Publication Ethics

With the aim to maintain the dignity of research and improve the publication standards, IJCMS follows high ethical practices that are followed by research communities across the globe. We follow https://publicationethics.org Code of Conduct for Publishers, Journal Editors, Peer Reviewers, in addition we also framed some guidelines.

Non-plagiarized, original, true and unpublished research work without any concurrent publications submitted elsewhere, should only be submitted by the author(s). The manuscript submitted to IJCMS must not have been submitted or approved or in processing stage with any other journals, conference proceedings etc. The author should not submit the article to any other journal during the period of review, acceptance, pre-publication processing time or any such period.

Research integrity

All the research works, published with IJCMS, are aimed at the welfare of the global community. Any research article that is aimed at harm, violence, hate speech, communal threats, racism, violence, abuse, terrorism and any inhuman activities that affect a group, gender, age, region, people, religious followers, country, race or a sect of people would not be considered for publication.

 

PRE-PUBLICATION

Authorship and contribution

The authors’ names, who made substantial contribution to the research, drafted the manuscript, understands that he or she may receive queries from reviewers and readers, who approves the publication of paper if accepted, must be listed in full with their permission. The contribution of every author can be described at the end of the manuscript. If there is any change in the authorship, it should be intimated properly. To clarify this matter authors must all sign a copyright form indicating their role in the research conduct. 

Acknowledgement

The authors are advised to acknowledge, at the end of their research article, the close copied sources (such as verbatim), quotation and all the sources cited.

Allegations of misconduct

Authors must declare the ethical committee approval from the Institutional Ethical Board. Misconduct, in any form, will be considered as a breach of trust and the article(s) submitted will be rejected after a preliminary investigation. Here is what we believe misconduct is:

Fabrication, Falsification and Plagiarism whether are done knowingly or not are against our ethical codes and would not be ignored.

Here is what we believe research misconduct is:

Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the Research Record. Research misconduct:

1-Fabrication:

Making up data or results and recording or reporting them while pretending they are original.

2-Falsification:

Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the Research Record.

3-Plagiarism:

Deliberate Interference which may intentionally cause material harm to the research or scholarly work of others, and may include damaging or destroying the property of others, such as research equipment or supplies; disrupting active experiments; or altering or deleting products of research, including data. Avoidance of revealing the side effects of clinical trials.

3-1-Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. It ranges from the unreferenced use of others’ published and unpublished ideas, including research grant applications to submission under “new” authorship of a complete paper, sometimes in a different language. It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing, or publication: it applies to print and electronic versions.

3-2-Plagiarism can occur when texts are being cut and pasted without appropriate attribution.

3-3-Using others’ published ideas is allowed if:

Appropriate attribution and citation should be considered while using figures, charts, questionnaires or texts. In case of using or paraphrasing texts or ideas, citation is necessary. Self-plagiarism should also be avoided. All researchers have the responsibility to report any conduct that they believe in good faith, is a misconduct to the relevant institutional authority. Editors-in-chief have to check manuscripts for any kind of misconduct.

Disclosure of funding information

All the manuscripts must carry forward a disclosure with funding information in detail such as the funding organization, name of the scholarship, financial and/or non-financial interests of the funding organization, financial conflicts and expected funds if any. The author(s) agrees that any financial hurdles in the research article, the proceedings shall be taken care by author(s).

Permissions

Permissions should be obtained from the concerned author(s), persons, publishers, digital art authors, organizations and firms to reproduce the data in any form. Any such article with unattained permissions may undergo ethical issues and cannot be considered for publication.  

Duplicate publication

Manuscripts which are submitted elsewhere, considered for publications, accepted, in preliminary publishing and online available article will be rejected citing duplication issues. When author(s) is able to differentiate the novelty of the submitted work with his (or) her (or) their existing works, the work will be considered for further review.

Corresponding author responsibilities

The corresponding author is accountable for managing all the communications with the editorial team before and after the publications (in case of any corrections, clarifications, errors etc.,) and provide transparent information with regards to the research work, manuscript, permissions, ethical clearance, plagiarism, funding etc.,

Confidentiality

Authors as well as the publishing team assure to confidentially secure the data, information of critical importance, novelty of the research work and any other information in any form shared between these two entities. Anonymity is maintained between the author and the editor-reviewers to ensure unbiased review processing and loss of data. Reviewers, if need to consult with their peers, for any clarifications should get a written approval from the editor-in-chief with all information about the clarification, person(s) involved, their integrity and trust, their contact information etc., Reviewers should be aware that the name(s), research information, data and all other supplementary information shared to them is kept utmost confidential and no canvassing in any form with the author(s) involved is entertained. ERM publications do not hesitate to raise legal actions against the reviewers if found guilty.  

Conflicts of interests

Conflicts of any type, such as financial, affiliations, intellectual property, personal, ideological and academic, must be declared even if unsure. Undeclared conflict of interest, if revealed later, would make the article rejected.

POST-PUBLICATION

Discussions, errors,, corrections and clarifications

Any errors after being published, if found by the author(s) themselves or the readers, the corresponding author should be able to rectify the error and a corrigendum would be provided for a mistake by author(s) and an erratum for the mistake by publisher. The article may be retracted if found with significant amount of errors that spoil the very nature of the research theme and affect the name of the publisher.

 

 All parties involved in publication process (authors, editors and reviewers) have a duty:


Duties of Authors:

Authorship is based on the following four criteria:

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;  

Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;

Final approval of the version to be published;

Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

We include only one corresponding author per article and the order in which the names of authors are represented in the publishing paper is an exact match to the one presented by the authors in their copyright form.

The individuals who conduct the work are responsible for identifying who meets these criteria and ideally should do so when planning the work, making modifications as appropriate as the work progresses.

When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, including approval of the final manuscript, and they should be able to take public responsibility for the work and should have full confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the work of other group authors.

Authorship disputes if they cannot be resolved amongst authors should be brought up to the relevant institutional authority. 

Any further contribution details (e.g., equal contribution) must be included in the contributors or acknowledgement sections at the end of the article.

The corresponding author is the one who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journal’s administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements, are properly completed, although these duties may be delegated to one or more coauthors.

To name the institutions or organizations not contributing in the process of the research is against the publication ethics.

When the journal gets suspicious whether there is a ghost writer or not, documents must be asked from the corresponding author. The corresponding author must provide the documents needed and if he or she fails, not only the manuscript will not be published or if published will be retracted, but also the matter will be brought up to the authorities.

Duties:

Reporting Standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the research data supporting their paper for editorial review and/or to comply with the open data requirements of the journal.  Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable number of years after publication. Authors may refer to their journal’s Guide for Authors for further details.

Notification of Fundamental Errors

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper if deemed necessary by the editor. If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains an error, it is the obligation of the author to cooperate with the editor, including providing evidence to the editor where requested.

Image Integrity

It is not acceptable to enhance, obscure, move, remove, or introduce a specific feature within an image. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Manipulating images for improved clarity is accepted, but manipulation for other purposes could be seen as scientific ethical abuse and will be dealt with accordingly.


Duties of Editors

Publication Decisions

The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

Peer review

The editor shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely.  Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and where necessary the editor should seek additional opinions.

The editor shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field and shall follow best practice in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. The editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.

Fair play

An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript, the corresponding author, reviewers and potential reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

Any potential editorial conflicts of interest should be declared to the publisher in writing prior to the appointment of the editor, and then updated if and when new conflicts arise. The publisher may publish such declarations in the journal.

The editor must not be involved in decisions about papers which s/he has written him/herself or have been written by family members or colleagues or which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Further, any such submission must be subject to all of the journal’s usual procedures, peer review must be handled independently of the relevant author/editor and their research groups, and there must be a clear statement to this effect on any such paper that is published.

Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations

An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Vigilance over the Published record

The editor should work to safeguard the integrity of the published record by reviewing and assessing reported or suspected misconduct (research, publication, reviewer and editorial), in conjunction with the publisher (or society).


Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.


Our policy regarding unethical activities:

In case of noticing one, it must be conveyed to the relevant authorities. There should be an investigation for each case separately.

Notice: No one is to know about the investigation until there is proof.

In case there is proof, the Editor-in-Chief must:

  • Not publish the manuscript (if it is not published yet),
  • Publish an amendment in the next issue (if it is already published),
  • Not publish the author(s) papers for a specific period,
  • Omit the previous papers of the author(s),
  • Retract the paper if published.

Manuscripts with unethical behavior may be retracted due to the decision made by the board.


 What is Retraction:

When an article retraction is marked in data bases, can threat an author’s reputation and credit. So the reasons according to which an article is retracted have to be clear and be represented with proof. Also there must a line be drawn between a human error and unethical behavior.

Human error: error in collecting categorizing and analyzing data that was not deliberate.

Unethical behavior: duplication, misconduct, plagiarism, conflict of interest, data fabrication and picture manipulation.

Notice: All correspondence would be confidential until the result of the investigations for unethical behavior is finalized.

A retraction must be done based on clear documents that are already represented to the author(s). In case the journal does not get a response from author(s) in time, or the unethical behavior is proved, the article can be retracted. In case of a human error, the article can be edited scientifically and republished. No need for retraction. In case of an unethical behavior being conducted, the article is retracted.

 

As the journal is an online one, the Editor-in-Chief can do as it is said below:

  • Marking the word RETRACTED in the beginning and at the end of the article when a note is written telling the reason why the article was retracted and full text and abstract are omitted from the website.
  • Marking the word RETRACTED in the beginning and at the end of the article when a note is written telling the reason why the article was retracted, omitting the full text but leaving the abstract on the website.
  • In case the full text is not omitted all the pages can be marked with the watermark of RETRACTED.
  • Sending all the documents to the committee of the publication ethics of the university.
  • Sending all the documents to the committee of the publication ethics of the university where the author(s) are based.
  • Sending all the documents to the committee of the publication ethics of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology.
  • Sending all the documents to the Publisher.
  • Receiving any manuscript from the author(s) should be avoided.
  • There is also a right for authors to withdraw their manuscript as there is a right for editors not to accept it.


What is Article Withdrawal?

Author can take withdraw his/her article before the final decision is made by the editors. Author must email the editorial board and explain clearly why he is withdrawing his/her article. Editor-in-Chief is free to decide whether to return the manuscript or not. If the author gives any reasons below, the article can be withdrawn by the editor’s decision:

  • Flaws in ethical codes
  • Contradiction in data
  • Flaws in the methodology or conclusion

The Editor-in-Chief can return the manuscript in the cases below:

  • Finding flaws in the data or methodology
  • Finding misconduct
  • Failing the rules of authorship
  • Plagiarism
  • Unethical behavior

In case the article is ready to publish the editor-in-chief can act as it is mentioned below:

The PDF and HTML will not be published; only the title will be published online accompanying a note explaining why the article is withdrawn. This article does not belong to any of the issues and will not have page number.

In case there is a court sentence in special occasions such as risk in publication, insanity in the data of the article, risk of mistaken publishing, publishing confidential and risky information, the article can be completely omitted. In this case only there remains the title and author(s) name and everything will be erased from the data base. This ca only be done by the editor-in-chief’s decision.