Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statements
Duties of Editor
The Editor-in-Chief would be responsible for the scientific content of the Journal and responsible for driving the strategic direction of the Journal. The editor in chief ultimately decides whether a submitted manuscript will be published. This decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief after seeking input from reviewers selected on a basis of relevant expertise.
The Editor-in-Chief shall use his/her best endeavors to ensure that all contributions submitted to the Publisher for publication in the Journal: are of good quality, relevant and in good English; are original, and do not infringe the copyright or other property rights of any other person; do not contain any scandalous, libelous, obscene, and unlawful or otherwise objectionable material.
He/She is responsible for all the content that is approved for publishing and is often accountable for it. The publication's standards of performance depend heavily on its Editor-in-Chief.
It is the responsibility of the editor-in-chief to reject a piece of writing that appears to be plagiarized or ghost written by another sub-editor. He should check that a particular piece is neither self-plagiarized, nor has been published elsewhere. The Editor-in-chief should cross-check all citations and examine all the references provided in the content. It's the editor-in-chief who sets and tries to implement the ethical standards.
Manages the editorial aspects of the publication under a peer review process in order to publish high-quality articles consistent with accepted standards and the scope of subject areas approved for the publication.
He/She examines the comments of the referees and exercises his or her best judgment, in the light of the referees' recommendations, on whether or not to publish. While this decision may be delegated to another editor of the publication, the Editor-in-Chief is ultimately accountable for the final decision.
The editor-in-chief vets all of the assistant, or department editors of a publication and ensures each issue is released on time.
Duties of Reviewer
If reviewers accept the invitation to review, they will have access to the complete manuscript and should immediately: If they have either a time problem or a conflict of interest, they should contact the Editor for instructions regarding extending the deadline or canceling the review assignment as appropriate. If the examination reveals that the manuscript does not fit within the scope of the journal, they indicate that in the review form. The manuscript provided for review is a privileged document. It has to be protected from any form of exploitation.
The following aspects are to be considered when reviewing a manuscript:
- Significance to the target scientific community
- Appropriateness of the approach or experimental design
- Appropriateness of the statistical analyses
- Appropriate literature citations
- Adequacy of experimental techniques
- Soundness of conclusions and interpretation
- Relevance of discussion
- Adherence to the Instructions to Authors
- Adequacy of title and abstract
- Appropriateness of figures and tables
- Appropriateness of supplemental material
- Length prescribed
Some of the items for which reviewers should be alert include:
- Plagiarism - Plagiarism is not limited to the Results and Discussion sections; it can involve any part of the manuscript, including figures and tables, in which material is copied from another publication without attestation, reference, or permission.
- Missing or incomplete attestation - Authors must give appropriate credit to ideas, concepts, and data that have been published previously. This is accomplished by the inclusion of references. Missing, incomplete, or incorrect references must be brought to the editor's attention.
- Dual submission and/or publication - Be wary of attempts to submit/publish similar material more than once. This is often difficult to detect "before the fact," but checking literature citations, as well as having a critical eye, is helpful.
Reviewer's criticisms, arguments, and suggestions concerning the paper will be most useful to the editor and to the author if they are carefully documented. Dogmatic, dismissive statements, particularly about the novelty of the work are to be avoided. Reviewers are expected to substantiate the statements and suggest acceptability as noted on the specific review form.
In comments intended for the author, they should organize the review so that an introductor y paragraph summarizes the major findings of the article, and gives the overall impression of the paper, and highlights the major shortcomings. This paragraph should be followed by specific, numbered comments, which, if appropriate, may be subdivided into major and minor points.
Reviewer advise the Editor of their recommendation for acceptance, modification, or rejection of the manuscript. Reviewer's recommendations are gratefully received by the editor; however, since editorial decisions are usually based on evaluations derived from several sources, reviewers should not expect the editor to honor every recommendation. The final decision regarding modification, acceptance, or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the editor.