PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

Section A: Publication and authorship
Section B: Authors' responsibilities
Section C: Reviewers' responsibilities
Section D: Editors' responsibilities


Section A: Publication and authorship
All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.

The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.

The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.

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

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.

By submitting a paper the author understands and agrees that its copyright is transferred to KY Publications.

Section B: Authors' responsibilities
Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.

Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.

Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.

Authors must participate in the peer review process.

Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.

All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.

Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.

Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.

Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.

Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.

Section C: Reviewers' responsibilities
Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.

Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author

Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Section D: Editors' responsibilities
Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.

Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.

Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.

Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.

Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.

Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.

Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.

Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.

Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.

Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.

Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.

Editors 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.

Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.

Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.

A common issue encountered by editors is overlap of text with an author’s own previously published work, particularly with the increasing use of plagiarism detection software. This practice is known as ‘text recycling’ (also sometimes referred to as ‘self-plagiarism’). Opinions on the acceptability of text recycling vary greatly and it can be a challenge for editors to know how to deal with it once it has been identified.

 

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. COPE has produced some guidelines which set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process in research publication. The aim has been to make them generic so that they can be applied across disciplines. 

 

 

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copy Right @ www.ijelr.in, SKY Publications, D.No: 3-46, Tsundur, Andhra Pradesh, India 522-318