IJCER conducts best practice guidelines in order to ensure that publication ethics are maintained throughout the publication processes. Therefore, it is essential for the journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers to adhere to the ethical policies. IJCER abides by the following principles defined by COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct) and principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing specified by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). (https://blog.doaj.org/2018/01/15/principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing-version-3/)
Duties of Editor
The editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. In doing so, the editor must not discriminate the authors based on race, gender, ethnic origin, religion and citizenship. Editors´ decision 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 aim of journal.
Editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher. Editors will ensure that material submitted remains confidential while under review.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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.
Peer review process
The editor must ensure that a double-blind peer review process is conducted efficiently.
Dealing with unethical behaviour
The editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher.
Duties of Author
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.
Originality and plagiarism
The author is responsible for the content, language, originality of the article. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” another´s paper as the author´s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another´s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of funding sources
Sources of funding for the research reported in the article should be duly acknowledged at the end of the article.
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. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Authors of papers 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 behaviour and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial opinion works should be clearly identified as such.
Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
Articles submitted must not be under consideration of any other journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour. The authors must also ensure that the article has not been published elsewhere.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author´s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Duties of Reviewers
Reviewers should review and send the review comments in due time period. If the article is not in the reviewer’s area of interest, then the manuscript must be sent back to editor so that the other reviewers can be assigned without losing time.
Reviewers are the main members contributing to the quality of the journal being a peer reviewed one. The reviewers who feel unqualified to review the received manuscript must promptly notify the editor and decline to review that manuscript.
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
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’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.