Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Journal of Tropical Life Science (JTLS) provides a rapid publication of full-length papers and Short Communication and Review articles describing of new findings or theories in living system, cells and molecular level in tropical life sciences and related areas. The journal encourages and publishes articles that report novel findings of wide Tropical Life system phenomenon in the areas of biodiversity, agriculture, fisheries, health, husbandry, forestry and environmental technology. 

Research Areas include:

  • Tropical Forest
  • Tropical Widllife
  • Tropical Environment
  • Tropical Biomedical Sciences
  • Tropical Biodiversity
  • Tropical Bioprospecting
  • Tropical Ethnobiology
  • Tropical Diseases
  • Tropical Bioconservation
  • Bioinformatics
  • Biomodeling

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Editorial

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Publication of articles by JTLS is dependent primarily on their validity and coherence, as judged by peer reviewers, who are also asked whether the writing is comprehensible and how interesting they consider the article to be. All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff and only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. All forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.

There are at least two reviewers per manuscript. In other hand, author(s) can also propose candidate(s) reviewer. Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations. The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities:

  • Accept, with or without editorial revisions
  • Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
  • Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission
Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism, copying of ideas, text, data and other creative works without proper citation, is a serious violation. Journal of Tropical Life Science defines plagiarism as a case in which a paper reproduces another work with at least 25% similarity and without citation. The author(s) will be asked a chance for rebuttal if evidence of plagiarism is found before/after acceptance or after publication of the paper. If the arguments are not found to be satisfactory, the manuscript will be drawn back and the author(s) sanctioned from publishing papers for a period to be determined by the responsible Editor(s).

 

Publication Frequency

Journal of Tropical Life Science (JTROLIS) is published three times per year:

  • January
  • May
  • September

 

Publication Ethics

Journal of Tropical Life Science (JTROLIS) publishes peer-reviewed articles. JTROLIS the best standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractices. It is important to agree upon standards of proper ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the authors, the editors, the reviewers, the publisher and the society.

(based on Elsevier policy and COPE’s Best Practices Guidelines)

Duties of author(s)

sources: http://www.publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf

  1. Authorship of the paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the reported study. If there are others participant who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
  2. Originality and plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if there were the work and/or words of others, so it has been appropriately cited.
  3. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: The authors should not submit same manuscripts in more than one journal or primary publication.
  4. Acknowledgement of sources: Proper acknowledgment to others are always written.
  5. Disclosure and conflicts of interest: The authors must include disclosure of all relationships to prevent a potential conflict of interest.
  6. Fundamental errors in published works: When the authors discover significant error or their own published work, they have to notify and be cooperated to the journal editor or publisher to retract or correct the paper.
  7. Reporting standards: The Authors should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion.
  8. Hazards and human or animal subjects: If the work involves unusual hazards inherent and/or the use of animal or human subjects, so the authors have to state and write it clearly in their paper.
  9. Use of patient images or case details: Studies on patients or volunteers require ethics committee approval and it should be documented in the paper.

Duties of Editor(s)

  1. Publication decisions: The editor(s) 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. Fair play: The editor(s) should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  3. Confidentiality: The editor(s) 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.
  4. Acknowledgement of sources: Proper acknowledgment to others are always written.
  5. Disclosure and conflicts of interest: The editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. 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. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
  6. Journal self-citation: The editor(s) should direct authors to relevant literature as part of the peer review process, however this should never extend to blanket instructions to cite individual journals.
  7. Involvement and cooperation in investigations: Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. The editor of the Journal of Degraded and Mining Lands Management should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society).

Duties of Reviewer(s)

sources: http://www.publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf

  1. Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
  2. Promptness: Any selected peer reviewer who feels unqualified to peer review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
  3. Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for peer review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  4. Standards of objectivity: Peer reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  5. Acknowledgement of sources: Peer reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  6. Journal self-citation: The editor(s) should direct authors to relevant literature as part of the peer review process, however this should never extend to blanket instructions to cite individual journals.
  7. Disclosure and conflict of interest: Peer 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 manuscripts. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author.