Online Research Journals
adopts the Committee on Publication Ethics
Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal
Editors on publication ethics.
ORJ follow the under
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
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
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
prompt action to be taken.
Authors of ORJ must adhere to the following guidelines:
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
It is unethical to submit a manuscript to more than one
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
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
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
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
The submitted manuscript should not be retained or
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.
reviewers assigned to an article will comment on the
* The importance, originality, and timeliness of the
* 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
* 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
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
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.