HOME     ABOUT ORJ     OUR JOURNALS     PUBLICATION ETHICS     SEARCH     CONTACT US

 
 
 

Online Research Journals (ORJ) adopts the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors on publication ethics.

 

ORJ follow the under listed guidelines:

 

The instructions for authors (authors guide) for our journals explain the scope of each journals, concepts of academic authorship, and layout of manuscripts to be submitted for processing.

It is strictly against the ethics of academic article publication for duplication of publication, as such, manuscripts to be submitted to any of ORJ journals MUST be with the understanding that same had not been published and is/are not undergoing processing for publication in any other journal. It is mandatory for contributors (authors) to give a written declaration that a submitted work has not been previously published and is not being considered for publication elsewhere. As a result of our commitment to ensure that all submissions are original, the Editorial Offices of our journals are saddled with the responsibility to cross-check as a way of ensuring that submitted articles have not been published prior to their submission to our journals.

There is limit to the extent that ORJ can investigate misconduct of our contributors, as such, we call on external reviewers and the entire science community to report any misconduct to our help desk officer through  helpdesk@onlineresearchjournals.org  for prompt action to be taken.


ORJ publishes 'retractions' if work is proven to be fraudulent, or 'expressions of concern' if editors have well-founded suspicion of misconduct. ORJ also publishes 'replacement' in the cases where the article, if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk, the authors of the original article may wish to retract the flawed original and replace it with a corrected version. In these circumstances the procedures for retraction will be followed with the difference that the database retraction notice will publish a link to the corrected re-published article and a history of the document

ORJ encourages correspondence commenting on published items and should always invite authors to respond to any correspondence before publication. However, authors do not have a right to veto unfavorable comments about their work and they may choose not to respond to criticisms.

Neither peer-reviewer comments nor published correspondence should contain personal attacks on the authors. Editors should encourage peer reviewers to criticize the work not the researcher and should edit (or reject) letters containing personal or offensive statements.

ORJ journals' editors and readers have the right to expect that submitted work is the author's own, that it has not been plagiarized (i.e. taken from other authors without permission, if permission is required or proper citation of the original work) and that copyright has not been breached (for example, if figures or tables are reproduced).

The editorial offices of our journals encourage peer reviewers to destroy manuscripts sent to them for review after they have reviewed them. The guidelines to peer reviewers  for our journals are explicit about the roles and responsibilities of peer reviewers, in particular the need to treat submitted material in confidence until it has been published.

Authors of ORJ must adhere to the following guidelines:

That the award of authorship should balance intellectual contributions to the conception, design, analysis and writing of the study against the collection of data and other routine work. If there is no task that can reasonably be attributed to a particular individual, then that individual should not be credited with authorship.

Authors must declare that the work reported is their own and that they are the copyright owner (or else have obtained the copyright owner's permission).

Authors must declare that the submitted work and its essential substance have not previously been published and are not being considered for publication elsewhere. Only original (unpublished) manuscripts should be submitted.

Author(s) must avoid disputes over attribution of academic credit for it is helpful to decide early on in the planning of a research project who will be credited as corresponding author, as contributors, and who will be acknowledged.

All authors must take public responsibility for the content of their paper. The multidisciplinary nature of much research can make this difficult, but this can be resolved by the disclosure of individual contributions. Careful reading of the target journal’s “Advice to Authors” is advised, in the light of current uncertainties.

It is unethical to submit a manuscript to more than one journal concurrently.

Any conflict of interest must be clearly stated.

Author(s) must acknowledge the sources of data used in the development of the manuscript. Also should endeavour to acknowledge sources of financial support to the research if any.

All errors discovered in the manuscript after submission must be quickly communicated to the Editor.

Author(s) should state that the study they are submitting was approved by the relevant research ethics committee or institutional review board. If human participants were involved, manuscripts must be accompanied by a statement that the experiments were undertaken with the understanding and appropriate informed consent of each. If experimental animals were used, the materials and methods (experimental procedures) section must clearly indicate that appropriate measures were taken to minimize pain or discomfort, and details of animal care should be provided.

Authors should submit a short description of all contributions to their manuscript. Each author's contribution should be described in brief. Authors of research papers should state whether they had complete access to the study data that support the publication. Contributors who do not qualify as authors should also be listed and their particular contribution described. This information should appear as an acknowledgement.

Author(s) should include information about research funding in all papers they prepare for publication.

Authors should inform journals if they discover errors in published work.

Authors have a right to appeal editorial decisions.
 

Reviewers of ORJ must adhere to the following guidelines:

That all manuscripts are reviewed in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry nor political values of author(s).

That any observed conflict of interest during the review process must be communicated to the Editor.

That all information pertaining to the manuscript is kept confidential.

That any information that may be the reason for the rejection of publication of a manuscript must be communicated to the Editor.

The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript must be maintained by expert reviewers, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who may be asked (with the editor’s permission) to give opinions on specific sections.

The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.

Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors’ permission.

Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased and justifiable reports.

 

The reviewers assigned to an article will comment on the following items:

* The importance, originality, and timeliness of the study
* Strengths and weaknesses of the study design and data analysis (for research papers) or the analysis and commentary (for essays)
* Writing, organization, and presentation
* The degree to which the findings justify the conclusion
* The relevance, usefulness, and comprehensibility of the article for the Journal’s target audience


Editors of ORJ must adhere to the following guidelines:

Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.

Editors must treat all submitted papers as confidential.

Editors should inform peer reviewers about this Misconduct.

Editors should encourage peer reviewers to consider ethical issues raised by the research they are reviewing

Editors should request additional information from authors if they feel this is required.

Editors should exercise sensitivity when publishing images of objects that might have cultural significance or cause offence.

Editors should inform readers if ethical breaches have occurred.

Editors should encourage peer reviewers to identify if they have a conflict of interest with the material they are being asked to review, and editors should ask that peer reviewers decline invitations requesting peer review where any circumstances might prevent them producing fair peer review.

Editors may choose to use peer reviewers suggested by authors, but should not consider suggestions made by authors as binding.

Editors should mediate all exchanges between authors and peer reviewers during the peer-review process (i.e. prior to publication). If agreement cannot be reached, editors should consider inviting comments from additional peer reviewer(s), if the editor feels that this would be helpful. Journals should consider stating in their guidelines that the editor's decision following such an appeal is final.

Decisions by editors about whether to publish individual items submitted to a journal should not be influenced by pressure from the editor's employer, the journal owner or the publisher.

Editors should publish corrections if errors are discovered that could affect the interpretation of data or information presented in an article.

Editors should expect allegations of theft or plagiarism to be substantiated, and should treat allegations of theft or plagiarism seriously.

Editors should protect peer reviewers from authors and, even if peer reviewer identities are revealed, should discourage authors from contacting peer reviewers directly, especially if misconduct is suspected.

Editors should reserve the right to reject papers if there is doubt whether appropriate procedures have been followed. If a paper has been submitted from a country where there is no ethics committee, institutional review board, or similar review and approval, editors should use their own experience to judge whether the paper should be published. If the decision is made to publish a paper under these circumstances a short statement should be included to explain the situation.

Editors should aim to ensure timely peer review and publication for papers they receive, especially where, to the extent that this can be predicted, findings may have important implications.

The Editorial Board takes responsibility for making publication decisions for submitted manuscripts based on the reviewer’s evaluation of the manuscript, policies of the journal editorial board and legal restrain acting against plagiarism, libel and copyright infringement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

© Online Research Journals                                                             Privacy Policy <|> Terms of Use