The position of the editors is to weigh up the appropriateness of submitted manuscripts for the journal, with: (a) the superiority of the manuscript, (b) whether it covers the Aims and extent of the journal, and (c) the uniqueness of the work. The editors will not reveal information regarding a submitted manuscript to anybody other than the subsequent author, reviewers or possible reviewers, or various members of the editorial board. Editors will guarantee the timely managing of the review procedure. Editors will weigh up the merit of manuscripts intended for intellectual content devoid of regard to race, ethnicity, gender, religion, nation of origin or sexual orientation.
Peer review is vital to the journal within assisting in forming editorial decisions and helping authors in manuscript enhancement. Reviewers must point out applicable publications not mentioned in the manuscript and show any similarities with earlier published works. Reviewers must not reflect on manuscripts by conflicts of interest, financial, competitive, or any collaborative. If a possible reviewer feels incompetent to review the manuscript, that reviewer must notify the editors right away and reject the review. Documents received for evaluation will be handled as classified documents and not publicized or discussed with other devoid of approval from the editors. Authors must expect to get reviewer reports in a timely manner, normally in three weeks. Reviewer misdemeanors (violate of confidentiality, hindrance of peer review, copying, or arguments of interest) will not be accepted.
Authors of unique research (not beforehand published or in consideration for publication somewhere else) must be an correct presentation of the work voted for, a discussion of the implication of the work in perspective with earlier works, and should enclose sufficient experimental detail to let others to imitate the work. Suitable citation of earlier published works must for all time be incorporated. Authors must reveal any financial or additional conflicts of concern that possibly will be construed as influencing the data or understanding. Every foundations of financial support must be disclosed. Authorship must be limited to those persons who include made a major contribution toward the work in terms of formation, design, experimental execution, along with data analysis and interpretation. Every person making noteworthy contributions must be included as co-authors. If an author determines a significant mistake within the published work, the author is compelled to enlighten the journal editor so as to either correct or withdraw the paper.
Role of the Publisher: In cases of verified scientific wrongdoing, copying, or fake publication, the publisher, in alliance with the editorial board, will take right action to elucidate the situation, issue an erratum, or withdraw the work in question.
There can be a conflict of authorship for the article. It occurs owing to various reasons. Some of the common reasons are the dual-authorship, multi-authorship, corresponding author and group authorship. Any conflict of authorship can arise at any time either before or during the process of submission of the article. It is the sole and collective responsibility of the authors to take it as their obligation to resolve it. The journal editor cannot be held responsible for any type of mediation or participation to resolve the conflict. It is not the role of an editor to determine who qualifies or not for the authorship. Therefore a signed statement from all the authors is requested for the listed authors.
Transparency is an important part of the journal publication which generally remains behind the door. The rapport among the authors, peer reviewers and editor-in-chief makes the task of publishing a smooth sailing. Explicit disclosure of the findings from the peer reviews and actions taken on those reports by the editor makes it easy to remove conflicts. This process of thoroughly analyzing the reports helps the author and the publisher to publish an effective report on a scientific subject. It often includes disclosing the identity of the peers, their history of peer-reviews and the team involved in the process of writing a journal.
Plagiarism can be defined as presenting someone others works with different or personal authorship. It is the commonest of all the other malpractices in the journal publication. The authors intentionally or unintentionally try to copy the researches from the other authors and thereafter republish them again with their name and credentials. (any name you prefer to mention Xxxxxxxxxx ) has a list of various kinds of plagiarism that can be found on (web name ). The IJMSR adhere to the guidelines of the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) and therefore, never promotes the plagiarism in its journals.
IJMSR object the exercise of duplication of the text as well as figures in any form. It is well recommended before the time of submission of the research papers. The authors are required to inform them before the submission of manuscripts with sufficient documents. The right to reject or accept the manuscripts completely lies with the editor-in-chief.
There can be various kinds of conflict of interest that can have a potential effect on the journal. These conflicts can be personal, financial or professional. IJMSR suggests declaring any type of conflict of interest before the publishing of the scientific paper.
Duplicate Submission is misconduct in the domain of scientific journals. To increase the frequency of the research paper by the authors the same text, images and manuscripts are submitted with a different article-title. This is considered as a duplication of the papers. Often many of the researches are rejected by the editors or reviewers. Therefore IJMSR expects from the authors to submit unique researched articles.
The Redundant Publication Policy of IJMSR define it as the practice of "publishing or attempting to publish the same work more than once". It should be avoided as it wastes a lot of valuable time and energy of the highly talented people employed at the various level of the publishing. The talent of the peer reviewers is wasted by repeating the same material again and again. Sometimes, it is done deliberately by the author to inflate the works of scientific merits. Consequently, some of the other valuable journals are overlooked owing to the shortage of time.