Biology, Agriculture, SciTech and Environment [BASE]- requires manuscripts submitted to meet international standards for the English language to be considered for publication. Articles are normally published only in English.
Language Style: English
Email for Submission: editorbase2024@gmail.com; editorjournalbase@gmail.com
Publication Time: 15 to 30 Days
Review Articles and Popular articles
Reviews are written by researchers of considerable experience in the field concerned. The authors should review the recent trends or advances in that field in the light of their own work. However, when an author has not done enough original work on a topic but wants to share the knowledge on recent advances/trends which may be useful for post-graduate students or junior members of faculty, one may do so by writing for Educational Forum. The major portion of the above articles should deal with the up-to-date developments in the field in the last 3-5 years. Authors are advised to search Medline and other databases on the Internet, apart from collecting information using conventional methods. These articles should contain a covering letter, title page, summary (should not be structured) and key words. They should be written under appropriate sub-headings. The authors are encouraged to use flowcharts, boxes, cartoons, tables and figures for better presentation.
For Original Article
Title Must be informative, specific and short. It should not exceed 150 characters.
Authors and Affiliations
All names are listed together and separated by commas. Provide exact and correct author names as these will be indexed in official archives. Affiliations should be keyed to the author's name with superscript numbers and be listed as follows: Faculty (For students), Institute/University/Organisation, City, Province, Country (without detailed address information such as city zip codes or street names).
The Corresponding Author(s) should be marked with superscript. Provide the exact contact email address of the corresponding author(s) in a separate section below the affiliation.
Abstract As a primary goal, the abstract should render the general significance and conceptual advance of the work clearly accessible to a broad readership. The word length is not more than 100 words, written in English.
Keywords All article types: you may provide up to 5 keywords; at least 3 are mandatory.
Text The body text is 12 points in normal TNR. The entire document should be 1,15 spaced and should contain page and line numbers in order to facilitate the review process. The BASE recommended manuscript is written using Microsoft Word.
Nomenclature The use of abbreviations should be kept to a minimum.
Sections Your manuscript is organized by headings and subheadings.
For Original Research Articles, it is recommended to organize your manuscript in the following sections:
Introduction t should start on a new page. Essentially this section must introduce the subject and briefly say how the idea for research originated. Give a concise background of the study. Do not review literature extensively but provide the most recent work that has a direct bearing on the subject. Justification for research aims and objectives must be clearly mentioned without any ambiguity. The purpose of the study should be stated at the end.
Method This section should deal with the materials used and the methodology (how the work was carried out). The procedure adopted should be described in sufficient details to allow the experiment to be interpreted and repeated by the readers, if desired. The number of subjects, the number of groups, the study design, sources of drugs with dosage regimen or instruments used, statistical methods and ethical aspects must be mentioned under the section. The data collection procedure must be described. If a procedure is a commonly used, giving a previously published reference would suffice. If a method is not well known (though previously published) it is better to describe it briefly. Give explicit descriptions of modifications or new methods so that the readers can judge their accuracy, reproducibility and reliability.
Statistical Methods: The variation of data should be expressed in terms of the standard error of mean (SEM) or the standard deviation (SD), along with the number of observations (n). The details of statistical tests used and the level of significance should be stated. If more than one test is used it is important to indicate which groups and parameters have been subjected to which test.
Result and Discussion
The results should be stated concisely without comments. They should be presented in a logical sequence in the text with appropriate reference to tables and/or figures. The data given in tables or figures should not be repeated in the text. The same data should not be presented in both tabular and graphic forms. Simple data may be given in the text itself instead of figures or tables. Avoid discussions and conclusions in the results section.
This section should deal with the interpretation, rather than recapitulation of results. It is important to discuss the new and significant observations in the light of previous work. Discuss also the weaknesses or pitfalls in the study. New hypotheses or recommendations can be put forth. Avoid unqualified statements and conclusions not completely supported by the data.
Conclusion It must be drawn considering the strengths and weaknesses of the study. They must be conveyed in the last paragraph under discussion. Make sure conclusions drawn should tally with the objectives stated under introduction.
References All citations in the text must be in the reference list and vice-versa. The references should only include articles that are published or accepted.
Article in a journal Keh, H. T., Nguyen, T. T. M., & Ng, H. P. (2007). The effects of entrepreneurial orientation and marketing information on the performance of SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 592-611
Book: Baron, R. A. (1977). Human aggression. Springer US.
Theses and Dissertations: Maba, A. P. (2017). Peran Kesendirian dan Kecemasan Sosial terhadap Keinginan untuk Konseling Siswa. [Skripsi]. Institut Agama Islam Ma'arif NU Metro Lampung.
Figures and Table
Images should be in JPG format, and tables must be created in a proper table format.
Publication Fee: Nil
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Our Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement are based on COPEs Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. As such, this journal follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.
A selection of key points is included below, but you should always refer to the three documents listed above for full details.
Duties of Editors
Fair play and editorial independence
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study's validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journals scope, without regard to the authors race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff will 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.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
Publication decisions
The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. AP-SMART editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour. AP-SMART shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewers own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewers personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
Duties of Authors
Reporting standards
Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication
Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.
The publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
Authorship of the manuscript
Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
Authors shoulda€”at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)a€”disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).
Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.
Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.
Peer review
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
Fundamental errors in published works
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journals editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.
Duties of the Publisher
Handling of unethical publishing behaviour
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
Access to journal content
BASE Congress Association is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
Copyright ? 2020 - All Rights Reserved - Basecongress
Design & Hosted by Infocyte Solution
