Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standards: 

The original research should be accurately described by the authors, along with a dispassionate analysis of its importance. Honesty is key when presenting research findings; no fabrication, falsification, or improper data modification should be used. A paper should include enough information and citations so that the work may be independently verified. It is unethical and unprofessional to make false or intentionally erroneous statements. Manuscripts must adhere to the journal's submission requirements.

2. Originality and Plagiarism:   

Authors need to make sure that the work they have produced is unique. Unless the editors have approved co-publishing, the paper should not be submitted simultaneously to more than one journal. It is important to appropriately acknowledge and cite pertinent prior research, both from the author's work and that of other scholars. Wherever possible, the main literature should be mentioned. Quotation marks and proper citations should be used around original text that has been obtained straight from other researchers' papers.

3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: 

The author shouldn't submit the same work to multiple journals at once. Additionally, it is anticipated that the author will refrain from publishing duplicate submissions or articles that repeat the same findings in many journals. It is immoral and improper to submit the same paper simultaneously to many journals as this is considered an unethical publishing practice. A single research project should be acknowledged in multiple publications, and the initial publication should be cited.

4. Acknowledgment of Sources: 

All data sources used in the study should be acknowledged, and publications that have influenced the character of the reported work should be cited. Others' contributions must always be duly acknowledged.

5. Authorship of the Paper: 

The authorship of research articles should correctly reflect individuals' contributions to the study and its reporting. Only individuals who have significantly influenced the idea, planning, execution, or interpretation of the published study should be able to claim authorship. Co-authors need to be mentioned if there have been any noteworthy contributions from others. Those who made less significant or merely technical contributions to the research or the publication are listed in an acknowledgment section when important contributors are listed as authors. Along with confirming that everyone has viewed and approved the submitted version of the work and their participation as co-authors, the authors additionally make this assurance.

6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 

Any financial or other material conflict of interest that could be interpreted to affect the manuscript's interpretation or outcomes should be declared by each author in their submission. Disclosure of all funding sources for the project is required.

7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: 

The author should contact the journal editor or publisher right once if they find a substantial error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, and they should work with the editor to retract or correct the work.

8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: 

If the study contains chemicals, processes, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author should make that evident in the paper.

Duties of Editors

1. Publication Decisions: 

The editor may approve, reject, or request changes to the submission based on the editorial board's review report. Such choices must always be based on the validity of the work in question and its significance to readers and scholars. The journal's editorial board regulations and any applicable laws about plagiarism, libel, and copyright infringement may serve as guidelines for the editors at that time. When deciding on this choice, the editors may consult with other editors or reviewers. In addition to having procedures and policies in place to guarantee the caliber of the content they publish and preserve the integrity of the published record; editors must accept responsibility for everything they publish.

2. Review of Manuscripts: 

The editor is responsible for making sure that every manuscript is first assessed for originality. Peer review should be arranged and used by the editor sensibly and fairly. In the material provided to authors, editors must elucidate their peer review procedures and specify which sections of the journal undergo peer review. When choosing peer reviewers for manuscripts that are up for publication, editors should look for individuals with sufficient experience and steer clear of those with conflicts of interest.

3. Fair Play: 

Every submission that the journal receives has to be evaluated for its intellectual value, independent of the author’s gender, sexual orientation, race, citizenship, or other characteristics. This is the editor's responsibility. Maintaining the ideal of editorial independence and integrity is crucial to the duty of making decisions that are impartial and fair. Since editors have a lot of authority when it comes to publishing decisions, this process must be as impartial and fair as possible.

4. Confidentiality: 

The editor is responsible for making sure that details about the authors' submitted articles are kept private. Editors should rigorously analyze any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. When appropriate, this also entails demanding fully informed consent for the research itself before publishing it.

5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 

Without the author's explicit authorization, the Journal's editor will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted work for his research. Editors with a conflict of interest should not be involved in decision-making regarding publications.

 

Duties of Reviewers

1. Confidentiality: 

Authors' submitted manuscripts should be treated as proprietary information and should be kept private. They may only be seen or discussed with others with the editor's permission.

2. Acknowledgement of Sources: 

Reviewers are responsible for confirming that authors have given credit to all data sources used in the study. Reviewers ought to locate pertinent published literature that the authors have not cited. The appropriate citation must be included with any claim that an observation, deduction, or argument has been previously published. If reviewers notice any irregularities, have doubts about the work's ethical aspects, notice a significant resemblance between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or an article that has been published, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, they should report these concerns to the journal right away. Reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and refrain from conducting their investigation until the journal requests it.

3. Standards of Objectivity: 

Reviewers must evaluate submitted manuscripts objectively, clearly articulating their opinions and providing evidence to support them; they must adhere to the journal's instructions regarding the specific feedback that is expected of them unless there are compelling reasons not to; they must be constructive in their reviews and offer feedback that will assist the authors in improving their manuscript; they must indicate which suggested additional investigations are necessary to support the claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will simply strengthen or extend the work.

4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: 

Ideas or privileged information that have undergone peer review must be kept private and not exploited for one's gain. Manuscripts containing conflicts of interest arising from competitive, cooperative, or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers should not be considered for consideration by reviewers. If they believe they know who the author(s) is(are) in a double-blind review, they should notify the journal if this information concerns any possible conflicts of interest.

5. Promptness: 

Reviewers ought to reply within a fair amount of time. Reviewers only accept to read a submission if they are reasonably certain they can return a review in the suggested or mutually agreed upon period, and they will promptly notify the journal if they need more time. Reviewers are required to notify the editor if they believe they will be unable to finish reviewing the submission in the allotted time, for the manuscript to be assigned to another reviewer.