All the journals of House of Scientific Research follow the publication ethics guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The publisher is committed to publishing original research and following COPE guidelines to address misconduct and misrepresentation of research results. The following ethics topics are considered when publishing a paper:
The manuscript must be submitted to only one journal at a time. Submitting to more than one journal at the same time is unethical.
Previously published work cannot be considered for publication. However, a major extension of a published paper may be considered with proper citation and acknowledgement.
Outcomes from a single research project must not be split into several parts to increase the number of papers and submitted to multiple journals or to the same journal several times.
Use original data during the research. Fabrication or manipulation of data (including images) is unethical.
If the author(s) use any theories, definitions, data or text from other documents, proper acknowledgements must be given ('plagiarism'). Quotation marks are used for verbatim copying of material. Permission is required for copyrighted material from the appropriate authority.
The corresponding author will collect the consent from all authors and from the responsible authorities prior to submission of the paper.
It is assumed that all authors have contributed sufficiently to the submitted work; therefore, all are responsible and accountable for the results.
The corresponding author and order of authors cannot be changed after acceptance of the paper. But such changes may be considered at the revision stage with proper justification. Submit a justification letter with the revised version.
If needed, to verify the data or results, the authors should agree to send relevant documents or data. This may be raw data, samples, records, etc. Confidential data may be excluded.
The manuscript must be submitted to only one journal at a time. Submitting to more than one journal at the same time is unethical.
Previously published work cannot be considered for publication. However, a major extension of a published paper may be considered with proper citation and acknowledgement.
Outcomes from a single research project must not be split into several parts to increase the number of papers and submitted to multiple journals or to the same journal several times.
Use original data during the research. Fabrication or manipulation of data (including images) is unethical.
If the author(s) use any theories, definitions, data or text from other documents, proper acknowledgements must be given ('plagiarism'). Quotation marks are used for verbatim copying of material. Permission is required for copyrighted material from the appropriate authority.
The corresponding author will collect the consent from all authors and from the responsible authorities prior to submission of the paper.
It is assumed that all authors have contributed sufficiently to the submitted work; therefore, all are responsible and accountable for the results.
The corresponding author and order of authors cannot be changed after acceptance of the paper. But such changes may be considered at the revision stage with proper justification. Submit a justification letter with the revised version.
If needed, to verify the data or results, the authors should agree to send relevant documents or data. This may be raw data, samples, records, etc. Confidential data may be excluded.
In case of misconduct, the journal will investigate in accordance with COPE guidelines. After a thorough investigation, if the allegation raises valid concerns, the journal will inform the author and ask them to address the issue. If misconduct has been proved without any doubt, then either the Editor-in-Chief or the publisher will take the following measures:
If the article is still under review, we must reject it and return it to the author.
If the article has already been published online, we will either publish an erratum with the article or fully retract it with a reason.
The author’s institution may be informed.
The peer review policy ensures the journal publishes accurate, high-quality scientific work for the scientific community. This policy also helps authors improve the quality of the work they present. Revisions and improvements are part of the publication process. If the manuscript is rejected, the authors will learn the reason.
Benefit of peer review: Reviewers may point out missing parts of the paper. They may suggest adding an explanation, theory, data, or additional experiments. Sometimes the work presented in the paper is very good, but poor presentation makes it difficult to understand. Reviewers can suggest ways to present the work so you can improve it. Expert reviewers can verify the originality and correctness of the work and consider its importance to others in the same field. Peer review also helps ensure that published papers are accurate and high quality. All papers submitted to our journals are reviewed by sincere, expert reviewers to maintain manuscript standards through the following procedure.
Initial evaluation: The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor first evaluates the paper. If it is found that the manuscript is insufficiently original, has serious scientific flaws, has poor writing, or is outside the aims and scope of the journal, then the paper is returned to the authors. If the paper meets these criteria, we send it to at least two experts for review.
Type of review: We follow the double blind review. In this case, neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.
Selection of reviewers: Depending on the nature of the manuscript, we select reviewers from our continuously updated database and from the submitted paper's reference list.
Referee reports: Normally, referees check the following issues: (i) Originality, (ii) scientific correctness, (iii) adherence to ethical guidelines, (iv) clear presentation, (v) correct citation of previous works.
Review time: Normally, it takes 4 to 6 weeks, but it actually depends on the reviewers' response. If all reviewers accept the manuscript, the process moves quickly. If the referees disagree, the journal will seek further expert opinion. If major revision is required, then the review process will be delayed.
Final report: Based on the reviewers' report, the Editor will make the decision. The manuscript may be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees for revision, or the Editor can accept the paper. The Editor may forward revised manuscripts to the original referees for a final recommendation.
Benefit of peer review: Reviewers may point out missing parts of the paper. They may suggest adding an explanation, theory, data, or additional experiments. Sometimes the work presented in the paper is very good, but poor presentation makes it difficult to understand. Reviewers can suggest ways to present the work so you can improve it. Expert reviewers can verify the originality and correctness of the work and consider its importance to others in the same field. Peer review also helps ensure that published papers are accurate and high quality. All papers submitted to our journals are reviewed by sincere, expert reviewers to maintain manuscript standards through the following procedure.
Initial evaluation: The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor first evaluates the paper. If it is found that the manuscript is insufficiently original, has serious scientific flaws, has poor writing, or is outside the aims and scope of the journal, then the paper is returned to the authors. If the paper meets these criteria, we send it to at least two experts for review.
Type of review: We follow the double blind review. In this case, neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.
Selection of reviewers: Depending on the nature of the manuscript, we select reviewers from our continuously updated database and from the submitted paper's reference list.
Referee reports: Normally, referees check the following issues: (i) Originality, (ii) scientific correctness, (iii) adherence to ethical guidelines, (iv) clear presentation, (v) correct citation of previous works.
Review time: Normally, it takes 4 to 6 weeks, but it actually depends on the reviewers' response. If all reviewers accept the manuscript, the process moves quickly. If the referees disagree, the journal will seek further expert opinion. If major revision is required, then the review process will be delayed.
Final report: Based on the reviewers' report, the Editor will make the decision. The manuscript may be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees for revision, or the Editor can accept the paper. The Editor may forward revised manuscripts to the original referees for a final recommendation.