Journal of Kerbala for Agricultural Sciences: Announcements

Publication Ethics

2019-03-12T07:19:17+00:00

The Journal of Kerbala for Agricultural Sciences (JKAS) requires all authors to adhere to the ethical standards as prescribed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). JKAS holds the ethics of publication as its core value and as such, adheres strictly to internationally accepted publication ethics. To ensure compliance, The JKAS employs the double-blinded peer-review process for all articles. The rationale for the double-blinded peer review process is to validate the integrity and novelty of the research work. The peer review process adopted by the Journal acts as a filter and increases the quality of research submitted for publication. This process also helps the authors to remove any errors or a gap in manuscripts mistakenly overlooked and assists in making the research more applicable in real-time.

Journal of Kerbala for Agricultural Sciences (JKFAS) adopts the COPE guidelines on publication ethics.

All authors must confirm the following:

Submitted manuscripts are the original work of the author(s);
Only unpublished manuscript/data should be submitted;
It is unethical to submit a manuscript to more than one journal concurrently;
A certificate to the effect that "the manuscript (give title) is based on original research and the data presented have neither been published in whole/in part nor under consideration for publication in any other journal/periodical. All the authors/co-authors are well conversant with the contents and agreed to the sequence of authorship" must accompany the manuscript;
Any conflict of interest must be clearly stated;
The sources of data used in the development of the manuscript are acknowledged;
All errors discovered in the manuscript after submission must be swiftly communicated to the Editor.

Reviewers are expected to evaluate a manuscript for critical analysis, comparative analysis, and most importantly for integrity and novelty of the research work.

Therefore, reviewers must confirm the following; that:

All manuscripts are reviewed in fairness based on the intellectual content of the article regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry, or political values of the author(s);
Any observed conflict of interest during the review process must be communicated to the Editor;
All information pertaining to the manuscript is kept confidential;
Any information that may be the reason for the rejection of the publication of a manuscript must be communicated to the Editor.

Editors must confirm the following:

All manuscripts are evaluated in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry, or political values of authors;
Information pertaining to manuscripts is kept confidential;
Any observed conflict of interest pertaining to manuscripts must be disclosed;

Editorial Policies

2019-03-12T07:12:25+00:00

Editorial Policies

Corrections, Retractions, Misconduct, and Editorial Expressions of Concern of Articles:

JKAS adapts Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE publication ethics as guidelines for Corrections, Retractions, Misconduct, and Editorial Expressions of Concern about Articles issues. See COPE flowcharts for further guidance.

Advertising:

Currently, JKAS does not carry any advertising.

Editor Roles and Responsibilities:

JKFAS follows the roles and responsibilities stated by the Council of Science Editors.

Funding source:

JKAS is a self-supporting Journal and does not receive funding from any private institutions or government. Hence, the operation of the journal is solely financed by the processing fees received from authors.

Editorial and Publishing Processes

2019-03-12T07:04:02+00:00

Editorial and Publishing Processes

All submitted manuscripts are initially subjected to review by the editor and editorial board and then screened for any plagiarism.
It will be then submitted for two or three reviewers to referee in specific specialties.

Manuscripts must not be previously submitted elsewhere for publication will be considered. Authors must provide an email address as all communication will be through email. All submitted manuscripts must abide by the Journal's instructions. Failure in doing so will result in the return of the manuscript to the author and the publication will possibly delay.

Handling submissions from editors, employees of the editorial board

Journal of Kerbala for Agricultural Sciences has a fair and quick process for review of submissions from the editor, and members of the editorial board. Upon submitting a manuscript to the Journal, the Editor-in-Chief immediately steps in and ensures that this is a manuscript submitted to reviewers unaware of who the authors are and vice versa.

we always search for adding new reviewers to the database or inviting external reviewers, this ensures ethical handling of all received manuscripts which may otherwise carry a bias.

Manuscript processing Model

Instructions for reviewers

2019-03-12T06:45:53+00:00

Reviewers’ Guidelines

Introduction

Conflict of Interest

Confidentiality

Plagiarism

Fairness

Review reports

Timeliness

Recommendations

Resources.

Introduction:

The review process is an important aspect of the publication process of an article. It helps an editor in making a decision on an article and also enables the author to improve the manuscript.

The academic journal operates a blind peer review system.

Before accepting to review a manuscript reviewers should ensure that:

the manuscript is within their area of expertise.
they can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests” WAME.

http://www.wame.org/about/conflict-of-interest-in-peer-reviewed-medical

”Reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists”. ICMJE

http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html#three

Confidentiality

Manuscripts are confidential materials given to a reviewer in trust for the sole purpose of critical evaluation. Reviewers should ensure that the review process is confidential. Details of the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process.

Plagiarism

It is unethical for reviewers to “use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others” COPE

https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf

Identification

The editor or publisher must be informed in case of identifying any unethical practices including plagiarism, authorship falsification, falsification or fabrication, undeclared COI, redundant publication, etc.
The author reporting the ethical breach has to provide sufficient evidence for an investigation to be undertaken. All identified allegations should be treated equally and seriously taken until a decision has been reached.

Investigation

Decisions must be initially made by the editor in discussion with the editorial board.
To avoid any defamation, evidence gathering will be conducted in a way to limit the spread of allegations to those who want to know.
Cases that fall outside of the means of the editor to investigate (for example, data fabrication or authorship falsification) should be referred to the author’s institution with a request for an investigation.

Consequences

One or more of the points listed below will be applied once unethical practices have been confirmed. The consequences mentioned below are range from least to most severe depending on the severity of the identified misconduct.

Informing the author of the breach in misconduct that there in cases where there seems to be a misunderstanding of ethical standards.
Sending a more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer outlining the breach and warning against future behavior
Sending a formal letter to the author or reviewer’s employer
Undertaking a formal retraction or withdrawal of the work in question from the journal.
Imposing a formal embargo on submissions from an individual for a set period.

Fairness

Reviews should be honest and objective. Reviewers should not be influenced by:

The origin of the manuscript
The religious, political, or cultural viewpoint of the author
Gender, race, ethnicity, or citizenry of the author

Review reports

In evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should focus on the following:

Originality
Contribution to the field
Technical quality
Clarity of presentation
Depth of research

Reviewers should also:

Observe that the author(s) have followed the instruction for authors, editorial policies, and publication ethics.
Observe that the appropriate journal’s reporting guidelines are followed

The report should be accurate, objective, constructive, and unambiguous. Comments should be backed by facts and constructive arguments with regard to the content of the manuscript. Reviewers should avoid using “hostile, derogatory and accusatory comments” PIE. Reviewers should not rewrite the manuscript; however necessary corrections and suggestions for improvements should be made.

Timeliness

Reviewers should only accept manuscripts that they are confident that they can dedicate appropriate time in reviewing. Thus, reviewers should review and return manuscripts in a timely manner.

Recommendations

Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:

Accept
Requires minor corrections
Requires moderate revision
Requires major revision
Not suitable for the journal. Submit to another publication such as (suggest a journal):
Reject

Recommendations should be backed with constructive arguments and facts based on the content of the manuscript.

Resources

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf

ICMJE - Responsibilities in the Submission and Peer-Review Process

http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/responsibilities-in-the-submission-and-peer-peview-process.html#three

WAME - Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals

http://www.wame.org/about/conflict-of-interest-in-peer-reviewed-medical

Old Content Announcement: Instructions for authors

2019-03-12T06:33:36+00:00

The Journal of Kerbala for Agricultural Sciences (JKAS) is an official Journal of the College of Agriculture, University of Kerbala in Iraq. It is a scientific, peer-reviewed, open-access journal published quarterly that publishes high-quality research at the forefront of research and describes significant developments in all Agricultural and related sciences.

Submission preparation checklist

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors who do not adhere to these guidelines.

The Journal accepts original unpublished papers in different agricultural sciences.
The submission file is in Open Office, Microsoft Word, or RTF document file format.
Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
The text is single-spaced; uses a 14-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's Guidelines.
Articles should be examined by academic referees, Author must corrections and comments made by the referees for acceptance.
The papers can be written and published in English, and the author (s) must submit the manuscript through the Journal website after registering and obtaining a username and password.
Use a Times New Roman line for the English language; both of them should have font sizes 14 for the text and 16 for the title, with a single space between the lines.
Papers should include English abstracts and shouldn't be more than 250 words.
Papers arrangement is as follows: Abstract in the English language, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion, acknowledgment (if found), and English References.
References should be listed according to Numeric style.
Tables &Figures should be clear and contain subtitles describing their contents.
The manuscript title should include the author's addresses, scientific titles, physical and e-mail addresses, and keywords.
The manuscript must not be more than 21 pages, with 2 cm left on each side of the paper.
The paper manuscript must be checked for plagiarism which should not exceed 20%.

Plagiarism

All submitted manuscripts are checked for plagiarism by Turnitin software (online plagiarism detection software) and must pass any issue that occurs regarding plagiarism and similarities. Authors should ensure the originality of their content. Thus, manuscripts must be of scientific value and must not have been published elsewhere.

COPE flow charts (below links) shall also be considered while dealing with plagiarism complaints.

Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript

Suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript .

Manuscript Preparation

Manuscripts should be typed single-spaced. A font size of 14 points (Times New Roman) is preferred. They should be written in clear language. Page numbers should be located on the bottom center of every page. The title should be centered at the top of page 1. Capitalize the first letter of all words. The title should be followed by the author(s) name(s), affiliation(s), address(es), and e-mail.

Structure of manuscripts

A detailed guide to authors is given below. The manuscripts submitted should be in accordance with these guidelines.

Title

It should be brief and relevant. It must contain the essentials of the report and accurately reflect its contents (no author names or addresses).

Author names and affiliations

First Name, Second Name, Last Name should be written in FULL.
Department, College, University, and Country.
E-Mail

Abstract

The abstract should be clear and include an objective description of the article's contents and major significant findings. It should be concise and contain the objectives, methodology, main results, and conclusions. It should not exceed 250 words.

Keywords

At the end of the abstract, Appropriate 3-5 keywords must be provided.

Introduction

A clear description of relevant literature should be included here. It should be concise to the point and must explain clearly the objectives of the study by giving essential background in content to relevant literature.

Materials and Methods

must explicitly describe the materials used, the analytical techniques followed, and the procedures employed for the data analysis. When using the standard method, provide a complete reference. In case a modified method has been applied, then the modification must be elaborated. The year and place of study, laboratory (s) must be indicated. Experimental design (if applicable) and statistical techniques employed for data analysis must be mentioned clearly

Results and Discussion

An extensive discussion of the proposal work and a discussion of the results are shown here. It could either be combined or treated separately. The results should be concisely presented using tables and figures. The same data may not be used in both. Appropriate statistical data should be given. Discussion must be developed logically in a proper sequence and should cover the implications and consequences not merely recapitulating the results.

Acknowledgment (s)

If any, should precede references.

Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when judgment regarding the research is influenced by factors such as financial gain or personal relationships. All authors are required to disclose any financial, personal, or other associations that may influence, or be perceived to influence their work.

Ethics

The corresponding author hereby confirms that ethics were considered for this research and that the article is original, and its contents are unpublished. The co-author has read and approved the manuscript for submission.

Citations

Citations should be referenced in the text using the Numeric style. When you refer to another document you must acknowledge this within the text of your work with a citation. A citation is a number between two square brackets [reference number]. The first item you cite is numbered [1] and the second is numbered [2] and so on. Sometimes you may need to refer to two documents at the same point in the text. Separate the citations with a comma [2,3]. Multiple citations are treated as a range [2-5]. If you need to cite an item more than once in your document, use the same number every time. You should use the smallest number - the one used when the item is first cited in the document. Do not include the page numbers in the citation, even for a table or image.

References

The references should be (Numeric style).

Examples of reference listing format:

Journal articles

Abbas, M. and Cheema, K. J. (2015). Arsenic levels in drinking water and associated health risk in District Sheikhupura, Pakistan. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 25(3): 719-724.

Proceedings

Hussein, M. H.; Nawaf, H. N. and Bhaya, W. S. (2017). Exploiting the shared neighborhood to improve the quality of social community detection. In New Trends in Information & Communications Technology Applications (NTICT), 2017 Annual Conference (pp. 52-56).

Books

Longmore, J.M.; Wilkinson, I.B.; Baldwin, A. and Wallin E. (2014). Oxford Handbook of clinical medicine 9^th edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Chapter Book

Tricco, A.C.; Tetzlaff, J.; Moher, D. (2013). Knowledge synthesis. In Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham ID. editors.Knowledge translation in health care: moving from evidence to practice 2^nd edition. Wiley, New Jersey, USA: 29-49.

E-books

Auster, P. (2007). The Brooklyn follies.http://www.barnesandnoble.com/

Website

FAOSTAT (2017). FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations statistics). Retrieved on July 4, 2019, from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en /#data/QC.

Thesis

Sangoyomi, T. (2004). Post-harvest Fungal deterioration of yam (Dioscorea rotundata. Poir) and its Control. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ibadan, Nigeria.

Tables and figures

The tables should be organized similarly to the text so that the numbers of tables and figures can be read without turning the page sideways (if possible). Large tables should be avoided. Each table should have a brief and self-explanatory title. Column headings should include the International Standard abbreviations(s) of their respective units of measurement included between parentheses. They should be mentioned as: Table (number of the table): title of the table...

Figures must be included in the center of the page, close to where it is first referred to, preferably immediately below the paragraph where the data was mentioned. All figures must be identified with a number and followed by a brief but intelligible statement that describes the data provided. They should be mentioned as: Figure (number of the figure): title of the figure followed by the description.

Proofs

One set of galley proofs will be sent to the corresponding author for typographical checking only. It should be returned within three days of receipt. Further changes will not be possible.

Reprints

Authors will receive a complimentary copy of the printed journal upon request.

License

2018-08-02T07:38:18+00:00

License

The Journal of Journal of Kerbala for Agricultural Sciences (JKAS) at the University of Kerbala is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt- remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation.

Copyright for Authors

2018-08-02T07:33:25+00:00

Journal of Kerbala for Agricultural Sciences has a fair and quick process to ensure the review of submissions from editors and members of the editorial board. On receiving a manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief immediately steps in and ensures it is subjected to a double-blind peer review process to reviewers unaware of who the authors are and vice versa.

we always search for adding new reviewers to the database or inviting external reviewers to ensure ethical handling of all received manuscripts which may otherwise carry a bias.

Withdrawal of Manuscripts

2018-04-26T20:34:21+00:00

Authors are not allowed to withdraw submitted manuscripts, because the withdrawals are a waste of valuable resources that editors and referees spent a great deal of time processing submitted manuscripts, money, and works invested by the publisher.

For Reviewers

Guide for Reviewers

Articles that are submitted to the journal are initially viewed by co-editor in chief, who in turn redirects the submission to the specialized editorial board member who then forwarded the submission to highly qualified reviewers. The nomination of reviewers for each article is usually done by one of the editors who is specialized in the submission topics after checking some general issues. Peer review is a process of evaluating the quality, validity, and relevance of scholarly research. The process aims to provide authors with constructive feedback from relevant experts which they can use to make improvements to the work. Thus, ensuring the highest standard possible. Authors expect reviews to contain honest and constructive judgment, which is completed in a timely manner and provides feedback that is both clear and concise.

If you have been asked to review a paper, the following frequently asked questions may be helpful.

How long time do I have for making the review?

Three weeks from the date of receipt of the article, unless otherwise agreed. Of course, it is an advantage, particularly for the authors if you can do it at once.

Is there a reviewing form to be filled in?

A form is available. The reviewing form will automatically be sent to all reviewers. Notice, however, that the use of the form is obligatory, and free-text reviews are also welcome.

If the paper is really weak, do you want me to make a full review anyway?

An explanation of what the author(s) have to do in order to do better next time is, of course, service to them. However, if the answer is going to be no, then it's also in the authors' interest to get to know that quickly. Therefore we prefer speed over detail in such cases. In all other cases, a detailed review is expected.

What if you are unable to review it?

Sometimes you will be asked to review a paper when you do not have sufficient time available. In this situation, you should make the editorial office aware that you are unavailable as soon as possible. It is beneficial if you can recommend an alternative expert or someone whose opinion you trust.

If you are unable to complete your report on a paper in the agreed time frame required by the Journal, please inform the editorial office as soon as possible so that the refereeing procedure is not delayed.

Reviewing Instructions

A quality review cannot, in general, be reduced to answering questions in a standard form, and many reviewers feel that they can best express their assessment of the submitted article by writing a free-text memorandum. At the same time, there are a few questions that we like to get answered for each article and where a structured form is preferable. This reviewing form will automatically be sent to all reviewers.

Confidentiality

Strict adherence to the following principles is important in order to guarantee the integrity of the reviewing process.

Confidentiality of the Submitted Article

The contents and the very existence of a submitted manuscript must be considered confidential until the article is published. If the article is not accepted for the journal, then all aspects of its review in this journal are to be considered confidential without a time limit. Reviewers are requested to adhere to this important principle.

Anonymity of Reviewers

Authors will not know the identity of the reviewers unless the reviewer herself chooses to divulge her identity. Reviewers know the identity of the authors. Reviewers normally get to see the other reviews of the same article after they have returned their own review, but will normally not know the identity of the other reviewers. Exceptions to the last rule are sometimes made in case of strongly conflicting reviews, where the reviewers may be invited to interact in order to find out whether this leads one of them to adopt the other one's position on the paper.

Reviewers are of course free to divulge their identity to the authors if they should desire so.

Reviews that are returned as PDF or Word documents may be labeled with the identity of the author of that document in their data field. It is the responsibility of the reviewer to remove such information from the review document before it is returned to the editors.

Confidentiality of Reviews

Reviewers are requested to consider all reviews as confidential. This applies both to the reviews they write themselves and to those made by the other reviewers.

Definition of Confidentiality

The term 'confidential' as used above, implies (1) that the reviewer shall keep confidential material in a safe place where it can’t be accessed by others, (2) that he/she shall not divulge the confidential material to any other person except if approved by an Editor or (Co)Editor-in-Chief of the Journal, and (3) that any other person that obtains access to the material, after approval, shall also be informed about and accept the same rule.

Reviewers’ responsibilities are:

Reporting possible research misconduct.
Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the Journal.
Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review.
Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript.
Not communicating directly with authors, if somehow they identify the authors.
Not identifying themselves to authors.
Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer.
Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.

Complaint and Appeals

2018-04-26T20:32:16+00:00

It is the right of any author to send complaints about procedures, policies, or actions of the Journal’s editorial staff. We are more welcome to receive complaints because they give us a great opportunity and a spur for improving our work in the Journal. We will follow up on the complaints as soon as in a quick way and in a polite and positive tone.

An author, reviewer, or reader could have complaints or feel unhappiness about Authorship issues, plagiarism issues, allegations of research errors and fraud, violations of copyright, research results misappropriation, research standards violations, the unusually long review process, undisclosed conflicts of interest, reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers, unfair comments or severe misjudgment on submitted manuscripts.

How to send your complaint

The best and quick way for the complainant to reach us is via email. The complainant must send us an email with a full description and evidence to our email: journal.agri@uokerbala.edu.iq

Our policy to deal with complaints

Once the editorial office received a complaint, the editor will be informed to begin the investigation process which may take about 1-2 weeks. A meeting will be held about the complaints to discuss the collected information. The proper decision will be taken and the complaint will be informed by email.

Fees

2018-04-26T20:28:56+00:00

Editorial Process

2018-04-26T20:17:27+00:00

All submitted manuscripts are initially subjected to review by the editor and editorial board and then screened for any plagiarism.
It will be then submitted for two to three reviewers to referee in specific specialties.

Manuscripts must not be previously submitted elsewhere for publication will be considered. Authors must provide an email address as all communication will be through email. All submitted manuscripts must abide by the Journal's instructions. Failure in doing so will result in a return of the manuscript to the author and the publication will possibly delay.

Handling submissions from editors, employees of the editorial board

we always search for adding new reviewers to the database or inviting external reviewers, this ensures ethical handling of all received manuscripts which may otherwise carry a bias.

Manuscript processing Model

Editorial policy

2018-04-26T20:10:02+00:00

اعلان مهم: A paper sample stating the Journal of Kerbala for Agricultural Sciences

2018-02-27T19:29:27+00:00

اعلان مهم: How do you make an account at KJAS

2017-12-21T18:34:17+00:00

KJAS presents its best and finest greetings to professors, scholars, and researchers in Iraqi and international universities to create an account in the journal in order to achieve a scientific message that it achieves.

تهدي مجلة كربلاء للعلوم الزراعية اطيب و ارقى تحياتها الى الاساتذة و العلماء و الباحثين في جامعات العراقية و العالمية الى انشاء حساب في مجلة من اجل تسهيل عملية استلام البحوث وتحكيمها

يمكن التسجيل في المجلة من هنا

التسجيل