Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and the Statement of Malpractice:

Publication and Authorship:
1. All research papers are subject to editorial review, blind peer-review process by two scientific experts (reviewers) selected by Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editors or both.
2. Manuscripts are evaluated in review based on originality, Originality, Technical Quality, Clarity of Presentation and Importance to Field and language.
3. Manuscripts are accepted, revised or rejected based on the reviewer’s evaluation and the decision of the respective editorial committee.
4. Revised manuscripts are presented to the respective editorial committee and decisions are made based on the committee’s decision.
5. Rejected articles are archived in the journal database.
6. The paper submission and acceptance after verifying legal requirements, authors agreement while submission regarding liability, copyright and plagiarism are selected as accepted articles in the press category of the journal and shown online.
7. Plagiarism is strictly followed by the team of young researchers in the university and cross-reference check completed before acceptance.

Authors' Section:
1. Certification by authors regarding the originality of their manuscript should be done while submitting a manuscript electronically. It should also certify that the submitted manuscript is nowhere under publication or consideration for publication.
2. Corrections of mistakes and revisions following the reviewer’s comments should be forwarded to the managing editor of the journal within three days of notification.
3. Acknowledgment and affiliation of all authors should be given in manuscript and it should be declared if any conflict of interest exit among authors or organizations.
4. Reporting errors in published work is highly appreciated as it helps to improve the quality of papers.
5. There are no rights for withdrawing articles when the review process has been completed. Authors can withdraw their papers only when paying the penalty defined by the editorial management team.

Reviewer’s Section:
1. Privacy and secrecy of the manuscript should be maintained at all costs. As all the submitted manuscripts to reviewers are blind work but still their originality should be preserved and focused as a top priority.
2. The peer-review process should be completed as soon as possible and the comments on the originality of paper should be forwarded to the editor in chief irrespective of your suggestion regarding revision, acceptance, and rejection. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.
3. Suggestions by the reviewers identifying relevant published work should be given to the authors and editors in the authors and editor’s comments section of reviewers form.
4. Plagiarism including the overlap of the manuscript with other published paper should be informed so that the editorial board can make a solid decision regarding manuscripts acceptance or rejection.
5. Reviewers should not review manuscripts that don’t have a conflict of interest statement in a manuscript.

Editorial Section:
1. All responsible editors (Editor in Chief, Managing Editor, and Heads of Editorial Committees) have full authority to reject/accept any article and they are responsible for the overall quality of the publication.
2. Editors should always propose and implement strategies to improve the quality of the publication.
3. The quality and integrity of the author’s academic record should be considered before considering any article.
4. Originality and quality of paper, clarity of presentation and relevance to publication's scope should be the only sole characteristics for accepting or rejecting any manuscript.
5. Finalized decisions should not be overturned without any serious reason.
6. The anonymity of reviewers and authors should be preserved until a decision has not been made regarding the manuscript.
7. All published material should confirm the international ethical guidelines regarding the cell, tissue or animal modeling of all work.
8. Editors should find out a solution for ethical issues and problems including conflict of authors regarding their published or unpublished papers.
9. Rejections should not be made based on suspicions.
10. Conflicts of interests among editorial members, authors and reviewers should be resolved properly according to the COPE guidelines.

Publication Plagiarism Statements:
1. All rules defined by COPE should be followed by editorial members, reviewers, and authors.
2. An article can be withdrawn from its first phase (Editorial review process) but when it is in the review process, the penalty should be discussed and paid to the editorial management committee before requesting withdrawn of the respective articles.
3. Any major change can be done in the accepted article after presenting a solid reason.
4. All editorial members and authors must will to publish any kind of corrections honestly and completely.
5. Publication ethics should be followed in the manuscript. Huge plagiarism or presentation of fraudulent data may enlist authors as violators of COPE rules and their blacklisted names will be forwarded to COPE after when the decision has been made by the editorial board.

Note: This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and complies with the highest ethical standards in accordance with ethical laws. Link on COPE


The following are useful links for our authors, reviewers, and editors:

COPE Flow-Charts

COPE Ethical Guildline for New Editors

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Authors

JCMR Licence:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/