{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01766109785202864, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.1647058823529415, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Conflicts of interest/transparency declarations: new policy.

We believe that it is important for readers of JAC to be made aware of any interests of authors that could be perceived as having influenced the views they have expressed. Only when appropriately informed can readers make a judgment regarding the potential for interests to influence a particular article. There are many journals that stipulate that authors declare their conflicts of interest. Indeed, for some time our ‘Instructions to Authors’ have stated that any conflicting interests should be disclosed. However, although increasing numbers of authors have been providing this information, not all authors have done so, and it is not something that we have either strictly enforced or provided detailed guidance on. In a change to Journal policy and in the interests of openness, we are now stipulating that all papers must include transparency declarations. This decision has been made following discussions with the Editorial Board and the Editors of JAC, combined with the Guidelines on Good Publication Practice published by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE). The term ‘conflicts of interest’ has negative undertones, seeming to imply that these are something we should automatically be uneasy about disclosing. However, this should not be the case, and that is why we propose to use the term transparency declarations. If authors have acted honourably, there should be no reason to conceal this information. Readers must not assume that declared potential conflicts of interest indicate that an article’s findings must be flawed; all articles must be judged on their content. Prejudice is as bad as concealment. The Journal believes that readers of JAC should be as informed as possible. For example, papers published in JAC that have undergone an unusual review procedure compared with normal have included sections that highlight and explain the modified editorial process. Examples are the Working Party report concerning genetically modified plants and more recently a series of papers by Magee and Huovinen.