The editorial and publishing policies adopted by AR Resources & Archives (ARRA) are largely based on the guidelines and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These editorial and publishing policies describe the guidelines we seek to adhere to in the publication process for all our journals. They include the expectations for author, reviewers and editors according to Best Practice.


Originality: Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy of the material in their manuscript. It must be noted that all submissions are author(s) original work and where necessary due approval have been received for copyrighted materials. Also the manuscripts submitted have not been previously published or under consideration in another journal.

Manuscript Submission: Authors are strongly advised to read the Instructions for Authors for the journal of interest before making their submission. Manuscripts which do not follow the format and style of the journal will not be processed.

Authorship: Authors listed on the manuscript must meet the requirements for Authorship (ie individuals who have contributed substantially to the development of a manuscript). All authors must approve the final version of the manuscript prior to submission, after revision and the final version of the article before its publication. All listed authors are fully responsible for the statements and materials used in the work and must be willing to defend them when required.

Acknowledgement: Individuals who participated one way of the other during the development of a manuscript but do not qualify as authors should be acknowledged (e.g., colleagues or supervisors who have reviewed drafts of the work or provided proofreading assistance, laboratory technologists, departments/institutes/centers etc). Organizations that provided funding and/or other resources should also be acknowledged.

Plagiarism: Plagiarism is generally considered a serious unethical publishing behavior. It is passing off the ideas/words/publication(s) of another as one's own without giving due credits to the source and/or its original owner. Manuscripts found to have been plagiarized will be rejected or if already published will be retracted without delay.

Other forms of plagiarism include:

Text Recycling: This is also known as self-plagiarism. It occurs when sections of the same text appear (usually un-attributed) in more than one of an author’s own publications (COPE).

Redundant (duplicate) Publication: Generally denotes a larger problem of repeated publication of data or ideas, often with at least one author in common (COPE).

Self-Citations: Irrelevant self-citation to increase one’s citation is also considered unethical.

Research Resources & Archives will handle all suspected cases of plagiarism according to COPE guidelines.

Fabrication of Data/Results: It is unethical to fabricate, manipulate or falsify data in a manuscript. Also making fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements is unethical. Authors are advised to provide sufficient information in their manuscripts to permit independent researchers to replicate the work.

Research Resources & Archives will adhere to COPE guidelines in handling such suspected cases.

Correction and Retraction of Articles: Authors are obliged to notify the journal’s editor of any significant error or inaccuracy in their published article whenever it is discovered. Authors with such cases must be willing to cooperate with the journal’s editor to correct or retract as is necessary.

See COPE Retraction guidelines.

Changes in Authorship: The corresponding author can request for change of authorship when the need arises. Such changes will be implemented according to COPE guidelines.

Copy Rights: Articles published by Research Resources & Archives will be copyrighted using the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Reviewing for Research Resources & Archives is performed entirely on volunteer basis. With the understanding of how important the review process is in academic publishing, reviewers are advised to strictly adhere to Best Practice as they perform this task. 

Accept/Decline Invitations: Reviewers reserve the right to accept or decline invitations to review manuscripts. Reviewers should only accept invitations to review manuscripts within their area of expertise and when they can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript. Reviewers who initially accept review invitations and later discover that they do not have the needed expertise to perform such review should contact editor immediately and recuse themselves from the assignment. Reviewed comments should be returned within the stipulated time. COPE Flowchat.

Confidentiality: Manuscripts undergoing review are confidential documents. Reviewers are invited based on trust to perform critical evaluations on the manuscripts. Therefore details of the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential and must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor.

Plagiarism: Information and/or ideas reviewers obtained during the review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. It is unethical for reviewers to take such information/manuscripts and pass them off as their own or use them for any other purpose other than the review process. Kindly refer to COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Objectivity and Fairness: Reviewers should be fair and objective as much as possible when performing their reviews. The focus should be on a critical and intellectual evaluation of the manuscript and not to engage in a personal criticism of the author(s). Reviewers should also not be influenced by the perceived origin of the manuscript, the religious, political or cultural viewpoint of the author(s) and the gender, race, ethnicity or citizenry of the author(s).

Review Comments/Reports: The reviewers’ comments/reports should be objective, constructive and accurate. Views/comments in the review should be explained clearly in such a way that justifies every recommendation made. The reports should not be ambiguous but rather be detailed enough to help the author(s) improve their work, even if the manuscript may not be publishable from the reviewers’ point of view. Reviewers should avoid using “hostile, derogatory and accusatory” comments. Reviewers are obliged to call the attention of the editor to any case of perceived unethical conduct or irregularities noticed in the course of the review that will compromise the integrity of the research. COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.


Editors and Editorial Boards are solely responsible for the final decision on a manuscript (that is if a manuscript is to be published or not). This task must be carried out without any interference from the publisher, institution or organization they are affiliated with. It is also imperative that editors and editorial board members are acquainted with and adhere to the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Editors and Editorial Boards carry out these duties on voluntary bases.

Confidentiality: Manuscripts submitted should be treated as confidential documents. Editors should not disclose any information about the manuscript under consideration to other persons except the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers.

Integrity of the Blind Peer Review Process: Editors and Editorial Boards should ensure that the integrity of the blind peer review process is not compromised. The information/identity of the author(s) of a particular manuscript should not be disclosed to the reviewers of that manuscript and vice versa.

Objectivity and Fairness: Editors and Editorial Boards should be fair and objective in the decision making. Manuscripts should be evaluated and decisions taken solely for their intellectual content without regard to the race, color, gender, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).

Conflicts, Misconducts and Article Retraction/Corrections: Editors must be guided by the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and/or other appropriate COPE guidelines in considering conflict resolutions, misconducts and retractions/correction of published articles. 

Competing Interests: Generally, authors, reviewers, editors and editorial boards must declare potential conflict of interest, or interests that may be perceived as such, as they relate to the particular research and their respective responsibilities. For authors, all sources of financial support for the research (that may lead to a potential conflict) should also be disclosed in the manuscript. Reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest and recuse themselves from the peer-review process if a conflict exists.

Misconduct: Misconduct constitutes violation of this editorial and publishing policies, the individual journal policies, or applicable guidelines/policies specified by COPE. Any other activities that could compromise the integrity of the research and/or publication process are potential misconducts. AR Resources & Archives will investigate any suspected case(s) of misconduct according to COPE guidelines.

 For further details please see COPE, ICMJE and WAME.