Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics

The Jitipari journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and taking all possible action against any publication malpractice. The Editorial Board is responsible, among other things, for preventing publication malpractice. Unethical behavior is unacceptable and Jitipari Journal does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors who submit articles: confirm that the contents of the manuscript are original. Furthermore, the author's submission also implies that the manuscript has not previously been published in any language, either in whole or in part, and is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors and reviewers, in the Jitipari Journal, are fully committed to good publication practices and accept responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set out by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. As part of its Core Practice, COPE has written guidelines at http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

Author assignment

  1. Reporting Standards: Authors must provide an accurate report of the original research conducted as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers must present their results truthfully and without improper fabrication, falsification or manipulation of data. A manuscript must contain sufficient detail and references to enable others to reproduce the work. Statements that are deceptive or intentionally inaccurate constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts must follow the journal's submission guidelines.
  2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written completely original work. Manuscripts may not be submitted simultaneously to more than one publication unless the editor agrees to joint publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and those of the authors, must be properly acknowledged and referenced. Primary literature should be cited whenever possible. Original words taken directly from publications by other researchers must appear in quotation marks with appropriate citations.
  3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: Authors generally should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish the same manuscript or research description manuscript in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior. The various publications that emerged from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the main publication should be referred to
  4. Acknowledgment of Sources: Authors must be aware of all data sources used in the research and cite influential publications in determining the nature of the work reported. Proper recognition of the work of others should always be given.
  5. Authorship of Papers: Writing of research publications must accurately reflect an individual's contribution to the work and its reporting. Writing should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the study being reported. Others who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to research or publication are listed in an acknowledgment section. The author also ensures that all authors have seen and approved the submitted version of the manuscript and the inclusion of their names as co-authors.
  6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: All authors must clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that could be construed to influence the outcome or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
  7. Fundamental Errors in Published Work: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a submitted manuscript, the author must immediately notify the editor of the journal or publisher and work with the editor to retract or amend the paper.

Editor's Task

  1. Publishing Decision: Based on the editorial board's review report, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The intended validation of the work and its importance to researchers and readers should always drive those decisions. Editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and limited by legal requirements that will apply regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors must be responsible for everything they publish and must have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of published records.
  2. Review of Manuscripts: The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for authenticity. Editors must manage and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should describe their peer-review process in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. Editors should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers considered for publication selecting those with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
  3. Fair Game: Editors must ensure that every manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for intellectual content without regard to gender, gender, race, religion, nationality, etc. From the author. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and impartial decisions is upholding the principles of editorial independence and integrity. Editors have a powerful position with making decisions about publication, which makes it very important that the process is as fair and as possible unbiased.
  4. Confidentiality: Editors must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors is kept confidential. Editors must critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Journal editors will not use unpublished material disclosed in submitted manuscripts for their own research without the written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in making decisions about papers that have a conflict of interest.

Reviewer Task

  1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors must be kept confidential and treated as protected information. They may not be shown or discussed with others except as permitted by the editors.
  2. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the study. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author. Any statement for which observations, derivations, or arguments have been previously reported must be accompanied by relevant citations. Reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they discover irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, become aware of substantial similarities between manuscripts and concurrent submissions to other journals or published articles, or suspect that infringements may have occurred either during research or in the writing and submission of manuscripts; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not investigate further privately unless the journal requests further information or advice.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be carried out objectively and reviewers must express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should follow the journal's directions as to what specific feedback is required of them and unless there is a good reason not to. Reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help authors to improve their manuscripts. The reviewer should explain which additional investigations are necessary to support the claims made in the text under consideration and which will only strengthen or extend the work.
  4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts to have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the paper. In the case of a double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author, notify the journal if this knowledge raises a potential conflict of interest.
  5. Accuracy: Reviewers must respond within a reasonable time frame. Reviewers only agree to review manuscripts if they are reasonably sure they can return for review within a proposed or mutually agreed upon timeframe, informing the journal immediately if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels that it is impossible to complete a manuscript review within the allotted time, this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript can be sent to other reviewers.