Ethics

Guidelines for Ethics of Journal Publishing
Everyone involved in the journal publication process, including editors, authors, article reviewers, and referees, will benefit from the information in this area.

We are certain that clear and consistent rules will improve the caliber of research that is published and guarantee that a procedure is in place to address a circumstance where ethics may have been violated.

Ethical guidelines
The COPE (Committee on Conduct Ethics) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Publication Editors, Peer Reviewers, and Authors, which are available on the COPE website, are used by the Indian Journal of Medicine and Scientific Research.

https://publicationethics.org/guidance

 

Editors
We request editors take every precaution to ensure that the following factors are taken into account for any submitted articles they think are eligible of peer review.

  • Each paper should get an unbiased examination, with attention given to its merits regardless of the author's ethnicity, religion, country, sex, seniority, or institutional connection.
  • Manuscripts should be handled and processed quickly and effectively.
  • Editors are solely responsible for deciding whether to accept or reject a manuscript. While an editor may use peer review to get advice, if the editor feels that the article is unsuitable for the journal, the manuscript may be rejected without review.
  • The peer-review procedure should be private and anonymous.
  • Any conflicts of interest need to be disclosed.
  • If an editor gets a complaint about the authenticity of an article they have published, they will consult in confidentially with Informa and, if necessary, editorial board members. If the editor and Informa later find evidence that an article's authenticity has been compromised in one of the following ways—its main body is incorrect, it contains information that hasn't been properly acknowledged or cited, its authorship is inaccurate or incomplete, it contains libel—they will facilitate publication of an appropriate correction, a Statement of Retraction, or, in the worst case scenario, a Statement of Apology.

 

Authors

  • Writers must give a truthful summary of the study and provide an unbiased analysis of its importance.
  • The publication must include adequate information and citations to open-access data sources to allow the author's peers to duplicate the work.
  • Writers are required to cite all pertinent sources.
  • Writers must disclose any conflicts of interest and highlight any risks associated with the research.
  • If authors want to submit the most publications possible, they should avoid fragmenting their study.
  • Authors are prohibited from submitting identical or related works to any other journal or publication venue.
  • While experimental or theoretical research may occasionally be used to explain criticism of another scientist's work, personal criticism is never appropriate.
  • Any individual who has significant scientific knowledge and who shares liability and responsibility for the work presented is considered a “co-author.”

Authors must complete a Licensing Form and sign a series of guarantees before their work is published. Authors should also make sure that patient consent is obtained and given, if necessary.

 

Referees and Peer Reviewers

Referees and peer reviewers are kindly requested to use their best efforts to ensure that the following standards are taken into consideration for the articles they have accepted to peer review.

  • Each paper should get an unbiased examination, with attention given to its merits regardless of the author's ethnicity, religion, country, sex, seniority, or institutional connection.
  • Manuscripts should be handled and processed quickly and effectively.
  • The manuscript's quality, together with its theoretical and experimental work, interpretations, and explanation, will be assessed impartially.
  • The peer-reviewing procedure will remain private.
  • Any conflicts of interest need to be disclosed.
  • Decisions made by referees must be backed and explained. Any claim that a certain observation, deduction, or line of reasoning has been previously reported must be backed by the appropriate citation; unsubstantiated claims must be avoided.
  • While the examination of a manuscript may warrant criticism, even harsh criticism, it is never ethical or acceptable to criticize an author personally or maliciously.