Editorial Policy

AJSI editorial policies

1.      Submission Policy

Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously, that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that it will not be submitted elsewhere until under consideration by this journal, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the authorities responsible where the work was carried out.

2.       Peer review policy

All manuscripts are subject to screening by the editorial office for its scientific content, format and relevance of the topic to AJSI followed by a blinded peer-review by two or more referees/experts in the concerned field. Authors are advised to read our editorial policies to understand our review process since AJSI is considers manuscripts which comply our instruction with authors.

Strict confidentiality will be maintained by the editorial office during review process with regards to identity of the authors and reviewers. In order to ensure the anonymity in the double-blind peer-review process, each manuscript is assigned a specific Manuscript Number and the reviewer is also assigned a particular Reviewer ID number or code. Authors are expected to mention about all conflicts of interest related to the manuscript during initial and final submission if any. 

 An invitation email will be sent to the verified reviewers where the reviewers can accept or decline review request. If the reviewers accept reviewing; reviewing guidelines, full manuscript and a filling review response form is sent to reviewers. The independent reviewer assesses submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether the manuscript should be published in AJSI journal. 

 Once accepted for publication the authors will take message through email for agreement with the journal indicating author’s willingness to give consent again for the first publication and permit the journal to share the article with global libraries through feasible ways. The publication process is run by the Editorial Office, composed of the Editor-in-Chief whose main function is to oversee the entire publication process, the Associate Editors, whose function is to evaluate if the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality, and the Managing Editor whose function is to directly supervise the day-to-day operations of the publication. 

2.   Open Access Policy

AJSI 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. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose under Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) end-user license without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. The articles published in AJSI are freely available to the public through any channel without charge to the user or his/her institution.  Authors are responsible for ensuring that their papers do not infringe any existing copyright. If previously copyrighted material is included, authors must provide evidence that the copyright holder has given permission for its use.

3.  Confidentiality & Privacy Statement

The names, affiliation, email addresses and other personal information provided to us and/or collected by us will be stored and used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party. In scholarly publishing, data concerning the authors, editors, reviewers, and others involved in the editorial and publishing process remains necessary for the purposes of the journal. AJSI retain a historical record of the process involved in reviewing, editing, and publishing the manuscript according to best publishing practice. 

4.  Conflict of interest policy

For a transparent nature of publishing process, all parties involved in the article should reveal any possible association which poses a conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript. The journal requires that all authors disclose any potential sources of conflict of interest. It is understood upon submission of an article that the authors acknowledge the sources of funding and any related associations or assistance from any third parties related to the article.

Any financial interests, or relationship or connections, direct or indirect, or other situations that might raise the question of bias in the work reported or the conclusions, implications or opinions stated including- pertinent commercial or other sources of funding for the individual author(s) or for the associated department or organization, personal relationships, or direct academic competition is disclosed if any.

5.  Ethical policy

If the work involves the use of human or animal subjects or affect environment(resource), each manuscript should provide ethical approval authority/IRB/ethical committee/institution head name with the reference number. If not required, provide an ethical exemption letter of not required. The author should send scanned pdf copy of the ethical approval/exemption letter during manuscript submission if required. Write a statement of informed consent taken from the patient/participants/respondent or client owned animals or relevant authorities preferably at the end of methods section/before references section. The editor may ask to send scanned pdf copy for written consent if required (such as photos).

6.  Publication Ethics

Authors are expected to be aware of, and comply with, best practice in publication ethics specifically with regard to authorship (for example avoidance of ghost or guest authorship), dual submission, plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, manipulation of figures, competing interests and compliance with policies on research ethics. Reviewers and Editors are required to treat manuscripts fairly and in confidence.

Plagiarism is considered to be a serious breach of scientific ethics by the AJSI. If the editorial board/Authors/Reader/Publics finds plagiarism in a piece already published in our journal, the journal's executive board will take appropriate action as per Committee of Publication Ethics guidelines/COPE Guideline.Pdf. Moreover, any person suspected or encountered plagiarism is promoted to report plagiarism via AJSI contacts email( www://arsiun.gov.edu.et//, email: arsiunrpd@gmail.com or editors in chief). If any manuscript is found to be plagiarized, immediate action will be taken, which will include and not limited to the following:

  • Retraction of paper in question, from the system, review, and from all other processing
  • Black listing of concerned author(s) in question.
  • Rejection of all other manuscripts submitted by the author(s) in question.
  • Reporting of the issue to the concerned authorities, including the authors' institution and/or funding organizations.

7. Retraction policy

Manuscripts published in the Journal shall remain extant, exact and unaltered as long as it is possible. However, occasionally, circumstances may arise where a published manuscript will later require retraction. The main reason for retraction is serious flaws in the article which were not detected prior to publishing.  The aim of retraction is for preserving the integrity of science and not for the purpose of punishing the author.

In any stage of publication, an article can be withdrawn by author after submitting a written request with justifications. In post publication stage, if any readers or any third person complaint about the content, with proof of copyright issue, fraudulent data, multiple submission, plagiarism; the article will be withdrawn from the system by the publisher with a note on retraction mentioning the reasons and the case may be informed to the concerned author’s institution and/or funding organizations of the article. The retraction of a published article will be decided by the publisher after discussion with the concerned editor.

 Peer Review Process 

The manuscript submitted for publication is screened by the Editor-in-Chief and in consultation with Managing editor and or Associate editors after the identity of the author(s) is concealed from the other Editors to ensure anonymity. If the evaluators find that the manuscript does not have the sufficient quality to go through for the peer-review process, the article will be rejected. The Editor-in-Chief notifies the author by email of the rejection of the manuscript for publication. If the evaluators find that the manuscript needs revision prior to the peer-review process, the authors are notified by the Editor-in-Chief to prepare and submit by email a final copy of their manuscript after the major or minor revisions are made. The Editor-in-Chief reviews the revised manuscript submitted by the authors. Once the Editor-in-Chief is satisfied with the revised manuscript, send to two double blind reviewers for publication when accepted by peer reviewers. 

The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to two reviewers for peer-review. The Editor-in Chief sends a letter of request to the appropriate reviewers who have the expertise of the topic together with the manuscript, Peer-Review Form and Editorial Policy. If the peer reviewers agree to review the manuscript, the reviewers submit their filled-in Peer-Review Form, together with the reviewed manuscript, to the Editor-in-Chief along with their recommendation of one of the following actions: “Accept as is”, “Reconsider after minor revisions”, “Reconsider after moderate revisions”, “Reconsider after major revisions”, or “Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel”. Using the same form, the reviewers make a summary of the review, comment on the strengths as well as the minor and major weaknesses of the manuscript and suggest the necessary revisions. The Editor-in-Chief notifies author(s) of the review outcome by email.

The Editor-in-Chief decides that the manuscript is accepted for publication, if the two peer reviewers recommend “Accept as is,” and all the sets of criteria for publication are met. If the peer reviewer recommends either “Reconsider after minor revisions” or “Reconsider after moderate revisions” or “Reconsider after major revisions” the authors are notified by the Editor in-Chief by email to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript together with a cover letter outlining point-by-point the revisions made in regards to the reviewers' comments and guidelines. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. If the peer reviewer finds that the manuscript is of sufficient quality after revisions are made, the peer reviewer fills in and submits a new Peer-Review Form to the Editor-in-Chief by email along with the recommendation “Accept as is”. The Editor-in-Chief notifies the author(s) by email of the acceptance of the manuscript for publication.

If the two peer reviewers recommend “Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel”, the decision of the Editor-in-Chief to reject the manuscript is immediate. If only one of the two peer reviewers recommends for rejection, the Editor-in-Chief has the authority upon deliberation with the corresponding Editor to reject or to reconsider the manuscript after sending to the third reviewer or revision accordingly.

After Acceptance

Online proof correction

Corresponding authors will receive an e-mail with a link to our online proofing system, allowing annotation and correction of proofs online. The environment is similar to MS Word: in addition to editing text, you can also comment on figures/tables and answer questions from the Copy Editor. Web-based proofing provides a faster and less error-prone process by allowing you to directly type your corrections, eliminating the potential introduction of errors. If preferred, you can still choose to annotate and upload your edits on the PDF version. All instructions for proofing will be given in the e-mail we send to authors, including alternative methods to the online version and PDF.

AJSI editorial team will do everything possible to get your article published quickly and accurately. The corresponding author is expected to upload all of corrections within 72 hours. It is important to ensure that all corrections are sent back to EIC in one communication. Please check carefully before replying, as inclusion of any subsequent corrections cannot be guaranteed. Proofreading is solely authors’ responsibility. Note that AJSI may proceed with the publication of your article if no response is received.

Change to Author

This policy concerns the addition, deletion, or rearrangement of author names in the authorship of accepted manuscripts. Before the accepted manuscript is published in an online issue, authors are requests to add or remove an author, or to rearrange the author names, must be sent to the Editor in Chief from the corresponding author of the accepted manuscript and must include: (a) the reason the name should be added or removed, or the author names rearranged and (b) written confirmation (e-mail, fax, letter) from all authors that they agree with the addition, removal or rearrangement. In the case of addition or removal of authors, this includes confirmation from the author being added or removed. Requests that are not sent by the corresponding author will be forwarded by the Editor in Chief to the corresponding author, who must follow the procedure as described above. Publication of the accepted manuscript in an online issue is suspended until authorship has been agreed.


The corresponding author, at no cost, will be provided with a PDF file of the article via e-mail (the PDF file is a watermarked version of the published article and includes a cover sheet with the journal cover image and a disclaimer outlining the terms and conditions of use). For an extra charge, paper offprints can be ordered via the offprint order form which is sent once the article is accepted for publication. Both corresponding and co-authors may order offprints at any time via

author inquiries. You can also contact us via twitter, Facebook and you can send email.

Duties of Editors

Publication Decisions

Editorial Office Team of AJSI consisting of the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors and the Managing Editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The Management Team 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 defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Management Team may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair Play

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the nature of the authors or the host institution including race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

The editors 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 appropriate. AJSI operate by online submission system, which run in a way that prevents unauthorized access. In the case of a misconduct investigation, AJSI may disclose material to third parties (e.g., an institutional investigation committee or other editors). AJSI doesn’t disclose reviewers’ identities. However, if reviewers wish to disclose their names and that is permitted.

Disclosure and Conflicts 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.

When genuine errors in published work are pointed out by readers, authors, or editors, which do not render the work invalid, a correction (or erratum) will be published as soon as possible. The online version of the paper may be corrected with a date of correction and a link to the printed erratum. If the error renders the work or substantial parts of it invalid, the paper should be retracted with an explanation as to the reason for retraction (i.e., honest error).
Ensuring the Integrity of the Published Record – Suspected Research or Publication Misconduct If serious concerns are raised by readers, reviewers, or others, about the conduct, validity, or reporting of academic work, AJSI Management Team will initially contact the authors and allow them to respond to the concerns. If that response is unsatisfactory, AJSI will take this to the institutional level. In cases when concerns are very serious and the published work is likely to influence clinical practice or public health, AJSI may consider informing readers about these concerns, by issuing an ‘expression of concern’, while the investigation is ongoing. Once an investigation is concluded AJSI will publish comment that explains the findings of the investigation. AJSI may decide to retract a paper if the Editorial Board is convinced that serious misconduct has happened even if an investigation by an institution or national body does not recommend it based on \COPE\retraction guidelines.pdf. AJSI will respond to all allegations or suspicions of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors. Cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication will be assessed by the journal using ..\COPE\redundant publication A_0.pdf and..\COPE\redundant publication B.pdf. In other cases, AJSI may request an investigation by the institution or other appropriate bodies (after seeking an explanation from the authors first and if that explanation is unsatisfactory).  Retracted papers will be retained online, and they will be prominently marked as a retraction in all online versions, including the PDF, for the benefit of future readers.


Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

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 manuscripts received for 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. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers are expected to give decision based on the checklist prepared to support reviewers response.

Acknowledgement 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.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

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 conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Reviewer Misconduct

AJSI Editors will take reviewer misconduct seriously and pursue any allegation of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage. Allegations of serious reviewer misconduct, such as plagiarism, will be taken to the institutional level.
Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards

Authors of reports 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.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are 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 and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors should ensure that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.
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.
Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
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 have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. 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 appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Reporting of Research Involving Humans or Animals

Appropriate approval, licensing or registration should be obtained before the research begins and details should be provided in the report (e.g. Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee approval, national licensing authorities for the use of animals). If requested by editors, authors should supply evidence that reported research received the appropriate approval and was carried out ethically (e.g. copies of approvals, licenses, participant consent forms).

Researchers should not generally publish or share identifiable individual data collected in the course of research without specific consent from the individual (or their representative).

The appropriate statistical analyses should be determined at the start of the study and a data analysis plan for the pre-specified outcomes should be prepared and followed. Secondary or post hoc analyses should be distinguished from primary analyses and those set out in the data analysis plan. Researchers should publish all meaningful research results that might contribute to understanding.

Authors should supply research protocols to journal editors if requested (e.g. for clinical trials) so that reviewers and editors can compare the research report to the protocol to check that it was carried out as planned and that no relevant details have been omitted. Researchers should follow relevant requirements for clinical trial registration and should include the trial registration number in all publications arising from the trial.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

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.