The Editor of a research journal should be responsible for:
- Establishing and maintaining quality of the journal by publishing quality
papers in his/her journal.
- Promotion of freedom of expression within the cultural, constitutional/legal
- Providing integrity and credibility of the research contributions,
- Meeting the needs of authors and readers,
- Maintaining ethical standards of their journal,
- Providing corrigendum for any correction, clarification and apologies where
Fair play and Impartiality
The criteria for the selection of research papers must be impartial and the Editor
should select academically and scientifically sound articles,
Ethical Guidelines for the Author(s)
The following ethical guidelines are
obligatory for all author(s) violation of
which may result in application
of penalties by
the editor, including
but not limited
to the suspension or
revocation of publishing privileges.
- It is the author(s)'
responsibility to ensure
that the research report
and data contain adequate detail
and references to the sources of
information in order to allow others to
reproduce the results.
- Fraudulent or knowingly
behavior and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism
- It is the author(s)' responsibility to
ascertain that s/he has submitted
an entirely original work, giving due
credit, by virtue of proper citations,
to the works and/or words of others
where they have been used.
- Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is
- Material quoted verbatim from
the author(s)' previously
published work or other
sources must be placed in quotation marks.
- As per HEC’s
policy, in case
the manuscript has
a similarity index
of more than 19%, it will either be rejected or left at
the discretion of the Editorial Board for the purposes of a conditional
- Authors are required to
provide an undertaking /
declaration stating that
the manuscript under consideration contains
solely their original work that is
not under consideration for publishing in any other
journal in any form.
- Authors may submit a manuscript previously
published in abstracted form, for
g. in the proceedings of
an annual meeting,
or in a
limited circulation and availability
such as reports by the Government agencies or a University.
- A manuscript that is
co-authored must be
accompanied by an
undertaking explicitly stating that
each author has contributed
substantially towards the
preparation of the manuscript in order to claim
right to authorship.
- It is the responsibility of the
corresponding author that s/he has
ensured that all those who have
substantially contributed in
the manuscripts have been
included in the author list
and they have agreed to the order of authorship.
Multiple, Redundant and Current Publication
- Authors should not submit
manuscripts describing essentially
the same research to more
than one journal or publication except
if is a re-submission of a
rejected or withdrawn manuscript.
- Authors may re-publish previously
conducted research that has
been substantially altered or corrected using more
meticulous analysis or by adding more data.
- The authors and editor must
agree to the secondary
publication, which must
cite the primary references and reflect the same data and
interpretation of the primary document.
- Concurrent submission of the
same manuscript to more
than one journal is
unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgment of Sources
- A paper must always contain proper
acknowledgment of the work of others,
including clear indications of
the sources of all
information quoted or
offered, except what is common knowledge.
- The author(s) must also
acknowledge the contributions
of people, organizations and
assisted the process
including those who
provided technical help, writing assistance or financial funding (in the
- It is duty of the author(s) to
conduct a literature review and
properly cite the original publications that describe
closely related work.
- Authorship of the work may
only be credited to
those who have made
a noteworthy contribution in
conceptualization, design, conducting, data
analysis and writing up of the
- It is the responsibility of the
corresponding author to include the
name(s) of only those co- authors who have made
significant contributions to the work.
- The corresponding author should ensure that all co- authors have seen and
approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission
for publication. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspect
of the research should be acknowledged for their contribution in an
Privacy of Participants
- Authors must respect the
privacy of the participant
of research and must
not use any information obtained from them without
their informed consent.
- Authors should ensure that
only information that
improves understanding of
the study is shared.
- Authors must ensure that in instances
where the identity of the participant
needs to be revealed in the study, explicit and informed
consent of the concerned party is obtained.
- In the case of the demise of a
participant, consent must be obtained
from the family of the deceased.
Data Access and Retention
- If any question arises about the
accuracy or validity of the research
work during the review process, the author(s) should
provide raw data to the Editor.
- The author(s) should ensure that images
included in an account of research
performed or in the data collection as part of the research are free
- The author(s) must provide an accurate
description of how the images were
generated and produced.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
- The potential and relevant
competing financial, personal,
social or other interest
of all author(s) that might be
affected by publication of the results
contained in the manuscript must be conveyed to the
- The author(s) should disclose any potential
conflict of interest at the earliest
possible stage, including but not limited
to employment, consultancies, honoraria, patent
applications/registrations, grants or other funding.
- All sources of financial
support for the project
should be disclosed
alongside a brief overview of the role played, if
any by the responses during various stages of the research.
Authors may have to sign an agreement
allowing the journal to reserve the
right to circulate the article and all other derivative works
such as translations.
Manuscript Acceptance and Rejection
- The review period can last between 1-2
months or longer and during this
period the author(s) reserve the right to contact the Editor to
ask about status of the review.
- Once the review process has been
completed, the author will be informed
about the status of the
manuscript which could
either be an acceptance,
rejection or In the case
of rejection, the author(s) reserves the right to publish the article
- In case of revisions, the author(s) must
provide an exposition of all
corrections made in the manuscript and
the revised manuscript should, then, go
through the process of affirmation of
revisions and be accepted or rejected accordingly.
- In case of dissatisfaction over the decision of rejection, the author can
appeal the decision by contacting the Editor.
Ethical Guidelines for the Reviewers
Review of the manuscript by reviewers is
not only an essential component of
formal scholarly engagement, but is also a fundamental step in the
publication process as it aids Editor in the editorial decision making. It also
allows author(s) improve their manuscript through editorial communications.
Scholars accepting to review a research paper have an ethical responsibility
to complete this assignment professionally. The quality, credibility
and reputation of a journal also depend on the peer review process.
The peer review process depends on the trust, and demands that a reviewer is
supposed to fulfill ethically. These professionals are the momentum arm of the
review process, but they may be performing this job without any formal training.
As a consequence, they may be (especially young professionals) unaware of their
Suitability and Promptness
The Reviewers should:
- Inform the Editor, if they
do not have the
subject expertise required
to carry out the review and s/he should inform the
Editor immediately after receiving a request.
- Be responsible to act promptly and submit review report on time.
- Immediately inform the
Editor of any possible
delays and suggest another
date of submission for a review report, and
- Not unnecessarily delay the
review process, either by
prolonged delay in submission
of their review or by
requesting unnecessary additional
data/information from the Editor or author(s).
Standards of Objectivity
- The reviews should be
objectively carried out
with a consideration of
high academic, scholarly and scientific standards.
- All judgments should be meticulously
established and maintained in
order to ensure the full comprehension of the
reviewer's comments by the editors and the author(s).
- Both reviewers and author(s) in rebuttal should avoid unsupported
- The reviewer may justifiably criticize a manuscript but it would be
inappropriate to resort to personal criticism on the author(s), and
- The reviewers should ensure that their
decision is purely based on the quality
of the research paper and
not influenced, either
positively or negatively,
by any personal, financial,
or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual bias.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- A reviewer should not, for the
purpose of his/her own research, use
unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript, without the
approval of the Editor.
- The data included in the research paper is confidential and the reviewer
shall not be allowed to use if for his/her personal study,
- A reviewer must declare
any potentially conflicting
interests (e.g. Personal, financial, intellectual,
professional, political or religious). In such situation, s/he will
be required to follow the journal's policies.
- A reviewer should be honest enough to declare conflicts of interest, if, the
research paper under review is the same as to his/her presently conducted
- If the reviewer feels
unqualified to separate
his/her bias, s/he should
immediately return the manuscript to the Editor without review,
and justify to him/her about the situation.
- Reviewers should consider the research
paper as a confidential document and
must not discuss its content
on any platform except
in cases where professional
advice is being sought with the
authorization of the Editor, and
- Reviewers are professionally
and ethically bound not
to disclose the details
of any research paper prior to its publication without the
prior approval of the Editor.
- If the reviewer suspects that the research paper is almost the same as
someone else's work, s/he will ethically inform the Editor and provide its
citation as a reference.
- If the reviewer suspects that results in the research paper to be
untrue/unrealistic/fake, s/he will share it with the Editor,
- If there has been an indication of violating ethical norms in the
treatment of human beings (e.g. children, female, poor people, disabled,
elderly, etc), then this should be identified to the Editor, and
- If the research paper is based on any previous research study or is replica
of an earlier work, or the work is plagiarized for e.g. the author has not
acknowledged/referenced others' work appropriately, then this should be
brought in the Editor's knowledge.
For evaluating originality, the reviewers should consider the following elements:
- Does the research paper add to existing knowledge?
- Are the research questions and/or hypotheses in line with the objective of
the research work?
If the layout and format of the paper is not according to the prescribed version,
the reviewers should discuss it with the Editor or should include this
observation in their review report. On the other hand, if the research paper is
exceptionally well written, the reviewer may overlook the formatting issues. At
other times, the reviewers may suggest restructuring the paper before
publication. The following elements should be carefully evaluated:
- If there is serious problem of language or expression and the reviewer gets
the impression that the research paper does not fulfill linguistic
requirements and readers would face difficulties reading
and comprehending the paper. The reviewer should record this deficiency in
his/her report and suggest the editor to make its proper editing. Such a
situation may arise when the author(s)’ native language is not
- Whether the data presented in the paper
is original or reproduced from previously
conducted or published work. The papers which reflect originality should be
given preference for publication.
- The clarity of illustrations including photographs, models, charts, images
and figures is essential to note. If there is duplication then it should be
reported in the review report. Similarly, descriptions provided in the
“Results” section should correspond with
the data presented in tables/figures, if not then it should be
clearly listed in the review report.
- Critically review the statistical analysis of the data. Also check the
rational and appropriateness of the specific analysis.
- The reviewers should read the
“Methodology” section in detail
and make sure that the author(s)
has demonstrated the understanding of
the procedures being used
and presented in the manuscript.
- The relationship between “Data, Findings and Discussion”
requires a thorough evaluation thoroughly. Unnecessary conjecture or
unfounded conclusions that
are not based on the presented data are not
- Further questions to be addressed are whether: the organization of the
research paper is appropriate or deviates from the standard or prescribed
- Does the author(s) follow the guidelines
prescribed by the journal for preparation and
submission of the manuscript?
- Is the research paper free from typographical errors?
- The reviewer must explicitly write his/her observations in the section of
'comments' because author(s) will only have access to the comments
reviewers have made,
- For writing a review report, the reviewers are requested to complete a
- It is helpful for both the Editor and author(s) if the reviewer writes a
brief summary in the first section of the review report. This summary
should comprise the reviewer's final decision and inferences drawn from a
- Any personal comments on author(s) should be avoided and final remarks
should be written in a courteous and positive manner,
- Indicating any deficiencies is important. For the understanding of the
Editor and author(s), the reviewers should highlight these deficiencies in
some detail with specificity. This should help justify the comments made by
- When a reviewer makes a decision regarding the research paper, it should be
clearly indicated as
- 'Reject', 'Accept without revision', or 'Need Revision' and either of the
decisions should have justification.
- The reviewers should indicate the revisions clearly and comprehensively, and
show willingness to confirm the revisions submitted by the author(s), if
Editor wishes so, and
- The final decision about publishing a
research paper (either accept or
reject) will solely rest with the
Editor and it is not a reviewer's
job to take part in this
The editor will surely consider reviewer's
comments and have a right to send
the paper for another opinion or send it back to the
author(s) for revision before making the final decision.