Journal policies

1. Principles of editorial ethics
1.1. The rights and responsibilities of the authors
1.2. The reviewer’s ethics
1.3. Ethics of the chief editor, editorial board and editorial of One Health Journal
1.4. Policy on the Use of AI
1.5. Article Processing Charges (APC) Policy

2. Policy on conflicts of interests, human and animal rights
2.1. Conflict of interests
2.2. Human and animal rights
2.3. Informed consent
2.4. Plagiarism Policy

3. Review Policy
3.1. Guide for reviewers
3.2. Points to Consider
3.3. The reviewer’s letter template
3.4. Feedback on the article

4. Access for readers

1. Principles of editorial ethics

One Health Journal declares the following principal of ethics:

Editorial of One Health Journal responsible relates to support scientific reputation problems and does the best to ensure the quality of scientific publications.
Editorial guides by the recommendations and standards of the Committee on the Ethics of Scientific Publications (COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors - https://publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf) ) and requirements declared by the Elsevier Publishing House (Publishing Ethics Resource Kit - https://www.elsevier.com/editor/perk) ) , as well as takes into account valuable experience in reputable international journals and publishing.
In these recommendations there are combined and disclosed the general principles and rules to be followed in their relations the participants of publications: authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, distributors and readers.
Editorial of the One Health Journal does the best to comply with ethical norms accepted by the international scientific community and to prevent any violations of these rules.

Main terms:

Ethics of scientific publications – is a system of rules of professional behavior in relations between authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and readers in the creation, distribution and use of scientific publications.
Editor-in-Chief – responsible for deciding which of the works submitted to the editorial should publish.
Author – is a person or group of persons (group of authors) who participate in the creation of the publication of the scientific research results.
Reviewer – is an expert who acts on behalf of a scientific journal or publisher and conducts scientific expertise of copyright materials to determine their possible publication.
Editorial of One Health Journal – editor, editorial board, technical editors.
Reader – any person who is acquainted with the published material.
Publisher – is legal or physical person who carries out the publication of scientific publications.
Plagiarism – is a deliberate appropriation of authorship of foreign work of art or science, foreign ideas or inventions. Plagiarism may be a violation of copyright law and patent law legislation and as such may result in legal liability.

1.1. The rights and responsibilities of the authors

The author guarantees and realizes his/her responsibility regarding the following aspects:

the presented text of the manuscript reflects reliable results of his/her personal and original studies;
the results have not been fabricated or borrowed;
cited works of other authors have been used properly in the form of references;
if the information has been obtained privately, the mandatory permission has been received from the owner;
there are no excessive borrowings, unexecuted citations, re-phrasing, appropriation of other scientists’ rights for the study results in the manuscript;
all the participants of the study are indicated in the manuscript as the co-authors or have been duly thanked;
all the co-authors have read the manuscript, given their consent to its publication and take responsibility for the content of the article;
the manuscript has been sent to the editorial office for the first time, it has not been reviewed or published in any other periodicals.

If the manuscript is the continuation of a series of works, there should be a reference to the earlier publication with the substantiation for the difference of this new work. Verbatim copying and rephrasing of one’s own work is unacceptable.
If the manuscript is a review of the scientific literature (a compilation of materials), the author should base himself/herself on his/her own studies and his/her personal judgement.
In case of any possible conflict of interests, which could affect the interpretation of results and the judgement of reviewers, the author should make a statement about it.
If in the process of reviewing the article, there are any additional questions, indirectly related to the text of the article, the author should provide all the additional information to the reviewer and the publisher on their request.
The author should specify all the sources of his work financing.

1.2. The reviewer’s ethics

The main issues in the reviewer’s activity are his/her impartiality, professionalism, and confidentiality.
A review is the main instrument of determining the quality of the manuscript and improving the author’s text; it is also the main argument related to the publication for the editorial office.
A reviewer never discusses his/her attitude to the author, he/she reviews only the text of the manuscript. He/she presents his/her own opinion clearly, in an objective and motivated manner, and submits it to the author and the editorial office.
If a reviewer has any doubts about his/her professionalism in this sphere of science or he/she has any conflict of interests with the author or the organization, presenting the manuscript for the review, or he/she just doesn’t have enough time to review this work, he/she should notify the publisher about it and withdraw from reviewing.
If a reviewer is confident in the fact that a part of the text, figures, etc. have already been published, i.e. there is plagiarism or verbatim copying of previous author’s works, he/she should provide the confirmation for his/her conclusions in the form of references.
The manuscript, received by the reviewer, is confidential information, which cannot be used for any personal purposes. The ideas and positions of the manuscript should not be discussed with any third parties.
A reviewer can be neither a co-author of the article under review nor a scientific adviser of any applicants for completing a scientific degree (who are the co-authors) and/or employees of the author’s department.

1.3. Ethics of the chief editor, editorial board and editorial of One Health Journal

The activity of the chief editor, members of the editorial board and employees of the editorial office is governed by the compliance with the ethical norms in the relations of the author and the reviewer.
Neither the chief editor nor the editorial board should have any conflict of interests regarding the articles, which are accepted or rejected by them, they should also avoid getting any specialists, who are most likely to be involved in any collisions, into any external reviewing.
The chief editor and the editorial board estimate the manuscript by its scientific content solely regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, nationality, citizenship, origin, social status or political views of the authors.
The decision on the publication is taken based on scientific reviews and opinions of the editorial board members.
The information about the presented manuscript may be provided only to the author, reviewers, potential reviewers, members of the editorial board, and the publisher.
If the author finds a gross mistake or discrepancy in his/her article, which has already been published, it is his/her duty to immediately notify the chief editor of the journal about it and to cooperate with the latter in order to provide the official refutation or correction of the article in the following issue. If the chief editor finds out about a considerable discrepancy in the article, which has already been published, from the third party and notifies the author about it, it is the duty of the latter to provide immediate refutation or correction of the article or to provide the chief editor with the evidence of the accuracy of the published material.

1.4. Policy on the Use of AI

In light of the growing use of generative artificial intelligence, the editorial board of the One Health Journal issues the following recommendations regarding its use:

The editorial board reserves the right to request additional information from authors regarding the use of artificial intelligence systems and to take appropriate action in the event of any misuse;
Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools may not be listed as authors or co-authors of a manuscript. Responsibility for the content of the article – including its accuracy, originality and adherence to ethical standards – rests entirely with the authors. The use of GenAI is permitted to improve grammar or style, provided that:
- such use does not alter the scientific content or interpretation of the data;
- the authors critically evaluate and verify all results generated by AI;
- the use of GenAI is clearly indicated in the manuscript (for example, in a separate section before the list of references), specifying the name of the tool and the purpose of its use;
Authors are responsible for using GenAI tools in accordance with current ethical standards;
Journal editors and reviewers may use GenAI for auxiliary tasks (e.g., grammar checking or a brief text summary), but this must not compromise the confidentiality or integrity of the peer review process;
Any assessment carried out using AI must be accompanied by human analysis.

1.5. Article Processing Charges (APC) Policy

General Provisions

One Health Journal is an international peer-reviewed open access journal committed to the principles of transparency, scientific integrity, and equitable access to research in the field of One Health.

The journal operates under a full open access model, ensuring the absence of financial barriers for both authors and readers.

No Publication Fees

The editorial policy of the journal предусматриває complete absence of any charges for authors:

No submission fee
No peer review fee
No article processing charges (APCs)
No publication fee

All accepted manuscripts are published free of charge, regardless of:

article type
manuscript length
number of figures, tables, or supplementary materials

Open Access Policy

All articles are published with immediate open access upon issue release:

content is freely and permanently available
users may read, download, copy, distribute, and cite the materials
no registration or subscription is required

Funding and Journal Support

Editorial and publishing costs are covered through:

founding research institutions
partner programs
voluntary contributions of editors and reviewers

This model ensures that editorial decisions remain fully independent of financial considerations.

Copyright and Licensing

Authors retain copyright of their work.

All publications are distributed under the terms of:

Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0)

This license allows:

unrestricted use
distribution and reproduction in any medium
adaptation of the material

provided that appropriate credit is given to the original source.

Equity and Accessibility Principles

The no-APC policy is designed to:

eliminate financial barriers to publication
support researchers from low- and middle-income countries
ensure global and equitable access to scientific knowledge

Final Provisions

One Health Journal guarantees that editorial decisions are based solely on:

scientific quality
originality of the research
relevance to the journal’s scope

and are not influenced by the authors’ financial capacity.

2. Policy on conflicts of interests, human and animal rights:

2.1. Conflict of interests

One Health Journal requires authors to declare all competing interests in relation to their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘competing interests’ section at the end of the manuscript listing all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read “The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.” Editors may ask for further information relating to competing interests. Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests and will be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.
Competing interests may be financial or non-financial. A competing interest exists when the authors’ interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment if they were to become public after the publication of the article.
Authors from commercial organizations that sponsor clinical trials, should declare these as competing interests on submission. They should also adhere to the Good Publication Practice guidelines for pharmaceutical companies, which are designed to ensure that publications are produced in a responsible and ethical manner. The guidelines also apply to any companies or individuals that work on industry-sponsored publications, such as freelance writers, contract research organizations and communications companies.

2.2. 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 will follow 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 ( https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-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.

All individuals have individual rights that are not to be infringed. Individual participants in studies have, for example, the right to decide what happens to the (identifiable) personal data gathered, to what they have said during a study or an interview, as well as to any photograph that was taken. This is especially true concerning images of vulnerable people or the use of images in sensitive contexts. In many instances authors will need to secure written consent before including images.

Identifying personal details of the participants that were studied should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scholarly purposes and the participant (or parent/guardian if the participant is a minor or incapable or legal representative) gave written informed consent for publication. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve in some cases. Detailed descriptions of individual participants, whether of their whole bodies or of body sections, may lead to disclosure of their identity. Under certain circumstances consent is not required as long as information is anonymized and the submission does not include images that may identify the person.

Informed consent for publication should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of participants is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic profiles, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort meaning.

Exceptions where it is not necessary to obtain consent:

• Images such as x rays, laparoscopic images, ultrasound images, brain scans, pathology slides unless there is a concern about identifying information in which case, authors should ensure that consent is obtained.

• Reuse of images: If images are being reused from prior publications, the Publisher will assume that the prior publication obtained the relevant information regarding consent. Authors should provide the appropriate attribution for republished images.

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 ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/14/contents) ) and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe ( https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:276:0033:0079:en:PDF) ) 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 ( https://cites.org/eng/disc/text.php) ) and the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction ( https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/PP-003-En.pdf) ) .
For studies reporting livestock trials with production, health and food-safety outcomes, authors are encouraged to adhere to State Food Safety and Consumer Protection Service of Ukraine or appropriate National/International Establishments.

2.4 Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism is the unethical act of copying someone else’s prior ideas, processes, results or words without explicit acknowledgement of the original author and source. Self-plagiarism occurs when an author utilizes large part of his/her own previously published work without using appropriate references. This can range from getting the same manuscript published in multiple journals to modifying a previously published manuscript with some new data.

The One Health Journal is strictly against any unethical act of copying or plagiarism in any form. Plagiarism is said to have occurred when large portions of a manuscript have been copied from existing previously published resources. All manuscripts submitted for publication to journal are cross-checked for plagiarism using Turnitin software. Manuscripts found to be plagiarized during initial stages of review are out-rightly rejected and not considered for publication in the journal. In case a manuscript is found to be plagiarized after publication, the Editor-in-Chief will conduct preliminary investigation, may be with the help of a suitable committee constituted for the purpose. If the manuscript is found to be plagiarized beyond the acceptable limits, the journal will contact the author’s Institute / College / University and Funding Agency, if any. A determination of misconduct will lead journal to run a statement bi-directional linked online to and from the original paper, to note the plagiarism and provide a reference to the plagiarized material. The paper containing the plagiarism will also be marked on each page of the PDF. Upon determination of the extent of plagiarism, the paper may also be formally retracted.

Types of Plagiarism
The following types of plagiarism are considered by the journal:

Full Plagiarism: Previously published content without any changes to the text, idea and grammar is considered as full plagiarism. It involves presenting exact text from a source as one’s own.

Partial Plagiarism: If content is a mixture from multiple different sources, where the author has extensively rephrased text, then it is known as partial plagiarism.

Self-Plagiarism: When an author reuses complete or portions of their pre-published research, then it is known as self-plagiarism. Complete self-plagiarism is a case when an author republishes their own previously published work in a new journal.

Policy and Action for Plagiarism
The One Health Journal respects intellectual property and aims at protecting and promoting original work of its authors. Manuscripts containing plagiarized material are against the standards of quality, research and innovation. Hence, all authors submitting articles to journal are expected to abide ethical standards and abstain from plagiarism, in any form.

The One Health Journal shall take serious action against published manuscripts found to contain plagiarism and shall completely remove them from One Health Journal website and other third party websites where the paper is listed and indexed.

If any article published in the One Health Journal is reported to be plagiarized, Journal will constitute a Fact Finding Committee (FFC) to investigate the same. Upon having established that the manuscript is plagiarized from some previously published work, Journal shall support the original author and manuscript irrespective of the publisher and may take any or all of the following immediate actions or follow the additional course of actions as recommended by the committee:
1. editorial office shall immediately contact the Director / Dean / Head of the concerned College, Institution or Organization or the Vice Chancellor of the University to which the author(s) is (are) affiliated to take strict action against the concerned author.
2. One Health Journal shall remove the PDF copy of the published manuscript from the website and disable all links to full text article. The term Plagiarized Manuscript shall be appended to the published manuscript title.
3. One Health Journal shall disable the author account with the journal and reject all future submissions from the author for a period of 5 years or even ban the authors permanently.
4. One Health Journal may also display the list of such authors along with their full contact details on the journal website.
5. Any other course of action, as recommended by the Committee or as deemed fit for the instant case or as decided by the Editorial Board from time to time.

3. Review Policy

3.1. Guide for reviewers

Submitted manuscripts are reviewed by 2 (or more) experts. Peer reviewers will be asked to recommend whether a manuscript should be accepted, revised or rejected. They should also alert the editors of any issues relating to author misconduct, such as plagiarism and unethical behaviour.
One Health Journal operates using a double-blind peer review system, in which both authors and reviewers are anonymous.

Publication of research articles is primarily dependent on their validity and coherence, as judged by peer reviewers and editors.

The reviewers may also be asked whether the writing is comprehensible. Submitted manuscripts will be sent to peer reviewers unless they are out of scope of the journal, or if the presentation or written English is of an unacceptably low standard. Authors who are not native English speakers are strongly encouraged to submit their manuscript to us for review and clarification. Note that the use of such service is at the author’s own expense and does not guarantee that the article will be accepted for publication.

3.2. Points to Consider

Reviewers are asked to provide detailed, constructive comments that will help the editors make a decision regarding publication and how the authors could improve their manuscript. A key issue is whether the work has serious methodological flaws that should preclude its publication, or whether additional experiments or data are required to support the conclusions. Where possible, reviewers should provide references to substantiate their comments.
Reviewers should address the points below and indicate whether they consider any required revisions to be ‘major revisions’ or ‘minor revisions.’ In general, revisions are likely to be ‘major revisions’ if additional data are required to support the claims or the interpretations are not supported by the data; if further analysis is required that may change the conclusions; or if the methods used are inadequate or contain statistical errors.

3.3. The reviewer’s letter template

Dear REVIEWER!

On behalf of the Editorial Board, the editors of One Health Journal are asking you to read the article by the authors __________________________________________________ and draw a conclusion regarding its compliance with the scientific profile and the feasibility of publication in One Health Journal. We remind you that the review is confidential. In order to speed up the publication of the article, the editors must receive your feedback no later than __________________. Please let us know if for some reason you are unable to provide a review. If it is necessary to finalize the article, the editors will ask you to mark the corrected version.
Please answer the questions below (underlining required) and return feedback to the editors (e-mail: prezyd.o.h.institute@gmail.com).

3.4. Feedback on the article

Is the relevance of scientific research based on modern requirements of world science? (Yes No)
Is there sufficient depth of treatment of the topic? (yes, no, not completely)
Does the article contain material that warrants its publication in a journal? (Yes No)
Is the fundamentality and scientific novelty of the research results highlighted? (yes,) Please describe this point in "personal remarks", do not clearly indicate what exactly is the fundamentality or novelty of the manuscript.
Is there a reported description of research methods from the creation of the experiment by other researchers? (yes, no, not completely)
Did the research findings reveal themes? (yes, no, not completely)
Correspondence to the title and content of the materials. The logic and sequence of the presentation of the material. Availability of modern statistical processing of results (experiment) (yes, no, not completely)
Is there a mandatory comparative analysis of the stated topic in the discussion? (yes, no, not completely)
Are the conclusions made by the authors justified? (yes, no, not completely)
Is the manuscript plagiarized or self-plagiarized and has it not been published before? (yes, no, not completely)
Is there a need for an out-of-the-ordinary publication of the article to establish the advantage (yes, no)?
Are the literary qualities of the article satisfactory and is the scientific style of presentation observed? (yes, no)
Is the terminology used legitimately and is it up-to-date? (Yes No)
Is the quality of graphic design acceptable? (Yes No)
What needs to be shortened in the article (text, figures, tables, list of references)?
Citation of scientific sources (time period – recent (up to 5 years) publications are desired, or relevant references in terms of quantity, relevance, modernity, availability of DOI, presence in the global network of scientific information (yes, no, incomplete)
Please pay attention to whether ethical standards for scientific works have been observed (see the One Health Journal website).
Your personal comments (can be submitted on a separate page) are attached
The article is rejected (explain the motive in detail) ...see below…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Recommendations: accept the article, reject it, send it to the authors for revision (emphasis required).
Signature (The reviewer has the right not to decipher his signature - the editors have full information about the reviewer)

Note! Reviewers are reminded of the importance of timely reviews (3 days for confirming reviewing agreement and 3 weeks till submission of opinion)

Attention! In the copy of the review provided to the author, the reviewer's signature and all file metadata that can identify the reviewer are removed!

4. Access for readers

The publisher undertakes to provide readers with access to the journal's materials under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .