Fountain Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal with both Online ISSN (2354-337X) and Print ISSN (2350-1863).  The Journal Publication Committee of the College of Natural and Applied Sciences, Fountain University, Osogbo, Nigeria is committed to ensuring that the editorial process of the journal is governed by rigorous ethical and malpractice standards that are both fair and transparent.  We recognize the complex nature of the scholarly publishing ecosystem which includes the authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers.  As a result, this journal follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.

 

 Responsibilities of Editors and Editorial Board

• The editors are to determine which manuscripts/articles submitted to the journal should be published. They are to ensure that decisions are made on any submission based on merit only and not on the author’s race, citizenship, religion, ethnicity, gender or political beliefs;
• The editors are to subject any submitted manuscript to originality test by the use of the appropriate software and send out the blinded copy for the peer-review process;
• The editors recommend to the Editor-in-Chief, which manuscripts to be accepted or rejected during the review process;
• Provide the required guidance for the guest editors and the new editorial board members on what is required of them and also keep the existing members up-to-date on new policies and developments;
• Keeping confidentiality of the authors by ensuring that no information about the author(s) is revealed to the reviewers and vice-versa;
• Editors are to ensure that no paper is rejected based on suspicion without any valid proof;
• Editors are to ensure the best international ethical practices by ensuring that all accepted manuscripts meet the international best practices;
• Ensure that only competent reviewers within a particular field are selected for the review process;
• The editors shall ensure that materials from all unpublished works submitted to the journal are not used in their work;
• Ensuring the publication of clarifications, corrections, retractions and apologies when the need arises;
• The Editor must be responsive and follow the outlined processes in the COPE in a situation where an ethical complaint is made against a submitted or published article.

 Responsibilities of Reviewers

The essence of the peer review process is to assist the editor and the editorial board in making a publishing decision and also assist the author in improving the quality of their work by providing critical feedback. With this, the reviews’ responsibilities are highlighted

• Confidentiality: Any information regarding the submitted manuscript should be strictly kept confidential and shouldn’t be discussed with a third party without the permission of the editor.
• Conflict of interest: If any of the reviewers have a conflict of interest in any manuscript resulting from a collaboration, competition, or any other connection with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers, the reviewer should not consider the manuscript.
• Unbiasedness: The reviewers should consider the manuscript objectively without any consideration of the authors’ race, religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, age, or whatsoever.
• Objectivity: The assessment by the reviewers should be conducted objectively, supported with data and the arguments should be clearly expressed without personal criticism of any of the authors.
• Celerity: The review should be conducted promptly as stipulated by the editor and if a potential reviewer feels unqualified to assess the manuscript, he/she should withdraw from the review process and notify the editor immediately for a timely replacement.
• Acknowledgement of sources and relevant works: The reviewers must make sure that the authors have acknowledged and cited all sources of data used in the research. Any copyrighted pictures should be used with permission and any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors should be identified.
• Plagiarism and other ethical concerns: The reviewers should notify the editor if they suspect any plagiarism or other unethical practices concerning the manuscript.

 Responsibilities of Authors

• Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to all those who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution and analysis/interpretation of data including draft preparation. All authors are to take collective responsibility for the reported work.
• Originality: Authors must ensure that the submitted article is original in content and has not been previously published or is being considered for publication elsewhere.
• Human and animal welfare: It is the duty of the authors to ensure that adequate consideration has been given to the welfare of human and animal subjects used in the work. Details of precautionary measures taken must be given while citing relevant body/ies responsible for the measures put in place.
• Declaration of any conflict of interest: Authors must declare any conflict of interest that may arise from an article. This should include the source of funding for the work.
• Avoidance of plagiarism: authors must ensure that the works of others are properly cited and efforts should be made to avoid word-for-word copies of other people’s works.

Roles of the Publisher (Fountain University) 

The roles of the FUJNAS Committee of the College of Natural and Applied Sciences, Fountain University, Osogbo, Nigeria in scientific communication include:

• To provide practical support to the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board in following the COPE Code of Conduct for journals;
• To ensure the autonomy of editorial decisions;
• To protect intellectual property and copyright, and arbitrate in disputes (e.g., over ethics, authorship);
• To carry out copy-editing, proofreading, type-setting and styling of materials;
• To ensure the linking of articles to open and accessible databases;
• To arrange and manage scholarly peer review;
• To maintain the scholarly record;
• To disseminate research data to researchers and other stakeholders such as policymakers, economic, biomedical and industrial practitioners as well as the general public;
• To manage the processes of quality assurance, interlinking and findability of research;
• To ensure transparency about the nature and the quality of the services offered as a publisher.

 Responsibilities of the Editorial Advisory Board

Maintaining FUJNAS as a scientific journal of the highest quality depends a lot on the Editorial Advisory Board. As a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of FUJNAS, you are expected to add value and academic credibility to FUJNAS in the following ways:

• Work with the Editor-in-Chief and advise him on issues that should be addressed by the journal as well as the overall scope and focus of the journal;
• Promote the journal whenever and wherever possible by sourcing new submissions and making the most of their academic/industry contacts in the journal’s subject areas;
• May be requested to review papers and undertake book reviews; and
• May be required to contribute to the journal content by contributing submissions as Guest Editors.

 

Statement of Human and Animal Rights

When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should be asked to indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.

Authors of manuscripts that describe experimental studies on either humans or animals must supply a statement that the study was approved by an institutional review committee or ethics committee and that the subjects gave informed consent. Such approval should be described in the Methods section of the manuscript. In addition, for studies conducted with human subjects, the method by which informed consent was obtained from the participants (i.e., verbal or written) also needs to be stated in the Methods section.

• For studies with human subjects, please include the following sentence:

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all patients to be included in the study.

If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach, and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study.

• If any identifying information about patients is included in the article, the following sentence should also be included:

Additional informed consent was obtained from all patients for which identifying information is included in this article.

• For studies with animals, please include the following sentence:

All institutional and national guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals were followed.

• For articles that do not contain studies with human or animal subjects:

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.

Research involving human participants, their data or biological material

Ethics approval

When reporting a study that involved human participants, their data or biological material, authors should include a statement that confirms that the study was approved (or granted exemption) by the appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee (including the name of the ethics committee) and certify that the study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration or comparable standards, the authors must explain the reasons for their approach, and demonstrate that an independent ethics committee or institutional review board explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. If a study was granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, this should also be detailed in the manuscript (including the reasons for the exemption).

Retrospective ethics approval

If a study has not been granted ethics committee approval prior to commencing, retrospective ethics approval usually cannot be obtained and it may not be possible to consider the manuscript for peer review. The decision on whether to proceed to peer review in such cases is at the Editor's discretion.

Ethics approval for retrospective studies

Although retrospective studies are conducted on already available data or biological material (for which formal consent may not be needed or is difficult to obtain) ethics approval may be required depending on the law and the national ethical guidelines of a country. Authors should check with their institution to make sure they are complying with the specific requirements of their country.

Ethics approval for case studies

Case reports require ethics approval. Most institutions will have specific policies on this subject. Authors should check with their institution to make sure they are complying with the specific requirements of their institution and seek ethics approval where needed. Authors should be aware to secure informed consent from the individual (or parent or guardian if the participant is a minor or incapable).

Cell lines

If human cells are used, authors must declare in the manuscript: what cell lines were used by describing the source of the cell line, including when and from where it was obtained, whether the cell line has recently been authenticated and by what method.

If cells were bought from a life science company the following need to be given in the manuscript: name of the company (that provided the cells), cell type, number of the cell lines, and batch of cells.

It is recommended that authors check the NCBI database for misidentification and contamination of human cell lines. This step will alert authors to possible problems with the cell line and may save considerable time and effort.

Further information is available from the International Cell Line Authentication Committee (ICLAC).

Authors should include a statement that confirms that an institutional or independent ethics committee (including the name of the ethics committee) approved the study and that informed consent was obtained from the donor or next of kin.

Research Resource Identifiers (RRID)

Research Resource Identifiers (RRID) are persistent unique identifiers (effectively similar to a DOI) for research resources. This journal encourages authors to adopt RRIDs when reporting key biological resources (antibodies, cell lines, model organisms and tools) in their manuscripts.

Examples:

Organism: Filip1^{tm1a(KOMP)Wtsi} RRID:MMRRC_055641-UCD

Cell Line: RST307 cell line RRID:CVCL_C321

Antibody: Luciferase antibody DSHB Cat# LUC-3, RRID: AB_2722109

Plasmid: mRuby3 plasmid RRID:Addgene_104005

Software: ImageJ Version 1.2.4 RRID: SCR_003070

RRIDs are provided by the Resource Identification Portal. Many commonly used research resources already have designated RRIDs. The portal also provides authors links so that they can quickly register a new resource and obtain an RRID.

Clinical Trial Registration

The World Health Organization (WHO) definition of a clinical trial is "any research study that prospectively assigns human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes". The WHO defines health interventions as “A health intervention is an act performed for, with or on behalf of a person or population whose purpose is to assess, improve, maintain, promote or modify health, functioning or health conditions” and a health-related outcome is generally defined as a change in the health of a person or population as a result of an intervention.

To ensure the integrity of the reporting of patient-centred trials, authors must register prospective clinical trials (phase II to IV trials) in suitable publicly available repositories. For example www.clinicaltrials.gov or any of the primary registries that participate in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

The trial registration number (TRN) and date of registration should be included as the last line of the manuscript abstract.

For clinical trials that have not been registered prospectively, authors are encouraged to register retrospectively to ensure the complete publication of all results. The trial registration number (TRN), date of registration and the words 'retrospectively registered’ should be included as the last line of the manuscript abstract.

Standards of reporting

Springer Nature advocates complete and transparent reporting of biomedical and biological research and research with biological applications. Authors are recommended to adhere to the minimum reporting guidelines hosted by the EQUATOR Network when preparing their manuscript.

Exact requirements may vary depending on the journal; please refer to the journal’s Instructions for Authors.

Checklists are available for a number of study designs, including:

Randomised trials (CONSORT) and Study protocols (SPIRIT)

Observational studies (STROBE)

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) and protocols (PRISMA-P)

Diagnostic/prognostic studies (STARD) and (TRIPOD)

Case reports (CARE)

Clinical practice guidelines (AGREE) and (RIGHT)

Qualitative research (SRQR) and (COREQ)

Animal pre-clinical studies (ARRIVE)

Quality improvement studies (SQUIRE)

Economic evaluations (CHEERS)

Summary of requirements

The above should be summarized in a statement and placed in a ‘Declarations’ section under the heading of ‘Ethics approval’. The Declarations section should be placed on a title page that is separate from the manuscript. Please use the title page as outlined in the Title Page section of these Instructions for Authors for providing the statements. Other declarations include Funding, Competing interests, Ethics approval, Consent, Data and/or Code availability and Authors’ contribution statements.

Please see the various examples of wording below and revise/customize the sample statements according to your own needs.

Examples of statements to be used when ethics approval has been obtained:

• All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Medical University of A (No. ...).
• This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of University B (Date.../No. ...).
• Approval was obtained from the ethics committee of University C. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.
• The questionnaire and methodology for this study were approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of D (Ethics approval number: ...).

Examples of statements to be used for a retrospective study:

• Ethical approval was waived by the local Ethics Committee of University A in view of the retrospective nature of the study and all the procedures being performed were part of the routine care.
• This research study was conducted retrospectively from data obtained for clinical purposes. We consulted extensively with the IRB of XYZ who determined that our study did not need ethical approval. An IRB official waiver of ethical approval was granted from the IRB of XYZ.
• This retrospective chart review study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Human Investigation Committee (IRB) of University B approved this study.

Examples of statements to be used when no ethical approval is required/exemption granted:

• This is an observational study. The XYZ Research Ethics Committee has confirmed that no ethical approval is required.
• The data reproduced from Article X utilized human tissue that was procured via our Biobank AB, which provides de-identified samples. This study was reviewed and deemed exempt by our XYZ Institutional Review Board. The BioBank protocols are in accordance with the ethical standards of our institution and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Authors are responsible for the correctness of the statements provided in the manuscript. See also Authorship Principles. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject submissions that do not meet the guidelines described in this section.

 

Procedures for Dealing with Unethical Behavior

Identification

• Unethical behaviour can be identified and reported to journal editors and/or the publisher of Fountain Journals (FJ) at any time.
• Unethical practices may include but are not limited to, violations of any of the above-mentioned Ethical Expectations (e.g., plagiarism, falsification or fabrication, authorship falsification, redundant publication, undeclared conflict of interest, etc.).
• For an investigation to be conducted, the person reporting the ethical breach must provide sufficient evidence. Until a conclusion is reached, all allegations are treated equally and seriously.

Investigation

• The journal's editor will investigate in consultation with FJ. In the case of allegations against a journal editor, the investigation will be conducted in consultation with FJ by a different member of the journal's editorial board, such as a deputy editor. The investigation into allegations against FJ will be conducted by the journal's editor in consultation with other members of the journal's editorial board.
• To avoid defamation, evidence gathering will be done so that allegations are only shared with those who need to know.
• The investigation will be completed within a reasonable time after the allegation is made (s).
• The accused party will be notified and allowed to respond to the allegation as part of the investigation (s).
• If the allegation(s) are valid as part of the investigation, the severity of the breach will be determined.
• Cases beyond the editor's and FJ's investigative capabilities (e.g., data fabrication or theft) will be referred to the author's institution with a request for an investigation.

Minor Ethical Violations

The journal's editor and FJ will handle minor infractions.

Major Ethical Violations

In cases of serious misconduct, the accused's employer may be required to be notified. In consultation with FJ, the editorial board, and/or the society governing body, the editor will decide whether this is warranted.

Consequences

When an ethical violation is confirmed, one or more of the following actions will be taken.

• Informing the author or reviewer of the misconduct breach in cases where there appears to be a misunderstanding of ethical standards;
• Sending a strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer outlining the breach and warning against future behaviour
• Publishing an erratum notice outlining the ethical breach
• Sending a formal letter to the author's or reviewer's employer or funding agency;
• Undertaking a formal retraction or withdrawal of the work in question from the journal, as well as informing indexing services and readers of the misconduct;
• Imposing a formal embargo on submissions from an individual for a fixed period; and
• Reporting the misconduct to a regulatory association for review and action.

Conflict of Interest

• All authors must disclose any commercial associations or other arrangements (e.g., financial compensation received, patient-licensing arrangements, the potential for profit, consultancy, stock ownership, etc.) that may pose a conflict of interest in connection with the article.
• Editors and reviewers must recuse themselves from evaluating papers in which they may have a conflict of interest.

Appeals

• Authors have the right to appeal decisions. All appeals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by journal editors. The journal editors will recuse themselves depending on the nature of the appeal, and the appeal will be reviewed by a different member of the journal's editorial team.

Corrections

• Authors must notify the journal's editor and FJ of any factual errors they discover or are informed of in a published article. When corrections are required, they are made quickly and are accompanied by an errata notice that describes the correction.

Retractions

• The editors consider retractions when there is evidence of untrustworthy data or findings, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical research. If an article is under investigation, we may consider an expression of concern notice. If it is determined that a retraction is required, a retraction notice will be added, along with an explanation of the retraction and the original article metadata. The original text will still be available.
• In exceptional circumstances, the original article may be removed for legal reasons. In such cases, the metadata will be kept, while the original text will be replaced with the retraction note and a note explaining why the article was removed for legal reasons.