The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method.
It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals.
- A misconduct contains the following issues in a research paper:
- Redundant Publication in submitted/published manuscript
- Plagiarism in submitted/published manuscript
- Fabricated data in submitted/published manuscript
- If any misconduct information submitted by reviewer or reader, our team plans to investigate the issue to collect evidence for the scenario.
- Once we found enough evidence(s) to prove the misconduct was true, the author is informed about their misconduct to get their clarification on the matter.
- If our author accepts the misconduct we provide the original reference for the text and inform the reader about the issue.
- When author fails to provide enough evidence(s) to prove his/her work or denies the misconduct, we have the right to reject his/her article from our journal, in case if already published then we have the right to remove the article from our website.
- In case of author fails to communicate, we proceed to contact their institution to raise the issue of misconduct to get their reviews.
Changes in Authorship
The authorship changes are concerned in the following condition:-
- Request to add a corresponding author before publication of the manuscript.
- Request to remove a corresponding author before publication of the manuscript.
- Request to add a corresponding author after the publication of the manuscript.
- Request to remove a corresponding author after the publication of the manuscript.
To change the authorship of an article we process the following steps:-
- Ask to provide a valid reason(s) for changing in the authorship of the manuscript.
- We ask all authors if they agree on the change of authorship details. If all agree the authorship will be changed.
- If not all authors agree, the article will be suspended until all authors agree to change in authorship details.
- In case if the article already published and the authors do not agree on the change in authorship, their institution will be asked to resolve the issue of their authorship if the excluded author wishes to proceed.
Authorship and Contributorship
Author is defined as an individual who has made significant contributions to the study. The author should: (1) has a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work, (2) involve actively in the writing process in term of intellectual content, (3) involve actively in the correction of a mistake or content upgrading based on reviewers suggestion, and (4) approve the final version to be published. All contributors that meet all the criteria should be listed as authors.
All authors whose names are written in the manuscript should submit approval of the version prior to the publication process (during the initial review).
Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the work involves procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
Authors also should assure that the research is original, analysis only underlying data, and able to retain data for at least 5 years after publication to comply with the open data requirements of the IJSA.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Authors should give proper acknowledgment of the work of others. Publications that are influential for the nature of the reported work should be cited properly. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must get explicit or written permission from the source.
Originality of The Articles
All authors submitting their works to the journal for publication as original articles attest that the submitted works represent their authors’ contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works. Authors who have been determined to have committed plagiarism will be banned for publishing in IJSA.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
Author should not publish manuscripts describing high similarity in substances or the sentences used or the content in more than one journal or primary publication. IJSA consider that submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is an unethical publishing behavior of the authors and is unacceptable.
Contributions to The Editors’ Decision
Reviewers should provide clear comments and opinions to the editor that is used as one important consideration for the editor in making publication decisions. This means that the IJSA editor is responsible for the final decision on article acceptance based on the reviewer's comments and opinions.
Contributions to The Authors’ Work
Reviewers should provide clear and constructive comments and suggestions to the authors in the form of providing written and unbiased feedback to the authors, indicating whether the writing is clear, concise and relevant. Reviewers should evaluate the scientific accuracy to improve the quality of the paper. Reviewers also should give relevant published work that valuable to elevate the quality of the manuscript.
In accordance with the double-blind peer-review process, the reviewer would not be informed of the name of the reviewed manuscript. In term of substance, reviewers should treat the manuscript as confidential documents, thus reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of the review process.
Reviewers should assure a fair play by avoiding personal comments or criticism. Reviewers should avoid reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest. Reviewers should avoid suggesting the author to cite the reviewers’ publication/work, unless for genuine scientific reasons.
Unqualified reviewers for the reason of (1) his/her scientific foundation does not match/meet up with the reviewed manuscript or (2) or unable to catch up the review timeline thus review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.