To ensure that MedScience Journals aspire to select, through peer review, the highest quality science, MedScience follows important ethical principles and decisions, which are seldom explicitly stated and even less often shared with the readership. Here we summarized the comprehensive policy on publication ethics, which addresses all the major areas of ethics we believe contemporary science journals should consider.
Ethical guidelines for Authors
MedScience Journals expects that authors present accurate, original and objective research in the form of manuscripts. The authors are expected to preserve the raw data and any other valuable information related to the research. The editorial board may review the raw data in relation to the manuscript under publication consideration. The authors are expected to cite properly the publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. The authors are advised not to publish same manuscripts in more than one journal at the same time. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one Journal or publication will be considered unethical. Such behaviour is convicting and unacceptable. It is the responsibility of the authors to promptly notify editors about the errors and cooperate with them to withdraw or correct the submitted manuscript.
Ethical guidelines for Editors:
Editors play an important role in scholarly publishing Journal’s. MedScience Journals accept prominent personalities in various research fields, who could carry out their responsibilities with much dedication to improve the quality of the Journal. The editors will be accountable for evaluating the quality quotient of the articles submitted for publication in Journal of Medical Research and Surgery. The editors should ensure that the articles are evaluated according to journal guidelines and constructive feedback is provided to the authors in order to enhance the quality of the articles.
The editors are expected not to disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author(s), reviewers and other concerned members of the editorial board.
The editors should ensure that they complete the review process within stipulated time so that manuscripts are processed and reach the publication stage on fast track basis. The consistency in publication will also enforce a feeling of trust among the authors.
Guidelines to be followed
- The typical responsibility of an editor is the management of the peer review of manuscripts by reviewers so editor should always be available to take complete responsibility and authority to accept a submitted paper for publication, Major/Minor Corrections or to reject it
- Based on the field of research (or) subject, editor will assign submitted manuscript to a reviewer for the peer review process.
- Editors should ideally consider at least two reviewers comments on a paper to make a decision and may confer with other editors or editor-in-chief for an evaluation to use in making this decision.
- An editor should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its relevance to the remit of the journal, originality and scientific merits without regard to their personal interest, race, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
- Editors should actively seek the views of authors, readers, reviewers and other editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes to attract high-quality submissions.
- Editors should monitor the performance of peer reviewers and also should ready to justify any important deviation from the described peer review process.
- Should write an editorial for every 6 months based on current trends of the research field which Journal deals with
Can suggest appropriate Journal for authors, if the article is not within the scope Journal
Duties of Peer Reviewers
- Confidentiality: Reviewers should not share any information from an assigned manuscript with outsiders without the prior permission from the Editor or preserve the data from an assigned manuscript.
- Competence: Reviewer with fair expertise should complete the review. Assigned Reviewer with inadequate expertise should feel responsible and may decline the review as it is presumed that reviewer will be an expert in the respective field.
- Constructive assessment: Reviewer comments should appreciate positive aspects of the work, identify negative aspects constructively, and indicate the enhancement needed. A reviewer should explain and support his or her judgment clearly enough that Editors and Authors can understand the basis of the comments. The reviewer should ensure that an observation or argument that has been previously reported be accompanied by a relevant citation and should immediately alert the Editor when he or she becomes aware of duplicate publication. A reviewer should not use any kind of abusive language while commenting on an article. Judgment of each article should be done without any bias and personal interest by the assigned reviewer.
- Impartiality and Integrity: Reviewer’s decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, scope of the journal rather than financial, racial, ethnic origin etc., of the authors.
- Disclosure of conflict of interest: To the extent feasible, the reviewer should minimize the conflict of interest. In such situation, reviewer should notify the editor describing the conflict of interest.
- Timeliness and responsiveness: Reviewers should morally abide to provide the review comments within the stipulated time and be active enough in responding to the queries raised by the editor if any.