reviewed journal. The peer-review process along with the policies associated with it are clearly explained on the ARCC website. arccjournals.com/reviewProcessOfArticle
Editorial body: ARCC has a board of members and editors who are world-class experts in the subject areas of the journal. The affiliations and full names of the board are provided on the ARCC website. arccjournals.com/journals
Reviewers Information: ARCC provides the full profiles and affiliations of the esteemed Reviewers on its website as well as the contact information and full address of the reviewer panel. arccjournals.com/ourReviewers
Editorial Policies: ARCC journals give importance to the role of editors as it is the only method of ensuring the quality of the journal by making fruitful relations with author, reviewers and adhere to high value responsibilities towards Editorial Board Members. arccjournals.com/roleOfEditor
Role of Reviewer: At Agricultural Research Communication Centre (ARCC) double blind peer-review process has been followed from last 50 years to maintain the quality of the journals and our reviewers ensure this by devoting quality time and valuable feedback on each manuscript submitted. arccjournals.com/roleOfReviewer
Author Responsibilities/Authorship: At ARCC journal, it is understood that a person who takes the complete or partial responsibility for the work that he has done to submit the papers and has made honest efforts in collecting data for the same is awarded the title of Author or co-author. arccjournals.com/roleOfAuthor
Guidelines to Author: There is a particular set of guidelines for author to prepare the manuscript as per format of the journals. Detail information is available on arccjournals.com/author-guidelines
Author Fees (APC): There are nominal publication charges which varies from journal to journals. Author may get all the information regarding APC on journal home page e.g. APC of Indian Journal of Agricultural Research is available on arccjournals.com/apc/indian-journal-of-agricultural-research
Copyright & Licensing: The policy for copyright is clearly shown in the guidelines of the author and the copyright holder is mentioned on the approved articles. Similarly, the licensing information is explained in the ARCC’s guidelines, and licensing terms are indicated on all submitted articles, both PDFs, and HTML.
The identification process of and dealing with research misconduct issues: The editors at ARCC are fully committed to taking required steps to identify and halt the publication of papers where there is research misconduct such as citation manipulation, plagiarism, and data falsification/fabrication. In no case shall ARCC or its editors support such malpractice, or allow it to take place.
Ethical Policies: ARCC has properly detailed policies on publishing ethics. These should/and are visible on its website, and refer to:
Publishing schedule: The frequency at which ARCC publishes is clearly stated on the home page of each journal.
Access: ARCC Journals Are Open Access journals. Individual and journal articles are accessible to authors and free of any fees and it can easily accessible by normal sign up on the website.
Archiving: ARCC has adopted a solid plan for digital backup and preservation of the journal content, in case the journal content is no longer updated. https://arccjournals.com/archive
Revenue Sources: The ARCC business model and revenue sources are mentioned on its website.
Advertising: ARCC clearly states its advertising policy but not any kind of advertising material.
Direct Marketing: Any direct marketing attempts, including manuscripts’ solicitation, that is conducted on behalf of ARCC, are well-targeted, appropriate, and unobtrusive. Information given here about the journal and the publisher is correct and not misguiding for authors or readers.
Data Manipulation, fabrication, or falsification, these are the terms that signify how the content of the research work is manipulated. It is done in the text, images, and/or other relevant documents, and is unethical by all means.
To do this in graphics, a part of the image is cropped and altered to infringe the copyright. Then an attempt is made to duplicate the visual information with a unique identity.
At ARCC journals, we do not approve of any such attempt and demand the information of change in pictures or text at the time of submission by the author.
Our experienced reviewers and editors decipher whether the authors committed any fraud by observing the statistics, P values, tables, odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, etc. Fabrication and falsification are extremely serious offenses in the domain of research.
If editors and/or reviewers suspect any form of misconduct, they have the right to ask authors to reveal the raw datasheets to confirm or eliminate the submission.
Also, editors may ask for the datasheets post-publication if significant doubt arises. Therefore, all data from the study should be protected for a long period of time.
If editors find any form of scientific misconduct such as data fabrication, plagiarism, falsification, etc. they must make sure its proper investigation by the responsible authorities.
A peer review reveals chances of misconduct and editors must inform peer reviewers about this possibility.
In case the peer reviewers raise issues of serious misconduct (falsification, data fabrication, plagiarism, or image manipulation), they mustn’t be taken lightly. However, the authors hold the right to respond to such blames and for investigations to be undertaken quickly and properly.
Journals do not investigate the allegations themselves, but editors are responsible to alert appropriate organizations such as funders, employers, regulatory authorities, etc., and prompting them to look into the matter.
Plagiarism is simply the act of presenting someone else’s work as your own and it has become very common malpractice in the domain of journal publication.
The authors (by intention or non-intention), copy the ideas/studies of other authors and republish them with their names and credentials.
The ARCC journals never promote any form of plagiarism.
How does Plagiarism harm?
As plagiarism is a serious violation of trust, it harms the author’s interest as well as the whole pillars on which the integrity of journalism depends. It is simply an act of deception and damages the ideas behind intellectual property.
How to detect plagiarism
Although detecting plagiarism isn’t an easy task, advances in the IT sector have made it quite easier than it used to be. One of the important tasks of a reviewer is the detection of copied content due to his familiarity with published work in his area of interest.
The ARCC now provides a plagiarism check facility for editors. Therefore, each article goes through the application tool to check for the part that has been copied from other sources.
The Do’s & Don’ts of Plagiarism
Conferences paper, blogs and abstracts
Articles that first appeared as conference papers or blogs must be expanded upon if they are to be considered as original research article. Author need to add original word in form of new data, experiments or new treatment of old data which lead to original results and discussion that significantly exceeds the original conference version. Author need to take permission for reuse of the published conference paper if the author does not have the copyright.
Author may submit the manuscript that are translated from previous published work. Author need to mention and take permission from the original author or publisher. It should be clearly stated in the manuscript at the time of submission. Supplementary material should be provided by the author for verification by the editorial office. Reference must be given of the original manuscript from which translations has been done.
Before moving forward, let’s first discuss what copyright is exactly. Copyright is a kind of intellectual property that protects certain types of authentic and creative works including academic articles.
It allows the creator of a work to decide if and in what conditions, their work may be used, published, and distributed by anyone. In short, it determines how others can use, publish, and sell articles.
Having a complete understanding of copyright options as the creator has become more important than ever, especially with the trend of open access publishing.
How long does Copyright last?
Copyright in a work isn’t meant for a lifetime. Its duration depends on the nature of the work and varies from country to country. However, for an academic article, the duration is usually 70 years past the life of the author.
Copyright at ARCC
Upon submission, the author(s) give a licences to publish, including to display, store, copy and reuse the content of the manuscript. The ARCC needs the publishing right to publish an article and make it available. We ask the authors to sign a contract giving us important publishing rights. This process will be after the manuscript has gone through peer review, been accepted, and moved into final production.
ARCC journals discourage and object to the practice of duplication of text/figures in any form and keep it in check before the submission of research papers.
The authors are responsible for this information before the submission of manuscripts with proper documents. The Editor-in-Chief solely holds the right and decision to approve or reject the manuscripts.
Duplicate submission is another misconduct in the scientific journals’ domain. In this malpractice, the authors increase the frequency of the research paper by using the same text, images, and manuscripts but with a different title.
As a result, thousands of researches are rejected by editors and/or reviewers every year. To avoid this, the ARCC journals accept unique articles.
Why is Duplicate Submission a problem?
Do’s and Don’ts for Authors
If, after reading the guidelines, authors believe a correction or retraction is necessary for the complete published article, it is the responsibility of authors to notify us as soon as possible, especially if it affects the interpretation of data or reliability of information presented and that too with the consent of all the authors presented in the article.
Letter of changes or corrections after publication will be linked with the original article which is accessible to readers. Changes may be attached in the form of Corrigendum, Correction, a Retraction and in rare circumstances a Removal.
The correction procedure depends on the processing and publication stage of the article, following are some circumstances:
In maximum number of times all the error and corrections were carried out at the time of re-prints sent to author for final corrections before publication. It was clearly mentioned in the email which include final reprints PDF file of manuscript that no further changes will be done after generating DOI of the article.
Our Editors works hard to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. For this reason, mostly no changes will be done in case of minor corrections like typographical errors or other minor issues that do not substantively impact the article’s scientific integrity, understanding, or indexing.
Online First publication (publication-in-progress)
Sometimes author requested for make necessary changes after online publication of the article. This may be done after consideration and approval by the Editors and that should be according to guidelines.
In Online first article, if there are major errors or corrections or it is informed by the author after the DOI generation and online publication of the article, then it may be modified and article DOI will be updated with the latest version before print publication.
A correction notice will be published online and linked to the article.
Author have to provide detailed statement and proof for any correction at this time of publication stage with consent of all the other authors of the article.
A Retraction notice will be issued where a major mistakes invalidates the conclusions or effect the interpretation of data in the manuscript. Retraction appeal should have received before the specified commenting deadline.
Appeals are considered by the ARCC Journal’s editorial team, and may be discussed with the journal’s Editor(s)-in-Chief, Editor, Editorial Board Members, and/or with article external reviewer.
Decisions on retraction and Expression of Concern appeals are final. We will not consider further rounds of appeal.
The decision to issue a retraction for an article will be made in accordance with journal guidelines and it may be done in the following circumstances:
An investigation will be held by the editorial staff in collaboration with reviewer and editors. Authors and institutions may request a retraction of their articles if their reasons meet the criteria for retraction.
After the decision of retraction has been taken an article will add a footnote or watermark to the published article. It may also issue a retraction statement separately. It will be available in the online issue of that journal. The PDF may be removed or replaced with a updated version watermarked with “Retracted.”
Retracted articles cannot be published elsewhere because it is retracted for a major reason and are not appropriate for inclusion in the scientific literature anywhere.
Depending on how long an item has been published, it may have been included in indexing databases or crawled by search engines. Some indexing and abstracting services will require to submit a request to make any changes to metadata and it may take time to take effect.
Article Processing Charges (APCs) will not be refunded in case of retraction.
Removal of an Article
In exceptional circumstances the situation for removal of the article arises. It only occurs if the problem or errors are very serious in nature and cannot be addressed by a Correction, Withdrawal or Retraction notice. Article may be removed in rare circumstances such as:
In case of an article being removed from ARCC Journals while the title, author list, and article metadata remain available, a removal notice will be issued in its place.
We gave options to author for making a request to withdraw the article after submission or during review process only if author gave valid reason and provide valid proof or statement for withdrawing the article. Request are considered by the ARCC Journal’s editorial team, and may be discussed with the journal’s, Editor, Editorial Board Members, and/or with article external reviewer.
Mostly article is withdraw due to multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like).
Request for withdraw the article after acceptance or after generating DOI will not be considered as per guidelines of the journal.
APC will not be refunded in case of withdraw after acceptance of the article.
Article replacement (Publication of Previously Retracted Work)
Sometimes authors are able to resolve all the issues for retraction decision and wish to pursue republication in the journal, they should contact the journal editorial committee and inquire about guidelines or requirements for submissions of previously retracted work. Unresolved concerns of potential misconduct will not be considered for re-publication.
Revised version of retracted manuscript will be peer reviewed again before consideration and new DOI will be generated.
Prior version of the article is archived; this archive may be directly accessible to readers. Previous electronic versions will have prominently note that there are more recent versions of the article.
The original article, retraction statement, and updated version of article will be available as related content on journal webpages.
Extra APC may be charged for resubmission and republication through peer-review process.
There can be several conflicts of interest that can, unfortunately, harm the quality of the journal. These can be personal, professional, or financial. ARCC journal declares any conflict of interest before the publishing process thereby eliminating them in the first place.
Conflict of interest do not always stop the article from being published or prevent reviewer from being involved in the review process. Conflict of interest is a feature that is not visible to the reader or editor but may influence/affect his/her judgment. However, they must be declared and clearly mentioned all possible conflicts.
Conflict of interest signifies the situations where the unbiasedness of the findings may be compromised because the researcher is profiting in some way from the conclusions they observe.
Some examples of conflicts of interest:
Some non-financial factors that harm the research work and create biases in the same are:
These factors when hidden can harm effective decision making unhealthy interventions look safer and more useful than they are.
A conflict of authorship for the article may also arise and it can happen because of different reasons. Some of them are dual authorship, multi-authorship, group authorship, etc.
A conflict can arise at any time before or during the submission of the article and it is the sole responsibility of the authors to resolve it.
The journal editor is not responsible for any mediation or participation in resolving the conflict and also not for determining who qualifies for authorship and who doesn’t. Therefore, all the authors are requested to give a signed statement for the enlistment of authors.
When authorship disputes arise post-publication, nearly all guidelines suggest that the authors solve the disputes between themselves.
But it happens rarely as there is a huge difference of power between institutions, and team members such as funding agencies, and universities and they are unlikely to have any power over all team members.
Other disciplines that take care of collaborative creator credit could provide models for scientific authorship.
Mediation or arbitration could provide a solution to disputes in the absence of any effective solution. As authors capitalize on the journals’ authority to make decisions regarding the submitted manuscripts, the journals are in a great position to facilitate a suitable dispute resolution method.
Reviewers and Editors
The review system should be created to lessen the actual or assumed bias on the part of the reviewer.
If reviewers have any interest that might affect the objective review in any way, they should either reject the role of reviewer or reveal their conflict of interest to the editor and take suggestions on how to address it in the best way possible.
Reviewers are responsible for acting swiftly, complying to the instructions for a review’s completion, and submitting it in a timely and proper manner. Failure to follow this affects the review process severely so every effort must be made to finish the review within the time frame.
If because of any reason, it’s not possible to meet the review’s deadline, the reviewer should quickly reject to perform the review or should inquire whether or not some adjustment can be made in regard to the deadline.
Editors and Reviewers should decline to be involved with a submission or review process if they found the following conflicts:
Rather than considering authorship conflicts as rare events and dealing with them on a case-by-case basis, the journals and researchers should view them as predictable, preventable, and soluble.
ARCC Journals always try the best to provide effective conflict resolution services that can provide great help to research communities especially their neediest members.
All papers submitted to ARCC Journals should declare agreement with the following statement of human and animal rights. Authors are requested for doing experiments with the involvement of animals and human subjects by following facts:
Manuscript that follows all the guidelines given by the journal then evaluated by the Editor at initial stages before processing it further for the review process. Editor reserve the right to reject the article if the research has not followed the accepted norms om Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal rights.
One of the most important areas of ethical consideration is the obtaining of informed consent from subjects participating in medical research. This issue, of course, is one in which ethical committees have a vital interest.
Studies on volunteers require ethics committee approval and informed consent, which should be documented in the paper, they have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent.
The informed consent form must be written in language easily understood by the subjects, it must minimise the possibility of coercion or undue influence, and the subject must be given sufficient time to consider participation. However, informed consent is not merely a form that is signed, but is a process in which the subject has an understanding of the research and its risks, and it is tightly described in ethical codes and regulations for human subject research.
The Redundant Publication Policy
The ARCC journals according to its Redundant Publication Policy define it as the practice of duplicating or attempting to publish a work multiple times.
At ARCC, everyone believes that this practice is a wastage of time and energy despite having highly talented and experienced people at various levels of the organization.
The knowledge and vision of the peer reviewers are wasted by publishing the same material again and again. Sometimes the author does it on purpose to inflate scientific merits leading to the ignorance of valuable journals owing to the lack of time.
The Effect on Meta-Analysis
Medical guidelines are mainly based on reviews that monitor literature on a specific topic and make an objective assessment. When several studies are published on treatment, the techniques of meta-analysis may be used to combine the results.
If a single study is used in meta-analysis multiple times, it will skew the findings just like counting patients twice in a study.
The Effect on Journal Resources
Finding appropriate peer-reviewers for submission is the biggest challenge for any editor. Peer reviewers are generally not paid but are glad to take time from their work to review the work of others knowing that when they finalize their work, this courtesy will be handed over to them.
This selfless behaviour is the foundation of scholarly publication making the time of reviewers of utmost importance.
The Effect on Academic Rewards
Academic productivity is measured by the number of articles a researcher finalizes. To get a degree, funding, or appointment of promotion, researchers need a specific amount of publications. The thought behind this system is that every publication signifies a unique piece of research.
So if the researchers publish the same study multiple times, it will be deemed as an unfair and false practice to enhance a record.
How should journals respond to redundant publication?
The most appropriate response to redundant publication is described clearly in the ARCC flowchart.
In instances of clear and significant redundancy, ARCC recommends that the second version should be shunned. This approach sends a message to the readers and authors that no such behaviour will be tolerated.
Clear cases in which authors publish the same or seemingly same articles more than once are relatively simple to handle, however cases of overlap may pose some problems for editors.
If ARCC editor or editorial committee found any breaches in publication ethics policies of ARCC journals, below sanctions may be applied to the authors, reviewers, editors etc.:
ARCC welcome your suggestions, feedback and queries. You may contact us for any clarification and additional information if required. We are always committed to improve our services, user experience and support to the research communities.