Submission Policy-Publication Ethics
Papers submitted to Journals Era Publications must contain original material. The submitted paper, or any translation of it, must neither be published, nor be submitted for publication elsewhere.
Authors should not submit the same manuscript, in the same language simultaneously to more than one journal. The rationale for this standard is the potential for disagreement when two (or more) journals claim the right to publish a manuscript that has been submitted simultaneously to more than one journal, and the possibility that two or more journals will unknowingly and unnecessarily undertake the work of peer review, edit the same manuscript, and publish the same article.
Preparing of data and results, intellectual property theft and plagiarism are highly unacceptable, it is beyond the ethics of an author. Information obtained from various media can be provided in the manuscript only with prior permission from the owner of the source of information or data.
Authors should properly cite the work they are referring, authors are advised to cross check the reference before submission of manuscript that it has all the contents that a manuscript should have.
Authors and co-authors are requested to review and ensure the accuracy and validity of all the results prior to submission. Any potential conflict of interest should be informed to the editor in advance.
All authors are requested to submit the copyright transfer form without failure once they receive the acceptance of their article for publication.
Violations of these rules will normally result in an immediate rejection of the submission without further review.
General Peer-Review Process
In short, all manuscripts submitted for publication in our journals are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed. The review process is single blind. If the manuscript is accepted for full review, it will be reviewed by a minimum of two external reviewers.
Submitted manuscripts will undergo a detailed initial check including a Plagiarism Check in the Editorial Office. An Editor – usually the Editor-in-Chief or a board member of the journal – together with the Editorial Office takes charge of the peer-review process. It starts with a Preliminary Review by the Editor (finished no more than 10 days after manuscript submission).
After a manuscript is accepted for full review, the Editor will collect at least two review comments and prepare a decision letter based on the comments of the reviewers (finished no more than 4 weeks after preliminary review). The decision letter is sent to the Corresponding Author to request an adequate revision (peer-reviewed again whenever necessary). The author will be asked to format the manuscript according to SCIRP’s template before it goes into typesetting and proofreading with the publisher. The author will receive the paper in PDF produced by Journals Era for checking before it is published online.
Ethics committee approval
All articles dealing with original human or animal data must include a statement on ethics approval at the beginning of the Methods section. This paragraph must contain the following information: the name and address of the ethics committee responsible; the protocol number that was attributed by this ethics committee; and the date of approval by the ethics committee.
The paragraph could read, for example: "Ethical approval for this study (Ethical Committee N° NAC 207) was provided by the Ethical Committee NAC of Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, on 12 February 2007."
In addition and as stated above, for studies conducted on human participants you must state clearly that you obtained written informed consent from the study participants; please also look at the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. Similarly, for experiments involving animals you must state the care of animal and licensing guidelines under which the study was performed and report these in accordance with the ARRIVE (Animals in Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments) statement. If ethics clearance was not necessary, or if
there was any deviation from these standard ethical requests, please state why it was not required. Please note that the editors may ask you to provide evidence of ethical approval. If you have approval from a National Drug Agency (or similar) please state this and provide details, this can be particularly useful when discussing the use of unlicensed drugs.
Publication Ethics Statement
The Editor-in-Chief or Editor of the Journal is responsible for deciding which of the research papers or articles submitted to the journal should be published. The publishing decision is based on the recommendation of the journal's reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief or Editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringements and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief or Editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The Editor-in-Chief or Editor, Reviewers and any Editorial Staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, co-authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a Editor-in-Chief’s or Editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Technical papers will be published in the Journal after peer reviewing, under the “Blind Review” process. The reviewers advise the Editor-in-Chief or Editor in making the editorial decision. The Editor-in-Chief or Editor communicates with authors, as required, and helps them in improving quality of their research paper. The reviewers don't know the author's identity and Reviewers' comments to the editors are confidential and before passing on to the author will be made anonymous. The names of the reviewers remain strictly confidential; with their identities known only to the Editor-in-Chief or Editor.
The journal Editor-in-Chief or Editor are committed to provide timely review to the authors and if any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor-in-Chief or Editor and excuse him or her from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
The editors and reviewers are required to evaluate papers based on the content. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor-in-Chief's or Editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Duties of Authors
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Reviews and other articles should also be accurate and objective, and should unfailingly cite the work on which they are based.
Data Access and Retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language, and if the authors have used the work and / or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Plagiarism in any form, including the touting of material contained in another paper (of the same authors or some other author) with cosmetic changes as a new paper; copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), and claiming results from research conducted by others are among the numerous forms of plagiarism. In all its forms plagiarism constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration to another journal a previously published paper, or the one under consideration with another journal, without the written consent of the two journals involved.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written, permission from the source.
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors
are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or
interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal Editor-in-Chief or Editor or publisher and cooperate to retract or correct the paper.
If the Editor-in-Chief or Editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the Editor-in-Chief or Editor of the correctness of the original paper.