Guideline and Policies

Advertising Policy

The International Journal of Kinanthropometry receives advertising support for its online editions and maintains editorial integrity through policies that define the Editorial/Advertiser relationship: Online advertising does not influence editorial decisions, and advertising is not an endorsement by the Publisher, Editor, or the Editorial Board. ISAK’s International Journal of Kinanthropometry reserves the right to refuse any advertising. Editors have full and final authority for approving online advertisements and for enforcing the advertising policy. The journal website contains online banner advertising. To avoid implied endorsement by the Journal, the article, or the authors of the article, advertisements are not adjacent to articles addressing the product or its disease state. The Publisher reserves the right to print the word “Advertisement” on any advertisement where it may not be clear, so readers can distinguish readily between advertising and editorial. It is the responsibility of the advertiser and its agencies to adhere to appropriate legal requirements and regulations.

Authorship and Contributorship Policy

The following policies apply to International Journal of Kinanthropometry, unless otherwise noted.

  • Everyone listed as an author should meet our criteria for authorship. Everyone who meets our criteria for authorship must be listed as an author.
  • We expect that all authors will take public responsibility for the content of the manuscript submitted to International journal of Kinanthropometry. The contributions of all authors must be described.
  • All authors will be contacted by email at submission to ensure that they are aware of and approve the submission of the manuscript, its content, and its authorship. The International Journal of Kinanthropometry (IJK) requires that all co-authors confirm their assent to publication by email. 

Qualification for Authorship Policy

For Authorship criteria, authors must meet all four conditions in order to be listed.

  • Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data.
  • Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
  • Final approval of the version to be published.
  • Agreement 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. Para los criterios de autoría, los autores deben cumplir las cuatro condiciones para poder aparecer en la lista

Group Authorship policy

Group authorship adheres to the following guidelines:

  • When a large, multicentre group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship/contributorship defined above, and editors will ask these individuals to complete journal-specific author and conflict-of-interest disclosure forms. Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship.
  • When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the preferred citation in the manuscript title page and identify all individual authors as well as the group name. Journals generally list other members of the group in the Acknowledgments.

Please be aware that as of October 2016, the National Library of Medicine’s (NLM) policy has changed and PubMed will only index individuals and the names of consortia or group authors listed in the author byline itself. Individual consortium/group author members listed in the author byline must qualify for authorship according to our criteria.

Author Contribution policy

The contributions of all authors must be described. The International Journal of Kinanthropometry (IJK) has adopted the CRediT Taxonomy to describe each author’s individual contributions to the work. The submitting author is responsible for providing the contributions of all authors at submission. We expect that all authors will have reviewed, discussed, and agreed to their individual contributions ahead of this time. Contributions will be published with the final article, and they should accurately reflect contributions to the work. 

Acknowledgment Policy

Contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be mentioned in the Acknowledgments. It is expected that those being acknowledged have given their permission to be named.

Corresponding Author Responsibilities

The corresponding author takes responsibility for and speaks on behalf of all authors.  


  • Ensure that the manuscript is in full adherence with all. 
  • Ensure that all authors have access to the final version of the manuscript that is submitted to the journal, and agree to the author list and author contributions. 
  • Ensure that all authors have seen the final draft of the manuscript before it is published.
  • Provide to the journal written confirmation that all authors consent to any requested changes in the manuscript’s authorship. 

Post-publication :

  • Continue to be the point of contact for queries about the published paper.
  • Inform all co- authors of any matters arising and ensure such matters are dealt with promptly. 

Authorship Changes Policies

International Journal of Kinanthropometry (IJK) follows the COPE guidelines for changes in authorship. Changing the author list after submission requires agreement from all authors. This includes additions, deletions, and changes in ordering. Requests must come from the corresponding author along with an explanation for the change. If the change is deemed to be appropriate, the corresponding author must receive and provide to the International Journal of Kinanthropometry the consent to the change from all the authors, including any being added, deleted, or reordered. 

Authorship issues identified after publication may result in a correction. In the case of an authorship dispute, the journal will not arbitrate. If the authors are unable to resolve the dispute themselves, we will raise the issue with the authors’ institution(s) and abide by its guidelines.

Editor and Reviewer Requirements policy

  • Editors should be aware of the author list and author affiliations when they invite reviewers to review a manuscript in order to reduce the likelihood of inviting individuals with potentially competing interests that would disqualify them from participating in the peer-review process.
  • Editors and reviewers should contact the journal with any concerns about the author list or if they identify any potentially competing interests that should be declared or that mean they should recuse themselves from the process.

Author, Reviewer and Publisher Responsibilities policies

Authors' responsibilities:

  • To keep accurate records of data associated with their submitted manuscript using the Journal interface correctly, and to supply or provide access to these data, on reasonable time line. Where appropriate and where allowed by employer, funding body and others who might have an interest, to deposit data in a suitable repository or storage location, for sharing and further use by others.
  • To be aware that the paper proposals should contain original work that was not published in other journals; papers presented at international conferences may be accepted pending standard Journal review procedure;
  • To confirm that the manuscript as submitted is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere. Where portions of the content overlap with published or submitted content, to acknowledge and cite those sources;
  • To confirm that all the work in the submitted manuscript is original and to acknowledge and cite content reproduced from other sources. To obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources;
  • To accept that they should respond in a special statement available on the journal interface to the critical observations, remarks, and suggestions of the reviewers;
  • To declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g. where the author has a competing interest (real or apparent) that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on his or her duties at any stage during the publication process);
  • To notify promptly the journal editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified. To cooperate with the editor and publisher to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary;

All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper and they will make a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript.

The reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, significance, originality, readability and language.

The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions (minor or major), or rejection.

If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.

An author should make no changes to a paper after it has been accepted. If there is a compelling reason to make changes, the author is obligated to inform the Editor directly of the nature of the desired change. Only the Editor has the final authority to approve any such requested changes.

Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editor. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal Editor and cooperate to retract or correct the paper.

Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed:

The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism;

No research can be included in more than one publication (Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications).

Reviewer Responsibilities:

We may ask authors to recommend suitable reviewers on submission of their manuscript. When recommending reviewers, the following points should be considered:

Authors should not recommend reviewers with whom they have a conflict of interest, for example, a close collaborator or colleague.

Recommended reviewers should not be at the same institute as any of the authors listed on the manuscript.

Institutional email addresses should be provided for recommended reviewers, wherever possible.

Publisher responsibilities:

Both Editorial board and the Editor-in-Chief, on behalf of which it publishes, shall ensure that the good practice is continuous to the standards delineated above.

Article Retraction & Withdrawal Policy

It is a general principle of scholarly communication that the Editor of a journal or proceedings is solely and independently responsible for deciding which articles submitted shall be published. In making this decision, the Editor is guided by journal policies and constrained by such legal requirements in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. An outcome of this principle is the importance of the scholarly archive as a permanent, historic record of the transactions of scholarship: articles which have been published shall remain extant, exact and unaltered as much as possible. However, occasionally circumstances may arise where an article is published that must later be retracted or even removed. Such actions must not be taken lightly and can only occur under exceptional circumstances.

International Journal of Kinanthropometry (IJK) recognizes the importance of the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record to researchers and the wider academic community. Honest errors are a part of science and publishing and require publication of a notification or correction when they are detected. We adhere to the highest standards to maintain the trust in and correctness of our electronic archive and our publications operate according to the below policies for making corrections to scholarly published material.

Article Retraction policies

Journal Editors should consider retracting a publication if:

It contains infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, etc.

It contains major errors (e.g. miscalculations or experimental errors) or the main conclusion is no longer valid or seriously undermined as a result of new evidence coming to light of which Authors were not aware at the time of publication.

Journal Editors shall determine based on investigation whether a retraction is required and in such cases shall act in accordance with COPE’s Retraction Guidelines. Besides these guidelines, standards for dealing with retractions have been developed by a number of library and scholarly bodies (refer to ICMJE’s recommendations on Corrections, Retractions, Republications and Version Control or the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s policy on Errata, Retractions, and Other Linked Citations in PubMed) and based on these the following best practice for article retraction has been adopted by Atlantis Press:

A retraction note titled Retraction: [Article Title]which is signed by the Authors and/or the Editor is published in a subsequent issue of the journal and is listed in the table of contents of this issue.

In the electronic version, a link is added to the original article.

The online article is preceded by a screen containing the retraction note; it is to this screen that the link resolves; the reader can then proceed to the article itself.

The original article is retained unchanged except for a watermark which is included on each page of the article PDF indicating that it has been “retracted”.

The HTML version of the document is removed.

Note that if Authors retain copyright for an article this does not mean they automatically have the right to retract it after publication. The integrity of the published scientific record is of paramount importance and COPE’s Retraction Guidelines still apply in such cases.

Article Correction policy

Journal Editors should consider issuing a correction if:

A small part of an otherwise reliable publication reports flawed data or proves to be misleading, especially if this is the result of honest error.

The Author or Contributor list is incorrect (e.g. a deserving Author has been omitted or someone who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

Article Correction policy

Corrections to peer-reviewed content fall into one of four categories

  • Publisher correction(as known as. ‘erratum’): to notify readers of an important error made by publishing/journal staff (usually a production error) that has a negative impact on the publication record or the scientific integrity of the article, or on the reputation of the Authors or the journal.
  • Author correction(also known as ‘corrigendum’): to notify readers of an important error made by the Authors which has a negative impact on the publication record or the scientific integrity of the article, or on the reputation of the Authors or the journal.
  • Addendum: An addition to the article by its Authors to explain inconsistencies, to expand the existing work, or otherwise explain or update the information in the main work.
  • Retraction: Retractions are normally reserved for publications that are so seriously flawed (for whatever reason) that their findings or conclusions cannot be relied upon. Note that partial retractions are not helpfulbecause they make it difficult for readers to determine the status of the article and which parts may be reliable. Similarly, if only a small section of an article (e.g. a few sentences in the discussion) is plagiarized, Editors should consider whether readers (and the plagiarized Author) would be best served by a correction (which could note the fact that text was used without appropriate acknowledgement) rather than retracting the entire article which may contain sound original data in other parts.
  • The decision whether a correction should be issued is made by the Editor(s) of a journal or proceedings, sometimes with advice from Reviewers, Advisory Board members or Editorial Board members. Handling Editors will contact the Authors of the paper concerned with a request for clarification, but the final decision about whether a correction is required and if so which type rests with the Editors. Corrections to published articles are bi-directionally linked to and from the article being corrected and are represented by a formal notice both on the PDF- and HTML-version of the article concerned.

Article withdrawal policy

Withdrawal of articles is strongly discouraged and only used in exceptional circumstances for early versions articles which have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published yet (“articles in press”) but which may already appear online. Such versions may contain errors, may have accidentally been submitted twice or may be in violation a journal’s publishing ethics guidelines (e.g. multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, etc.). In such situations, especially in case of legal/ethical violations or false/inaccurate data which could pose a detrimental risk if used, it may be decided to withdraw the early version of the article from our electronic platform. Withdrawal means that the article content (both the HTML- and PDF-versions) is removed and replaced with an HTML page and PDF stating that the article has been withdrawn according to Atlantis Press policies on article withdrawal with a link to the then-current policy text.

Note that if Authors retain copyright for an article this does not mean they automatically have the right to withdraw it after publication. The integrity of the published scientific record is of paramount importance and these policies on retractions and withdrawals still apply in such cases.

Article Removal policy

In an extremely limited number of cases, it may be necessary to remove a published article from our online platform. This will only happen if an article is clearly defamatory, or infringes others’ legal rights, or where the article is, or we have good reason to expect that it will be, the subject of a court order, or where the article, if acted upon, may pose a serious health risk. In such circumstances, while the metadata (i.e. title and author information) of the article will be retained, the text will be replaced with a screen indicating that the article has been removed for legal reasons.

Article Replacement policy

In cases where an article, if acted upon, may pose a serious health risk, the Authors of the original paper may wish to retract the flawed original and replace it with a corrected version. Under such circumstances, the above procedures for retraction will be followed with the difference that the article retraction notice will contain a link to the corrected re-published article together with a history of the document.

Complaints Policy

This procedure applies to complaints about the policies, procedures, or actions of the International Journal of Kinanthropometry (IJK) editorial staff. We welcome complaints as they provide an opportunity and a spur for improvement, and we aim to respond quickly, courteously, and constructively.  Please write your complaint with journal title, vol. no., issue no., paper ID, paper title, page no. 

Our definition of a complaint is as follows:

The complainant defines his/her expression of unhappiness as a complaint.We infer that the complainant is not simply disagreeing with a decision we have made or something we have published (which happens every day) but thinks that there has been a failure of process - for example, a long delay or a rude response - or a severe misjudgement.The complaint must be about something that is within the responsibility of the International Journal of Kinanthropometry - content or process.

International Journal of Kinanthropometry (IJK) is aware of the complaints stated below /

  • Authorship complaints
  • Multiple, duplicate, concurrent publication/Simultaneous submission
  • Allegations of research errors and fraud
  • Research standards violations
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Reviewer bias or competitive harmful acts by reviewers

Policy for Handling Complaints:

If the Journal receives a complaint that any contribution to the Journal infringes intellectual property rights or contains material inaccuracies, libellous materials or otherwise unlawful materials, the Journal will investigate the complaint. Investigation may include a request that the parties involved substantiate their claims. The Journal will make a good faith determination whether to remove the allegedly wrongful material. A decision not to remove material should represent the Journal's belief that the complaint is without sufficient foundation, or if well-founded, that a legal defence or exemption may apply, such as truthfulness of a statement in the case of libel. Journal should document its investigation and decision. We strive to ensure that the International Journal of Kinanthropometry (IJK)  is of the highest quality and is free from errors. However, we accept that occasionally mistakes might happen.

Editorial Complaints Policy

The Editor and staff of the International Journal of Kinanthropometry will make every endeavour to put matters right as soon as possible in the most appropriate way, offering right of reply where necessary. As far as possible, we will investigate complaints in a blame-free manner, looking to see how systems can be improved to prevent mistakes occurring.

Guiding Principles:
Our general approach to complaints is that they are a rare but inevitable part of a process that involves putting together complex material at great speed. We accept that we make mistakes and try to treat all complaints with urgency, however small. We believe that timely solutions can prevent problems escalating. All substantial errors and complaints are referred to senior executives within the editorial staff as a matter of course.
The procedure outlined below aims to be fair to those making complaints and those complained about. All complaints will be acknowledged (within three working days if by email). If possible a definitive response will be made within two weeks. If this is not possible an interim response will be given within two weeks. Interim responses will be provided until the complaint is finally resolved. If the complainant remains unhappy, complaints should be escalated to the editor, whose decision is final.

Ethical and Malpractice Policies

Ethical Guidelines and Malpractice statement to Publication of research articles:

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial board members of journals published by the publisher provide a set of ethical guidelines for persons engaged in the publication of research articles, especially, for editors, authors, and manuscript reviewers. The guidelines embodied in this document were developed by the Editors of the journals published by the publisher. The ethics guidelines are revised regularly to ensure their clarity and the guidelines embodied in this document were revised by the Editors of the Publication Division of the publisher.

The publisher’s Ethical Guidelines are offered from a belief that the loyalty of high ethical standards is so energetic to the whole scientific enterprise that a definition of those standards should be brought to the attention of all concerned. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour.

The publishers serve the scientific profession in various fields of science by publishing journals which present the results of scientific research works. Every editor of this journal has the responsibility in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge to maintain the ethical guidelines for selecting, reviewing and accepting research articles submitted to the journals and it is directly reflected the quality of work of the authors and the standard of the journal that published. And importantly, these guidelines are derived by the editors’ perception of standards of quality for scientific work and its presentation.

In this direction, the editors of journals published by the publisher now present a set of ethical guidelines for persons engaged in the publication of research articles, specifically, for editors, authors, and manuscript reviewers.

A summary of our key expectations for authors, editors and (peer-) reviewers, is here detailed :

Guidelines:  Ethical Obligations of Authors of Scientific Journals

 “The ethical guidelines embodied in this series, we provide you with the support and advice you need to ensure your manuscript and actions are ethically sound.”

  • To submit the manuscript using the format outlined in the Instructions to Authors;
  • To certify that their manuscripts are their original work, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable;
  • All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. 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;
  • To identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript;
  • 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;
  • Authors should ensure that any studies involving human or animal subjects conform to national, local and institutional laws and requirements (e.g. WMA Declaration of Helsinki, NIH Policy on Use of Laboratory Animals, EU Directive on Use of Animals) and confirm that approval has been sought and obtained where appropriate. Authors should obtain express permission from human subjects and respect their privacy.
  • We explore why it is crucial to observe the existing guidelines and the consequences when you fail to meet those obligations. We then look at some of the rules around authorship and plagiarism in a little more detail. And, we explain your rights as an author, and how you go about obtaining permission to use content from copyrighted publications.

Guidelines: Ethical Obligations of Editors of Scientific Journals:

  • To evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the Authors;
  • To not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors of the manuscript, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate;
  • To do diligences in a balanced and objective mode while carrying out their expected duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors;
  • To send the uploaded papers to be reviewed by at least two reviewers designated by the associated field editors. The reviews should be operated based on First Come – First sent for review;
  • To use and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflict nature;
  • To give to authors a reasonable chance to respond to any issued complaints. All complaints should be investigated. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained in a proper way;
  • The editor has complete responsibility and authority to accept a submitted paper for publication or to reject it. The editor may confer with reviewers for an evaluation to use in making this decision;
  • The editor is responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  • The editor should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  • The editor should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members;
  • Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used in the own research of the Editor-in-Chief or the members of the Editorial Board without the express written consent of the author.
  • If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a paper published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate paper pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it.

Guidelines: Ethical Obligations of reviewers of Scientific Journals :

  • To contribute thoroughly to the reviewing process and to assist in improving the quality of the paper uploaded for review and publish by reviewing the manuscript objectively, in the assumed time frame;
  • To keep the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author.
  • To not retain or copy the manuscript in any way;
  • To inform the editor in chief to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review and which is not cited properly;
  • To be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to these, if necessary withdrawing their services for that manuscript.

Identification of unethical (malpractice) behaviour : 

  • Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor in chief and publisher at any time, by anyone using any way of communication;
  • Misconduct and unethical behaviour may include, but need not be limited to, examples as delineated above.
  • Whoever informs the Editor-in-Chief or Publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.


  • An initial decision should be taken by the Editor-in-Chief, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate.
  • Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.


Minor misconduct might be dealt with/without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations;

Serious misconduct might require that the employer of the accused be notified. The Editor-in-Chief, together with the Publisher, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

Outcomes :

  • Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
  • A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behaviour.
  • Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
  • Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
  • A formal letter to the head of the Author's or Reviewer's department or funding agency.
  • Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the Author or Reviewer's department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
  • Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period in this way, papers found with signs of plagiarism / self-plagiarism are rejected; the author will receive a letter where he is also announced that he is barred from sending another paper proposal to the Journal for 2 years;
  • Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.

Important definition :

  • Conflict of interest means that Authors submitting a paper must declare any potential conflicts of interest - of any type: financial, nonfinancial, professional, or personal.
  • Conflicts of interest are those that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on the presentation, review or publication of their work.

Plagiarism detection (iThenticate)

In addition to making available this Publishing Ethics and Malpractice Resource Kit, publisher is also active in other publishing ethics initiatives, internally and externally. With the CrossRef Association it is involved in a plagiarism software project called Crossref Similarity Check (Powered by iThenticate).

Licences, Copyright and Open Access Statement

The International Journal of Kinanthropometry( IJK) articles are published as open access under a CC BY license (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License). This means all articles are immediately available to read and reuse upon publication. Articles in IJK journal can be downloaded, shared, and reused without restriction, as long as the original authors are properly cited. The CC BY license allows for maximum dissemination and re-use of open access materials and is preferred by many research funding bodies. Under this license users are free to share (copy, distribute and transmit) and remix (adapt) the contribution including for commercial purposes, providing they attribute the contribution in the manner specified by the author or licensor (for more details
Under Creative Commons, authors retain copyright in their articles.

Permission Requests

For articles in the IJK journal, you do not need to seek permission from us for reuse. The copyright of most articles remains with the authors, who have chosen to make the articles available for reuse under an open license, such as the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY. These licenses permit reuse and adaptation, as long as the original authors are cited. The applicable license for all articles is included in the front matter of the article in human- and machine-readable formats.

Article Processing Fees

The journal does not charge any submission or publication charges from the authors and publication of the article is entirely free. Articles in the journal are free to access, download, share, and re-use.

Peer - Review & Publication Policies

Peer Review Statement :All research articles submitted for publication in IJK have undergone rigorous peer-review by potential reviewers, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process. Every proposal submitted for publication is initially screened by Editor-in-Chief, if the paper agrees with editorial policies and meets a minimum quality level, then the article is anonymized refereeing by at least two independent expert reviewers to assess the scientific quality of the paper. The reviewers won't know the author's identity, as any identifying information will be stripped from the document before review.

Reviewers' comments to the editors are confidential and before passing on to the author will be made anonymous. Based on the reviewers' comments, the Editorial Board will make a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript, and communicates to the authors the decision, along with referees' reports. Whether significant revisions are proposed, acceptance is dependent on whether the author can deal with that satisfactorily. The final manuscript published with concurrence with referee(s) opinion by Editor-in-Chief.  The Editor’s decision is final. 

Online proof correction :Corresponding authors will receive an e-mail allowing annotation and correction of proofs in manuscript. The environment of proof correction is similar in MS Word: in addition to editing text, you can also comment on figures/tables and answer questions for reviewers. If preferred, you can still choose to annotate and upload your edits on the MS word version. All instructions for proofing will be given in the e-mail we send to authors.

We will do everything possible to get your article published quickly and accurately. Please use this proof only for checking the typesetting, editing, completeness and correctness of the text, tables and figures. Significant changes to the article as accepted for publication will only be considered at this stage with permission from the Editor. It is important to ensure that all corrections are sent back to us in one communication. Please check carefully before replying, as inclusion of any subsequent corrections cannot be guaranteed. Proofreading is solely your responsibility.

Revised Submissions :Authors must submit their manuscript online as a Microsoft® (MS) Word, document via e-mail submission system.

Offprints: The corresponding author will, at no cost, receive a customized link providing free access to the final published version of the articles published Publishers. The Share Link can be used for sharing the article via any communication channel, including email and social media. Corresponding authors receive their final published version of the article is available open access on publisher and can be shared through the article DOI link.

Repository policy

Authors may archive the final published version of their articles in personal or institutional repositories immediately after publication.

Digital Archiving Policy

Public Knowledge Project Preservation Network (PKP PN)
IJK achieved in the new PKP Private LOCKSS Network (PLN) which supports the LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) system to ensure a secure and permanent archive for journal content.

Policies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal rights, and Informed Consent

Conflicts of interest (sometimes referred to as ‘competing interests’)

  • Occur when outside issues affect, or are perceived to affect, the neutrality or objectivity of research. This can happen at any stage in the research cycle, including during the experimentation phase, while a manuscript is being written, or during the process of turning a manuscript into a published article.
  • Conflicts of interest do not always stop work from being published or prevent someone from being involved in the review process. However, they must be declared. A clear declaration of all possible conflicts – whether they actually had an influence or not – allows others to make informed decisions about the work and its review process.
  • If conflicts of interest are found after publication, this may be embarrassing for the authors, the Editor and the journal. It may be necessary to publish a corrigendum or reassess the review process.

Some common conflicts include :

  • Personal – a pre-existing relationship induces an individual to act inappropriately.
  • Financial – an individual receives payment relating to the subject of the research, or from connected organizations.
  • Intellectual property– an individual puts undue emphasis on patents or trademarks that they own, or are owned by their organization.
  • Affiliations – an individual is employed by, or is a member of, an organization with an interest in the outcome of the research.
  • Ideology– an individual is influenced by beliefs or associations relating to the subject of the research.

One should carefully consider how these and other similar topics may affect and/or could affect others involved in the handling of the manuscript.

Authors :

Conflicts for authors are most often associated with the risk of bias in a manuscript. As an author, if you have any interest or association that could be seen to have influenced your decision-making process, you should ensure that it is declared at the time of submission.

You may be asked to make certain changes to your manuscript as a result of your declaration. These requests are not an accusation of impropriety. The Editor or reviewer is helping you to protect your work against potential criticisms.

If you are in any doubt about declaring a potential conflict, remember that if it is revealed later – especially after publication – it could cause more problems than simply declaring it at the time of submission. Undeclared conflicts of interest could lead to a corrigendum or, in the most serious cases, a retraction.

Whether or not you believe a conflict of interest exists, you will be asked to include a statement in your manuscript. If you believe no conflicts exist, you will be asked to confirm this in writing.


As a member of a journal’s Editorial Board, the editor needs to be very aware of the risk of conflicts when handling a manuscript.

Firstly, you should assess the potential conflicts. If you have recently co-authored with the author of the manuscript, you could be perceived to be influenced by your relationship. Similarly, if you have recently shared an affiliation or employment history with the author, it could also be seen to be inappropriate for you to handle their work. IJK aims to avoid assigning papers to Editors who might have conflicts, but we also expect our Editors to declare any conflicts. If you believe a conflict exists, you should refuse to handle the manuscript.

As a subject expert, the journal relies on your knowledge of the discipline to assess any conflicts declared by a submitting author. You are also uniquely placed to be able to identify any undeclared conflicts that an author might have. You should think about these factors when making a recommendation on the manuscript.

You should also consider potential conflicts when assigning the manuscript to reviewers. IJK performs conflict of interest checks on all reviewers before they receive the manuscript for review, but you should also rely on your knowledge of the sector to inform assignments you make. Typically, you should not select a referee who:

works or has recently worked at the same institution as the author or authors; or has recently coauthored a paper with the author or authors; or has a recent or current collaboration with the author.

More about this source textSource text required for additional translation information

Discretion may be applied when publications are authored by a consortium.

If you have concerns about a potential reviewer, consider appointing someone else. If you believe a reviewer’s recommendation on a manuscript was made to further their own interests, you may tell the authors they do not need to address that point.

We are aware that certain specialist areas may involve a higher likelihood of association and overlap between researchers. In some instances, you may be the best-placed individual to act as Editor despite a connection with the author or authors. In this case, you should inform your IJK editorial contact. They can then refer the case for review by our Research Integrity team.

Reviewers :

By agreeing to peer review a manuscript you are providing essential neutral assessment. As such, you should ensure that you have no conflicts of interest that could be seen to prevent you from acting in an impartial manner.

You should ensure that you have no recent association with the author and that you have not previously coauthored with them. You should also not have a recent shared employment history.

IJK operates a ‘single blind’ approach to peer review. Your name will not be made available to the authors. This allows you to provide honest, pertinent feedback.

Human and Animal Rights :

All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s)’ ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.
Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee.
The submitted study has to be supported by the ethics/bioethics committee approval.
Authors reporting the use of a new procedure or tool in a clinical setting, for example as a technical advance or case report, must give a clear justification in the manuscript for why the new procedure or tool was deemed more appropriate than usual clinical practice to meet the patient’s clinical need. Such justification is not required if the new procedure is already approved for clinical use at the authors’ institution. Authors will be expected to have obtained ethics committee approval and informed patient consent for any experimental use of a novel procedure or tool where a clear clinical advantage based on clinical need was not apparent before treatment.

Informed Consent:

Including of details, images related to individual participants are not allowed.
Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines and, where available, should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee.
A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines (e.g. the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe) and/or ethical approval (including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate) must be included in the manuscript. If a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, this should also be detailed in the manuscript (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption and the reasons for the exemption). The Editor will take into the account the animal welfare issues and reserves the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.
Field studies and other non-experimental research on animals must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines and/or appropriate permissions or licences must be included in the manuscript. We recommend that authors comply with the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction.
For studies reporting livestock trials with production, health and food-safety outcomes, authors are encouraged to adhere to State Consumer Protection Service of Ukraine or appropriate National/International Establishments.

Guidelines For Reviewers

Manuscripts submitted for publication in IJK journal was undergone rigorous peer-review by potential reviewers, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process. The anonymity of reviewers ensures objective and unbiased assessment of the manuscript by reviewers.

Reviewers are subjected to maintain the important aspects when conducting the review process to maintain journal standard.

  • Manuscript Originality and ensure that the journal should not have been published earlier in elsewhere.
  • Originality report and the manuscript should not have been published earlier
  • Experiments should meet the recognized technical standard
  • Interpretation of results and conclusions appropriate and comprehensive standard
  • Manuscript language should meet direct and active style, free from grammatical errors and other linguistic inconsistencies.
  • Manuscripts meet the journal standard guidelines
  • Evaluation of manuscripts is carried out by the journal’s Editors and the invited external peer reviewers according to the following journal standard procedures.