qkhabar
ارسال پیامک
 Mode:  
 Global Researchers Journals 

 Search
Friday, November 21, 2014..:: Journals » Journal of Animal Science Advances » JASA Journal » July 2012 (Vol. 2 | Issue 7)::..Register  Login

Editor's Board Membership
Minimize



submit a seminar or congress



submit a seminar or congress

   Print        
 
Publication Ethics
Minimize

General duties and responsibilities of Editors

Editors should be responsible for everything published in their journals. They should:
• strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
• constantly improve the journal;
• ensure the quality of the material they publish;
• champion freedom of expression;
• maintain the integrity of the academic record;
• preclude business needs from compromising intellectual standards;
• always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Relations with readers
Readers should be informed about who has funded research and on the role of the funders in the research
Relations with authors
Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognising that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.
A description of peer review processes should be published, and Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against Editorial decisions.
Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
New Editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous Editor unless serious problems are identified.
Relations with reviewers
Editors should publish guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected — unless they have an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.
The peer-review process
Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
Complaints
Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart.
Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to takecomplaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.
Encouraging debate
Cogent criticisms of published work should be published unless Editors have convincing reasons why they cannot be.
Authors of criticised material should be given the opportunity to respond.
Studies that challenge previous work published in the journal should be given an especially sympathetic hearing.
Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
Encouraging academic integrity
Editors should ensure that research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board). However, Editors should recognise that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
Protecting individual data
Editors should protect the confidentiality of individual information (e.g. that obtained through the doctor–patient relationship). It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent from patients described in case reports and for photographs of patients. It may be possible to publish without explicit consent if the report is important to public health (or is in some other way important); consent would be unusually burdensome to obtain; and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication (all three conditions must be met).
Pursuing misconduct
Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
Editors should first seek a response from those accused. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body) to investigate.
Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable (link to flowcharts).
Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted; if this does not happen, Editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.
Ensuring the integrity of the academic record Whenever it is recognised that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction should be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.
Relations with journal owners and publishers.
The relationship of Editors to publishers and owners is often complex but should in each case be based firmly on the principle of Editorial independence. Notwithstanding the economic and political realities of their journals, Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for readers rather than for immediate financial or political gain.
Commercial considerations
Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing supplements.
Misleading advertisements must be refused, and Editors must be willing to publish criticisms, according to the same criteria used for material in the rest of the journal.
Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction is to be added.
Conflict of interest
Editors should have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers and Editorial board members.
A complaint may be referred to COPE by an author, reader, reviewer, Editor or publisher. Cases may only be referred if the Editor/journal in question is a member of COPE.
• In the first instance complaints against an Editor should be made directly to him or her in writing. If the complaint is not resolved satisfactorily, it should be passed to the Editor’s overseeing body or ombudsman where one exists.
Only complaints that have been through the journal’s complaint’s procedure can be referred to COPE. In referring a complaint to COPE, all relevant correspondence should be enclosed.
• COPE will accept referrals made within six months of the journal completing its own complaints procedure.
COPE may consider cases outside this time period in exceptional circumstances.
• COPE will not consider complaints about the substance (rather than the process) of Editorial decisions, or criticisms about Editorial content.
• COPE will not consider referrals that relate to incidents that occurred before the publication of this code.
When a complaint is referred to COPE:
1. The referrer submits a complaint to the Administrator.
2. The COPE Administrator confirms that the complaint is:
a. against a member of COPE
b. within the remit of the Code
c. unresolved after passing properly through the journal’s complaints procedure
d. relating to an incident that occurred after this code came into force (1 January 2005)
3. The referrer is asked to provide evidence, with all relevant supporting documents including correspondence relating to the hearing of the complaint by the journal, in confidence to the Chair of COPE.
4. The Chair of COPE informs the Editor of the journal in question that the complaint has been referred to COPE.
5. A number of potential scenarios may occur:
a. The Editor refuses to cooperate, in which case, the Chair of COPE informs the referrer and the owner of the journal.
b.The Editor replies stating his/her case:
i. The Chair of COPE, with one other nominated Council member, decides that the journal has dealt with the complaint satisfactorily and advises the referrer and Editor accordingly.
ii. The Chair of COPE, with one other nominated Council member, decides that there is a need for further investigation, advises the referrer and Editor accordingly, and reports this to an appropriately constituted sub committee of the COPE Council.
6. The sub-committee considering the complaint will consist of at least the Chair and three other members of COPE Council. Two of the members must not be Editors. None of the sub-committee members should belong to the same publishing group as the Editor in question.
7. If the Chair belongs to the same publishing group as the Editor in question, s/he will appoint an appropriate deputy to oversee the proceedings.
8. When the case comes to the sub-committee, the sub-committee either:
a. dismisses it, and the referrer and Editor are so advised and given reasons
b. reaches the view that a breach of the code has taken place.
When the sub-committee is of the view that a breach of the code has taken place it presents a report to the COPE Council explaining the nature of the breach and recommending a course of action.
9. The COPE Council considers the report and may modify the recommendations. The Council informs the referrer, the Editor and the owner of its final recommendations. These recommendations may include:
a. that the Editor apologies to the original complainant;
b. that the Editor publish a statement from COPE in his/her journal;
c. that the journal improve its processes;
d. that the Editor resigns from COPE membership for a period of time; or
e. any other action which the COPE Council feels is appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
Appeals procedure
Appeals against a COPE recommendation may be made to COPE’s ombudsperson, contact details for whom will be provided on request.

 

General duties and responsibilities of Editors

Editors should be responsible for everything published in their journals. They should:
• strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
• constantly improve the journal;
• ensure the quality of the material they publish;
• champion freedom of expression;
• maintain the integrity of the academic record;
• preclude business needs from compromising intellectual standards;
• always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Relations with readers
Readers should be informed about who has funded research and on the role of the funders in the research
Relations with authors
Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognising that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.
A description of peer review processes should be published, and Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against Editorial decisions.
Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
New Editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous Editor unless serious problems are identified.
Relations with reviewers
Editors should publish guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected — unless they have an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.
The peer-review process
Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
Complaints
Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart.
Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to takecomplaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.
Encouraging debate
Cogent criticisms of published work should be published unless Editors have convincing reasons why they cannot be.
Authors of criticised material should be given the opportunity to respond.
Studies that challenge previous work published in the journal should be given an especially sympathetic hearing.
Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
Encouraging academic integrity
Editors should ensure that research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board). However, Editors should recognise that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
Protecting individual data
Editors should protect the confidentiality of individual information (e.g. that obtained through the doctor–patient relationship). It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent from patients described in case reports and for photographs of patients. It may be possible to publish without explicit consent if the report is important to public health (or is in some other way important); consent would be unusually burdensome to obtain; and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication (all three conditions must be met).
Pursuing misconduct
Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
Editors should first seek a response from those accused. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body) to investigate.
Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable (link to flowcharts).
Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted; if this does not happen, Editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.
Ensuring the integrity of the academic record Whenever it is recognised that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction should be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.
Relations with journal owners and publishers.
The relationship of Editors to publishers and owners is often complex but should in each case be based firmly on the principle of Editorial independence. Notwithstanding the economic and political realities of their journals, Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for readers rather than for immediate financial or political gain.
Commercial considerations
Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing supplements.
Misleading advertisements must be refused, and Editors must be willing to publish criticisms, according to the same criteria used for material in the rest of the journal.
Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction is to be added.
Conflict of interest
Editors should have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers and Editorial board members.
A complaint may be referred to COPE by an author, reader, reviewer, Editor or publisher. Cases may only be referred if the Editor/journal in question is a member of COPE.
• In the first instance complaints against an Editor should be made directly to him or her in writing. If the complaint is not resolved satisfactorily, it should be passed to the Editor’s overseeing body or ombudsman where one exists.
Only complaints that have been through the journal’s complaint’s procedure can be referred to COPE. In referring a complaint to COPE, all relevant correspondence should be enclosed.
• COPE will accept referrals made within six months of the journal completing its own complaints procedure.
COPE may consider cases outside this time period in exceptional circumstances.
• COPE will not consider complaints about the substance (rather than the process) of Editorial decisions, or criticisms about Editorial content.
• COPE will not consider referrals that relate to incidents that occurred before the publication of this code.
When a complaint is referred to COPE:
1. The referrer submits a complaint to the Administrator.
2. The COPE Administrator confirms that the complaint is:
a. against a member of COPE
b. within the remit of the Code
c. unresolved after passing properly through the journal’s complaints procedure
d. relating to an incident that occurred after this code came into force (1 January 2005)
3. The referrer is asked to provide evidence, with all relevant supporting documents including correspondence relating to the hearing of the complaint by the journal, in confidence to the Chair of COPE.
4. The Chair of COPE informs the Editor of the journal in question that the complaint has been referred to COPE.
5. A number of potential scenarios may occur:
a. The Editor refuses to cooperate, in which case, the Chair of COPE informs the referrer and the owner of the journal.
b.The Editor replies stating his/her case:
i. The Chair of COPE, with one other nominated Council member, decides that the journal has dealt with the complaint satisfactorily and advises the referrer and Editor accordingly.
ii. The Chair of COPE, with one other nominated Council member, decides that there is a need for further investigation, advises the referrer and Editor accordingly, and reports this to an appropriately constituted sub committee of the COPE Council.
6. The sub-committee considering the complaint will consist of at least the Chair and three other members of COPE Council. Two of the members must not be Editors. None of the sub-committee members should belong to the same publishing group as the Editor in question.
7. If the Chair belongs to the same publishing group as the Editor in question, s/he will appoint an appropriate deputy to oversee the proceedings.
8. When the case comes to the sub-committee, the sub-committee either:
a. dismisses it, and the referrer and Editor are so advised and given reasons
b. reaches the view that a breach of the code has taken place.
When the sub-committee is of the view that a breach of the code has taken place it presents a report to the COPE Council explaining the nature of the breach and recommending a course of action.
9. The COPE Council considers the report and may modify the recommendations. The Council informs the referrer, the Editor and the owner of its final recommendations. These recommendations may include:
a. that the Editor apologies to the original complainant;
b. that the Editor publish a statement from COPE in his/her journal;
c. that the journal improve its processes;
d. that the Editor resigns from COPE membership for a period of time; or
e. any other action which the COPE Council feels is appropriate given the circumstances of the case.
Appeals procedure
Appeals against a COPE recommendation may be made to COPE’s ombudsperson, contact details for whom will be provided on request.

 

   Print        
 
 Journal of Animal Science Advances Minimize

July 2012 (Vol. 2 | Issue 7)

 

    Review
     Influence of Poultry Diet on the Fatty Acid, Mineral and Vitamin Composition of the Egg: a Review
    King’ori A. M.

    Journal of Animal Science Advances 31 July 2012 (Vol. 2 | Issue 7 | Pages 583-588); KENYA

     
       Abstract       Full Text        .Pdf Download  Share
      Abstract   The hen’s diet influences the fatty acids, minerals and vitamins content in eggs. The vitamin A content of eggs responds slowly to dietary vitamin A changes but the change is rapid for riboflavin. Pantothenic acid, folacin, biotin, vitamin B12 and D respond greatly to dietary increases. Feed vitamin transfer efficiency to the egg is very high (60-80%) for vitamin A, high (40-50%) for riboflavin, patothenic acid, biotin and vitamin B12, medium (15-25%) for vitamins D3 and E, and low (5-10%) for vitamin K1, thiamin and folacin. Attempts have been made to reduceegg cholesterol contents by altering the yolk fatty acidcomposition. The cholesterol-lowering effects of polyunsaturatedfatty acids (PUFA) have been recognized. Feedinglayers a diet rich in PUFA resulted in a large increase in therelative and absolute concentrations of PUFA in yolk total lipid. Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) have been reported to have a widerange of health-beneficial effects, including...
    Research Article
     Heavy Metal Contamination of the Nokoué Lake (Southern Benin) and the Dynamic of their Distribution in Organs of some Fish’s Species (Mugil cephalus L. and Tilapia guineensis)
    Degnon R. G., Dahouenon-Ahoussi E., Adjou E. S., Soumanou M. M., Dolganova N. V. and Sohounhloue D. C. K.

    Journal of Animal Science Advances 31 July 2012 (Vol. 2 | Issue 7 | Pages 589-595); FEDERATION OF RUSSIA

     
       Abstract       Full Text        .Pdf Download  Share
      Abstract   Heavy metal contamination of fresh water may have devastating effects on the ecological balance of the recipient environment and a diversity of aquatic organisms. The aims of this study were to evaluate heavy metal contamination of the Nokoué Lake (Southern Benin) and the dynamic of their distribution in organs of fishes (Mugil cephalus L. and Tilapia guineensis). Results indicated that waters of lake Nokoué are contaminated with heavy metal and fishes (Mugil cephalus L. and Tilapia guineensis ) living in this polluted waters tend to accumulate heavy metals in their tissues. The metals showed different affinity to fish tissues. They accumulated mainly in liver and gills. Accumulation of metals in various organs of fish may cause structural lesions and functional disturbances.   Key words: Mugil cephalus L., Tilapia guineensis, heavy metal, Lake Nokoue, Bénin
    Research Article
     Embryonic and Fetal Mortality Risk Factors in Dairy Cattle in the Mountainous and Forested Areas of Northwestern Tunisia
    Saidani F., Slimane N., Khaldi S. and Chetoui C.

    Journal of Animal Science Advances 31 July 2012 (Vol. 2 | Issue 7 | Pages 596-607); TUNISIA

     
       Abstract       Full Text        .Pdf Download  Share
      Abstract   This study was conducted in 57 small farms located in mountainous and forest areas by the Office of Sylvo Pastoral Development North West of Tunisia (ODESYPANO), during the periods between 2007 and 2010. A total of 286 dairy cows were subjected to the approach adopted by the ODESYPANO. The dosages of progesterone (the day of insemination at 21-24 days post insemination), the pregnancy specific protein bovine (PSPB) in 30 to 35 days post insemination and rectal palpation at 60-90 days post first insemination allowed us to determine the effects of embryonic and fetal mortality. The average rate of embryonic and fetal mortality were 32.4% (n = 84), 19.9% ​​(n = 51) and 9.4% (n = 24) respectively for Early Embryonic Mortality / No fertilization (EEMNF), Late Embryonic Mortality (LEM) and fetal mortality (FM). The EEMNF was not significantly influenced by breed, class of lactation number, calving season, suckling, the housing type, clas...
    Research Article
     Effect of Sodium Alginate on Functional Properties of Extruded Feed for Fish for Human Consumption
    Rodríguez-Miranda J., Delgado-Licon E., Hernández-Santos B., Medrano-Roldan H., Aguilar-Palazuelos E., Navarro-Cortez R. O., Gómez-Aldapa C. A. and Castro-Rosas J.

    Journal of Animal Science Advances 31 July 2012 (Vol. 2 | Issue 7 | Pages 608-615); MEXICO

     
       Abstract       Full Text        .Pdf Download  Share
      Abstract   Agglutinating compounds are commonly used to improve the physical quality of aquafeeds. An evaluation was done of the effect of the agglutinating compound sodium alginate on the functional properties of aquaculture fish feed produced by extrusion. Meals containing one of four sodium alginate concentrations (0, 0.5, 1.5 and 2%) were extruded in a simple-screw extruder at 120 °C, 20% moisture content and a 1:1 compression ratio, extruding each treatment in duplicate. Expansion index values ranged from 1.11 to 1.12 with no differences (P > 0.05) between the diets containing sodium alginate. In contrast, the different sodium alginate levels had positive (P < 0.05) effects on water absorption index values (2.24 to 2.79 g/g), water solubility index values (10 to 12.94%), sinking velocity (6 to 8.56 cm/s) and hardness (1.98 to 3.31 N). Maximum hardness (3.31 N) was produced in the 2% sodium alginate diet. The highest sodium alginate level tested (2%) had th...
    Research Article
     Genetic Distribution of the Cowpea (Vigna Unguiculata (L.) Walp) Bruchid (Callosobruchus Maculatus F., Coleoptera, Bruchidae) Populations in Different Agro-Ecological Areas of West Africa
    Ndong A., Kébé Kh., Thiaw Ch., Diome T. and Sembène M.

    Journal of Animal Science Advances 31 July 2012 (Vol. 2 | Issue 7 | Pages 616-630); SENEGAL

     
       Abstract       Full Text        .Pdf Download  Share
      Abstract  Cowpea [(Vigna unguiculata L.) Walp. (Fabaceae)] is the most important food legume grown throughout West Africa. The seeds of this legume protein source are the least expensive for most African populations. However, cowpea production is severely limited by the losses (60-70%) caused by Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Whereas many studies have been devoted to the ecology of these bruchids and allowed to distinguish physiotypes and morphotypes, few studies have been conducted on the spatial and temporal structuring of populations of the weevil and migration patterns between agro-ecological areas. By using molecular data; (a combined set of a mitochondrial and ribosomal genes), this study aims to identify genetic diversity and phylogenetic affinities of allopatric C. maculatus populations within the West Africa sub-region. Climate influence (Agro-ecological conditions) was also tested. The results reveal several ecotypes circulate in t...
    Research Article
     Effect of Storage Time on Hatchability of Guinea Fowl Eggs
    Moreki J. C. and Ditshupo T.

    Journal of Animal Science Advances 31 July 2012 (Vol. 2 | Issue 7 | Pages 631-636); NIGERIA

     
       Abstract       Full Text        .Pdf Download
    Research Article
     Genetic and Sex Differences in Carcass Traits of Nigerian Indigenous Chickens
    Isidahomen C. E., Ilori B. M. and Akano K.

    Journal of Animal Science Advances 31 July 2012 (Vol. 2 | Issue 7 | Pages 637-648); NIGERIA

     
       Abstract       Full Text        .Pdf Download  Share
      Abstract   Genetic and sex differences or variation in carcass characteristic and slaughter yield were studied using a total of 150 intensively reared and clinically normal chickens consisted of 50 each of normal feather, naked neck and frizzled matured chickens genotypes. The result showed that genotype as well as sex have significant effect (P<0.05) on carcass characteristics and slaughter yield at twenty weeks old. The slaughter weight means values ranged from 1693.00±71.43g to 2084.00±108.43g in normal-feathered to naked-neck chicken. The slaughter weight, carcass weight and dressing percentage were better in the naked neck chicken than other genetic groups. Moreover, male chickens showed significant (P<0.05) and higher slaughter weights, carcass weight, dressing percentage than females across all genotypes. Correlation coefficients (r) among carcass traits were all positive and very highly significant (P<0.01) and ranged from 0.14 which was not signific...

    Current Articles | Categories | Search | Syndication


     Print   

    Copyright 2012 All rights reserved.   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement