Publication & Peer Review Policy | Publication Ethics
Publication & Peer Review Policy | Publication Ethics
Publication ethics and malpractice statement of IAS journals, adapted from and based on guidelines provided by Committee on publication ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org) and International Committee for Medical Journal Editor (ICMJE) http://www.icmje.org/
Innovare Academic Journals Plagiarism Policy
One of the problems in journal publications which afflicting science communication is plagiarism. Plagiarism may range from exactly copying of extensive material of other authors, misappropriating results/data of others with minor changes in language/presentation without giving acknowledgment to original source, and to publishing essentially the same information more than once. Sometimes this kind of mistakes occur when authors are not well versed with the copy right and hence the violation occurred or by accident upload the wrong electron micrographs. If author can justify the reason of their mistake of plagiarism then innovative academic sciences team listen them and can help to come out from this problem.
Innovative academic sciences strongly reiterate its policy of disappointing plagiarism of all kinds. As per the quality policy innovare academic sciences uses active plagiarism check tool and publishing article on the basis reviewer comments and after taking copy right.
In case, any attempt of plagiarism is brought to innovare academic sciences notice accompanied with realistic evidence, following steps would be taken:
Protection of Human Subjects and Animals in Research
When reporting experiments on human subjects, authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, the authors must explain the rationale for their approach and demonstrate that the institutional review body explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the institutional and national guide for the care and use of laboratory animals was followed.
Authors publishing results from in vivo experiments involving animals or humans should state whether due permission for conduction of these experiments was obtained, from the relevant ethics committees, in the Materials and Methods section. In addition, authors wishing to publish research work involving human studies should also send a notary verified letter of approval from the Ethics Committee or the Institutional Review Board.
Conflict of interest: International committee of medical journals editors visit http://www.icmje.org/ethical_4conflicts.html
Authors submitting a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, they are responsible for disclosing all conflicts of interest related to:Individual Authors' Commitments, Project Support, Commitments of Editors, Journal Staff, or Reviewers.
Authors should do so in the manuscript on a conflict-of-interest notification page that follows the title page, providing additional detail, if necessary, in a cover letter that accompanies the manuscript.
Authorship and Contributorship
An "author" is generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to a published study.
Criteria for Authorship
Authorship credit should be based on:
- Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data.
- Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content.
- Final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.
When a large, multicenter group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript.
Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship.
All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.
Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
Contributors Listed in Acknowledgments
All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgments section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chairperson who provided only general support.
Standards of Review
Reviewer can place his comments or recommend to reject any article if found to be inappropriate or irrelevant in terms of subject provided in the title of journal, or found to be having redundant data or copied data without providing proper citation.
Reviewing will be done with due respect for authors confidentiality which should not be violated during review process.
The reviewer should not place any criticism for the author or his research work while reviewing. There should be no personal objection of the article for reviewing.
Conflict of Interest
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.
Editor reorganizes a paper within the parameters set by author so that it can be clearly understandable and available to its readers.
Review of manuscript
Editor is responsible for every published and printed material and ensures the quality as well. Each manuscript will first be reviewed and evaluated by editor and then to other reviewers.
Relationship with Author and Reviewer
Provide guidelines for authors and reviewers. Make a team with authors, publishers and other editors to achieve just in time (JIT) goal. Editor work in a way so that right material at right time and at right place should be delivered.
Author can stand if he is not agreeing with any editorial decision and editor has to justify through relevant process.
Editor always welcome new authors, reviewers and readers.
Double Blind Peer Review System
Proper and fair double blind peer review process is followed resulting in high quality, accuracy of data as provided by the author and focuses in continuous improvement of the system. The Peer review process followed is shown in below figure:
Confidentiality of Manuscript
During under review the details of manuscript will remain undisclosed and unshared with anyone other than the group of authors of the manuscript, reviewers, publishers and members of editorial-advisory board. Any description about author and his research will not be shared.
Redundancy of Data
Editor has right to take required step if the research paper submitted by the author found to be redundant or taken from any other source. Such paper will be considered under plagiarism and rejection of such paper can be done.
Funding in Research
Readers and reviewer should be informed about who has funded in research and their role in the research.
To maintain relationship with editors and parties involved in publication and should support the editorial decisions and should work in the way to achieve the publication goal set by editor.
To maintain confidentiality of author and his/her research work.
Maintain the policies
To promote and encourage policies regarding journals ethics, authorship, editorial independence, conflict of interest, research funding, review system and process.
Republication and errors
To publish corrections, clarification, retractions whenever required. Publication should be done on timely basis to achieve just in time (JIT) policy of journal.
To Cooperate with the investigating parties if condition occurs for any kind of investigation for any suspected research.
What to do if case of redundant (duplicate) publication
- Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript (http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/01A_Redundant_Submitted.pdf )
- Suspected redundant publication in a published article (http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/01B_Redundant_Published.pdf )
What to do if case of suspect plagiarism
- Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript ( http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/02A_Plagiarism_Submitted.pdf )
- Suspected plagiarism in a published article ( http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/02B_Plagiarism_Published.pdf )
What to do if case of fabricated data
- Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript
( http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Flowchart%20Fabricated%20A%20revised%20May%202011.pdf )
- Suspected fabricated data in a published article (http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Flowchart%20Fabricated%20B%20revised.pdf )
Corresponding author requests addition of extra author before publication
( http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/04A_Author_Add_Submitted.pdf )
Corresponding author requests removal of author before publication
( http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/04B_Author_Remove_Submitted.pdf )
Request for addition of extra author after publication
( http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/04C_Author_Add_Published.pdf )
Request for removal of author after publication
( http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/04D_Author_Remove_Published.pdf )
Suspected guest, ghost or gift authorship
( http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/04E_Author_Ghost_Guest_Gift.pdf )
Advice on how to spot authorship problems
( http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/04F_How_to_spot_author_problems.pdf )
What to do if a reviewer suspects case of undisclosed conflict of interest (CoI) in a submitted manuscript
( http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/05A_CoI_Submitted.pdf )
What to do if a reader suspects case of undisclosed conflict of interest (CoI) in a published article
( http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/05B_CoI_Published.pdf )
What to do if case an ethical problem with a submitted manuscript
( http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/06_Ethics_Submitted.pdf )
What to do if case of reviewer has appropriated an author’s idea or data
( http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/07_Reviewer_misconduct.pdf )
How COPE handles complaints against editors
( http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Flowchart%20Complaints%20revised%20Apr%2012.pdf )
The publication is licensed under CC By and is open access. Copyright is with author and allowed to retain publishing rights without restrictions.
Innovare Academic Sciences journals are open access journals, free to access, read and print. There is no pay-per-view, pay-per-print fee for the published articles. There are no editorial/peer review charges being solicited from the authors. However, the journal charges minimum amount towards author registration (on accepted article, after peer review) for publishing and maintaining the content online, outsourcing facilities, tools and resources towards publication of the article. For details of the fee of various journals published by IAS, Please visit their respective websites.