Publication Ethics

Hasanuddin Journal of Animal Science (HAJAS) is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Faculty of Animal Science, Universitas Hasanuddin. This journal is available online and highly respects publication ethics and avoids any type of malpractice and research misconduct. This statement explains the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor in chief, the editorial board, the peer-reviewers, and the publisher (Faculty of Animal Science, Universitas Hasanuddin).

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal of Hasanuddin Journal of Animal Science (HAJAS) is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society.

The Faculty of Animal Science, Universitas Hasanuddin, as the publisher of HAJAS, takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing seriously and we recognize our ethical behaviour and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. The publisher of HAJAS is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics. This commitment is realized through the execution of misconduct consequences, which include the potential withdrawal of publications. In addition, the Faculty of Animal Science, Universitas Hasanuddin, and the Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

A. Allegations of Misconduct

Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing an article by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) to assist them to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.

If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the co-authors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article, are sufficient.

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions based on evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, Hasanuddin Journal of Animal Science (HAJAS) will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

Procedures for Dealing with Unethical Behaviour

Anyone may inform the editors and/or Editorial Staff at any time of suspected unethical behavior or any type of misconduct by giving the necessary information/evidence to start an investigation.

  • Investigation
    The Editor-in-Chief will consult with the Section Editors on decisions regarding the initiation of an investigation. During an investigation, any evidence should be treated as strictly confidential and only made available to those strictly involved in investigating. The accused will always be given the chance to respond to any charges made against them. If it is judged at the end of the investigation that misconduct has occurred, then it will be classified as either minor or serious.
  • Minor Misconduct
    Minor misconduct will be dealt with directly with those involved without involving any other parties, e.g.:
    • Communicating with authors/reviewers whenever a minor issue involving misunderstanding or misapplication of academic standards has occurred.
    • A warning letter to an author or reviewer regarding fairly minor misconduct.
  • Major Misconduct
    The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Section Editors, and, when appropriate, further consultation with a small group of experts, should make any decision regarding the course of action to be taken using the evidence available. The possible outcomes are as follows (these can be used separately or jointly):
    • Publication of a formal announcement or editorial describing the misconduct.
    • Informing the author's (or reviewer's) head of department or employer of any misconduct by means of a formal letter.
    • The formally announced retraction of publications from the journal. Retractions are considered by journal editors in cases of evidence of unreliable data or findings, plagiarism, duplicate publication, and unethical research. We may consider an expression of concern notice if an article is under investigation. All retraction notices explain why the article was retracted.
    • A ban on submissions from an individual for a defined period.
    • Referring a case to a professional organization or legal authority for further investigation and action.

When dealing with unethical behaviour, the Editorial Staff will consult the guidelines and recommendations provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

B. Authorship and Contributorship

This section describes authorship principles and good authorship practices to which prospective authors should adhere. Authorship in a scientific scholarly article signifies that an individual has made substantial contributions to the work and holds accountability for its content. To warrant authorship, an individual must significantly contribute to the conception and design of the study, the acquisition of data, or the analysis and interpretation of data. They must also participate in drafting the manuscript or critically revising it for important intellectual content, ensuring the interpretation and discussion align with the data. Additionally, all authors must approve the final version of the manuscript before publication and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, guaranteeing that any questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. In cases of large collaborative projects, group authorship may be appropriate, provided individual contributions are clearly defined. Transparency and ethical considerations are paramount; those who contributed to the work but do not meet the authorship criteria should be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section, and practices such as honorary and ghost authorship should be strictly avoided.

The following are the types of contribution that warrant authorship:

  • Made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the creation of new software used in the work;
  • Drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content;
  • Approved the version to be published; and
  • Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

     1. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Author(s) are expected to refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and ultimately the entire scientific endeavour. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation is helped by following the rules of good scientific practice as follows:

  1. The manuscript should not be submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration. Author(s) are expected to declare this in the mandatory author declaration.
    b. The submitted work should be original and should not have been published elsewhere in any form or language (partially or in full), unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work. (Please provide transparency on the re-use of material to avoid the concerns about text-recycling ('self-plagiarism')). Author(s) are expected to declare this in the mandatory author declaration.
    c. A single study should not be split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time (i.e. 'salami-slicing/publishing').
    d. Concurrent or secondary publication is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. Examples include: translations or a manuscript that is intended for a different group of readers.
    e. Results should be presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation (including image-based manipulation). Authors should adhere to discipline-specific rules for acquiring, selecting and processing data.
    f. No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the author's own ('plagiarism'). Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given (this includes material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarized and/or paraphrased), quotation marks (to indicate words taken from another source) are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions secured for material that is copyrighted.
    g. Author(s) should make sure they have permissions for the use of software, questionnaires/(web) surveys and scales in their studies (if appropriate). Author(s) are expected to declare this in the mandatory author declaration.
    h. Research articles must cite appropriate and relevant literature in support of the claims made. Excessive and inappropriate self-citation or coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite is strongly discouraged.
    i. Authors should avoid untrue statements about an entity (who can be an individual person or a company) or descriptions of their behavior or actions that could potentially be seen as personal attacks or allegations about that person.
    j. Research that may be misapplied to pose a threat to public health or national security should be clearly identified in the manuscript (e.g. dual use of research). Examples include creation of harmful consequences of biological agents or toxins, disruption of immunity of vaccines, unusual hazards in the use of chemicals, weaponization of research/technology (amongst others).
    k. Author(s) are expected to ensure the author group, the Corresponding Author, and the order of authors are all correct at submission. Adding and/or deleting authors during the revision stages is generally not permitted, but in some cases may be warranted. Reasons for changes in authorship should be explained in detail. Please note that changes to authorship cannot be made after acceptance of a manuscript. Author(s) are expected to declare this in the mandatory author declaration.

If there is suspicion of misbehavior or alleged fraud the Journal and/or Publisher will carry out an investigation following COPE guidelines. If, after investigation, there are valid concerns, the author(s) concerned will be contacted under their given e-mail address and given an opportunity to address the issue. Depending on the situation, this may result in the Journal's and/or Publisher's implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:

  • If the manuscript is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.
  • If the article has already been published online, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction:
    • an erratum/correction may be placed with the article
    • an expression of concern may be placed with the article
    • or in severe cases retraction of the article may occur.

The reason will be given in the published erratum/correction, expression of concern, or retraction note. Please note that retraction means that the article is maintained on the platform, watermarked "retracted" and the explanation for the retraction is provided in a note linked to the watermarked article.

  • The author's institution may be informed.
  • A notice of suspected transgression of ethical standards in the peer review system may be included as part of the author's and article's bibliographic record.

  2. Fundamental Errors Attached to Authors

Authors have an obligation to correct mistakes once they discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published article. The author(s) is/are requested to contact the journal and explain in what sense the error is impacting the article. A decision on how to correct the literature will depend on the nature of the error. This may be a correction or retraction. The retraction note should provide transparency which parts of the article are impacted by the error.

C. Complaints and Appeals

Hasanuddin Journal of Animal Science (HAJAS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity and quality in our editorial processes. We recognize that, on occasion, authors, reviewers, or readers may have concerns or complaints regarding editorial decisions, ethical issues, or other aspects of the journal's operation. This policy outlines the procedure for handling complaints and appeals in a fair, transparent, and timely manner.

This policy applies to complaints and appeals related to editorial decisions (e.g., manuscript rejection, revision requests), the peer review process, ethical issues (e.g., plagiarism, authorship disputes), and administrative processes (e.g., delays in publication).

  1. Definitions
  • A complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction with the editorial process or decisions.
  • An appeal is a formal request to reconsider an editorial decision, typically concerning manuscript rejection.
  1. Filing a Complaint or Appeal
    All complaints and appeals should be submitted via email to the Editorial Office of HAJAS at hajasfapet@unhas.ac.id. The submission should include:
  • The manuscript ID or title.
  • A detailed description of the issue or concern.
  • Any supporting evidence, arguments, or documentation.
  1. Complaints and Appeals Handling Procedures
    The editorial office will acknowledge receipt of the complaint or appeal within 7 working days. An investigation will be conducted by the Editor-in-Chief and/or relevant members of the editorial board. The process will be impartial and confidential. The complainant/appellant will be informed of the outcome and the rationale behind the decision in a timely manner.
  2. Confidentiality
    All information related to complaints and appeals will be treated with strict confidentiality.

D. Conflicts of Interest

At Hasanuddin Journal of Animal Science (HAJAS), we are committed to ensuring fairness and transparency throughout our editorial and peer review processes. A conflict of interest arises when an individual's personal, financial, or professional interests might influence, or appear to influence, their decisions or actions.

  • Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest in a statement within their manuscript.
  • Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript if they have a conflict of interest.
  • Editors and Editorial Board Members must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest.

E. Data and Reproducibility

To maintain the highest standards of integrity and transparency in research, HAJAS emphasizes the importance of data availability and reproducibility.

  • Authors are encouraged to provide raw data for the editorial review process and to retain such data for at least five years after publication.
  • Where possible, authors should deposit data in public repositories or provide it as supplementary material.
  • The methodology should be described in sufficient detail to allow the research to be reproduced.

F. Ethical Oversight

HAJAS is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards throughout the publication process.

  1. Consent to Publication: For research involving identifiable human subjects, authors must obtain consent for publication. A statement confirming this must be included in the manuscript.
  2. Research Involving Vulnerable Populations: Special care must be taken, and guardians' consent must be obtained for vulnerable populations.
  3. Research Using Animals: Authors must confirm that ethical guidelines for animal welfare have been followed, including approval from an relevant ethics committee. A statement must be included in the manuscript.
  4. Research Using Human Subjects: Research must comply with ethical standards (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki). Approval from an institutional ethics committee must be obtained and stated in the manuscript.

G. Intellectual Property

  • Author Rights: Copyright of published articles remains with the authors.
  • Licensing: Articles in HAJAS are published under the CC Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.
  • Plagiarism: HAJAS uses plagiarism detection software. Plagiarism, in any form, is unacceptable and will result in immediate rejection or retraction.

H. Journal Management

  • HAJAS is published by the Faculty of Animal Science, Universitas Hasanuddin.
  • Management: The journal is managed by the Editorial Team and supported by the Faculty.
  • Editorial Team: Consists of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board members who handle the peer review process and make final decisions.
  • Peer Review: Uses a double-blind review process.
  • Submission Process: Manuscripts are submitted online via OJS.

I. Peer Review Process

  1. Submission and Initial Screening: Manuscripts are checked for scope, formatting, and originality.
  2. Assignment to Reviewers: Suitable experts in animal science, livestock production, animal nutrition, animal physiology, genetics, biotechnology, and other related fields are selected.
  3. Double-Blind Review: Identities of authors and reviewers are concealed.
  4. Reviewer Assessment: Reviewers evaluate originality, methodology, significance, and clarity.
  5. Editorial Decision: Decisions include: Accept, Revisions Required, or Reject.
  6. Revision and Resubmission: Authors revise the manuscript based on feedback.
  7. Final Decision and Publication: Accepted manuscripts are prepared for publication.
  8. Post-Publication: The journal monitors for any post-publication issues.

J. Post-publication Discussions and Corrections

Concerns about published articles can be raised by emailing the Editor-in-Chief at hajasfapet@unhas.ac.id. The process will follow COPE guidelines and may result in the publication of a correction, expression of concern, or retraction.

K. Policy on AI-Assisted Tools (e.g., ChatGPT)

Large Language Models (LLMs) and other generative AI tools do not meet the criteria for authorship. Their use must be explicitly disclosed by authors in the Acknowledgements or Methods section. Authors are solely responsible for the content of their manuscript, including any parts generated by AI, and must ensure the work is original, accurate, and adheres to academic ethics.

L. AI Image Policy

Due to unresolved legal and ethical issues surrounding AI-generated images, HAJAS generally does not permit their use. Exceptions may be considered on a case-by-case basis for articles specifically about AI, or for images obtained from licensed agencies in a legally acceptable manner. This policy will be reviewed regularly.