Publication Ethical Statement

Ethical guidelines for journal publication (based on Elsevier policies)

Journal of Amreta Meena (JAM) is dedicated to publlished the highest quality of research papers on all aspects of Aquatic resources, Aquaculture, Fisheries resources Technology and Management, Fish technology and processing, Fisheries and Marine Social Economic, and marine science.


We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition Faculty of Fisheries and marine science and editorial board will assist communications with other journals or other publishers where it's necessary.

(based on Elsevier policies and COPE'S Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

Publication decisions

The editor of a peer-reviewed- Journal of Amreta Meena (JAM) is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding label and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.



An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy of the author.


The editor and any editorial staff 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 approriate.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should rescue themselves (ie.should ask co-editor, associate editor, or other members of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any other authors, companies, or possibilities institution connected to the papers. The editor should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication, if needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations.
An editor 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). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but maybe also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies and if the complaint is upheld the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.


Reporting standards

Authors of a report of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work."Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable" Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial opinion works should be clearly identified as such

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the works and/or words of others then this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing olf' another's paper (without attribution), to claiming from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its form constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kind of articles (e.g guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Acknowledgment of source

Proper acknowledgment of the works of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

Authorship of the paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who made a significant contribution should be listed as co-authors (so its mean that manuscript at least have an author and co-author) Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in a manuscript.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the result or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registration, and grants other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a publication contains a significant error it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.


Contribution to editorial decisions.

Peer review assists the editor in making the editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

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. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting in competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Acknowledgment of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.


Any selected referee who feels unqualified to 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.



Any manuscript received from the review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.


Standards of objectivity,

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referee should express their views clearly with supporting arguments