Guidelines

 1. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY THE EDITOR IN CASE OF DOUBTFUL DUPLICATE PUBLICATION

AS SOON AS THE PEER REVIEWER SUSPECTS DUPLICATION, HE REPORTS TO THE EDITOR, AND IN TURN, THE EDITOR CONVEYS THANKS AND REQUESTS THE PEER REVIEWER TO TRACE THE WRITTEN PROOF. 

THE EDITOR ALSO ASCERTAINS DUPLICATION QUANTITATIVELY AND QUALITATIVELY WITH THE CATEGORY OF DUPLICATION, WHETHER IT IS

  • Major (intolerable): When a major portion of the text/paper is duplicated without giving cross reference to the original publication just by changing only the names/places etc.
    • The editor gives a written letter/email to the concerned author [s] seeking their undertaking w.r.t. their text/paper is genuine and unpublished
    • Either author replies (after consulting with other authors) and admits his/their mistake.
    • In case of honest error, either the concerned author [s] admits honest error, or he expresses his unawareness of the journal’s rules, or he admits that he is a novice author. In all the cases, the editor insists concerned author [s] give cross reference to the original publication
    • If he simply keeps silent and If the duplication is a great extent, then it becomes unacceptable, and the same is rejected by the editor
    • When the author keeps silent, the editor contacts the “Head of the Department of Authors Institution” with a written letter and obtains acknowledgment, and follows up with him at an interval every 2-4 months.
  • Minor(acceptable with correction): When the editor is convinced that it is the case of a minor error,
    •  He contacts concerning author [s] and expresses his unhappiness
    •  He insists them to either remove the contents which have been duplicated or
    •  He requests authors to provide a cross reference of the original publication.
  • Minute (negligible): The editor contacts the concerned author [s] and suggests him to provide cross reference for the data translated/duplicated

2. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY THE EDITOR IN CASE OF DUPLICATION NOTICED AFTER PUBLICATION

NORMALLY IT IS NOTICED BY READERS, AND THEY POINT IT OUT TO THE CONCERNED EDITOR. THE EDITOR THANKFULLY ACCEPTS THEIR COMPLAINT AND ALSO SUGGESTS READERS TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE [IF POSSIBLE] TO EXPEDITE SUITABLE ACTION. THE EDITOR VERIFIES THE SAME AND ASCERTAINS THE QUANTUM OF DUPLICATION, AND CLASSIFIES THE RESEARCH TEXT/PAPER IN THREE CATEGORIES.

  •   Major – intolerable
  •   Minor [acceptable with correction]
  •   Or it is minute [negligible]
  •  Major (intolerable): When a major portion of the text/paper is duplicated without giving cross reference to the original publication by changing only the names/places etc.

Authors Responds

  •   Either author replies (after consulting with other authors) and admits his/their mistake.
  •   In case of honest error, concerned author[s] either admits honest error, or expresses his unawareness of journal’s rules or he admits that he is a novice author. In all the cases editor insists concerned author[s] give a cross reference of the original publication.

Authors don’t Respond

  •   He simply keeps silent. If the duplication is to a great extent, then it becomes unacceptable, and the editor rejects the same.
  •   When the author keeps silent, the editor contacts the “Head of the Department of Authors Institution” with a written letter, obtains acknowledgment, and follows up with him at an interval of every 2-4 months
  •  Minor (acceptable with correction): when the editor is convinced that it is the case of minor error,
    •   he contacts concerned author[s] and expresses his unhappiness
    •   Insists them to either remove the contents which have been duplicated or
    •   He requests authors to provide a cross reference of the original publication.
  •    Minute (negligible):  The Editor contacts the concerned author [s] and suggests providing a cross reference for the data translated/duplicated

Finally, the editor conveys the conclusion/actions taken to concerned readers.

3. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF DOUBTFUL PLAGIARISM FOUND IN MANUSCRIPT

 Editor simultaneously checks the quantum of copying/plagiarism, and he classifies it into four groups, 

  •   Major Plagiarism
  •   Minor Plagiarism
  •   Copying from the author’s own work
  •   Negligible Plagiarism
  •  Major Plagiarism: when the text/paper is entirely or major portion copied without giving an original author’s name, the editor takes the following actions 
    • Approaches concerned author with a written letter enclosing in addition to that ownership statement along with documentary proof of plagiarism
    • Either the concerned author replies or keeps silent.
    • If the author replies, either he tries to misguide the editor or accepts the mistake
    • If the author gives a misguiding answer, the editor writes to all authors stating rejection and also warns them to rectify their misbehavior.
    • If the author admits his honest error or is unaware of journal rules or he confirms that he is a beginner/novice researcher, the editor requests him to revise the submission giving proper cross-reference to the original publication & also warns for not to repeat.
    • Informs authors’ seniors or researcher’s guild with the written complaint with the guilty author [s] name
    • If the author keeps silent, the editor contacts all concerned authors and informs reality
    • If again there is no response from any of the authors, the editor approaches the supreme authority of the author’s institution and gives a complaint letter in writing mentioning facts and the guilty author [s] name
    • If still no action is taken by the institution, the editor follows up with the Head of the Department at regular intervals to blacklist the guilty author[s]
    • In all cases, the editor informs authors and concerned peer reviewers of the actions taken.
  • Minor Plagiarism: it applies when only idioms or slogans are copied. Although it is not considered a serious offense, the editor contacts the author and expresses his displeasure, and to maintain the journal’s reputation, he insists the author to either re-write idioms/slogans or mention the original writer/author/publication’s name.
    • Copying from author’s own work: Just contact the author to give proper self-reference.
    • Negligible Plagiarism: editor okays and informs the peer reviewer to go ahead

4. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF DOUBTFUL PLAGIARISM FOUND IN PUBLISHED TEXT/PAPER

Whenever a reader observes that plagiarism has taken place in a published text/paper, he points it out to the concerned editor. The editor thankfully accepts his complaint and also suggests readers to provide documentary evidence [if he has not submitted] to expedite suitable action. The editor verifies the same, ascertains the quantum of duplication, and classifies the research text/paper into two categories.

  •  (A) Major – contains massive plagiarized data, (B) Minor – i.e., copying idioms/slogans, etc.
  • (A) Major – contains massive plagiarized data :
    •  The editor contacts the concerned author with a written letter enclosing therewith a signed ownership statement with original proof of plagiarism
    •   In turn, the author either gives a reply with a misleading statement/accepts the mistake, or keeps a silence
    •  In both cases, the editor contacts other concerned authors.
    •  If the author gives an unacceptable reply, the editor contacts all the authors and ascertains their future course of action 
    •  If the author makes a convincing reply/accepts honest error/expresses unawareness of journal rules/represents himself as a beginner researcher.
    •   Editor informs all the concerned authors, calls for explanation and warns for correct behavior.
    •  Editor gives retraction notice to all concerned along with other journals/publishers involved in the plagiarized book.
    •  Whether the author replies or keeps silent, the editor informs the senior authority of authors as well as the head of the department of the authors guild.
    •  If the authors’ guild does not take corrective actions, the editor continuously follows up with them at regular intervals.
    •  The editor simultaneously informs the action taken by him to the concerned author.
    •  The editor also informs the reader and other adversely affected authors due to plagiarism.
  • (A) Minor – i.e., copying idioms/slogans, etc. :
    • Editor approaches with a grim face to the concerned author and makes him aware of the journal’s reputation and insists on mentioning the original author’s/publisher’s name
    • The editor informs the reader and the original author/journal whose text/paper is plagiarized to take suitable actions.

5. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF DOUBTFUL FABRICATED DATA FOUND IN MANUSCRIPT

During the review, the peer reviewer detects that the data contained in the research text/paper is manipulated/fabricated, he immediately informs the editor, and in turn, the editor conveys thanks and insists him to provide written proof for enabling him to take suitable actions. The editor also requests a second peer reviewer to scrutinize whether the allegation is correct or not. After being convinced, the editor contacts the author and asks him to give an explanation, although he does not allege directly.

  • In turn, the author either replaces or keeps the silence.
    • If the author keeps silent, the editor contacts all the remaining authors.
    • The author replies either by giving a reasonable reply or by misleading/accepting fault.
    • If the author gives a suitable reasonable, and acceptable reply, then the editor apologizes to the author and informs the peer reviewer to go ahead.
    • If the author gives a misleading reply/accepts fault, the editor informs all the concerned authors to take up the matter with the authors’ institution/guild for detailed scrutiny/review.
    • The editor approaches the authors’ guild with a request to interrogate the matter. He takes the same action if the authors do not respond primarily.
    • The author’s guild cross-examines the case and concludes either author is innocent or the author is found guilty.
    • If the author is found innocent, the editor apologizes to the author and gives feedback to the peer reviewer to go ahead.
    • If the author is found guilty, the editor rejects the text/paper and informs the reviewer of the final decision.

6. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF DOUBTFUL FABRICATED DATA FOUND IN PUBLISHED ARTICLE

  When a published article reaches readers, readers go through the same. In case reader[s] detects/doubts data shown in the published article is manipulated/fabricated, he immediately contacts the editor. He shares his viewpoint and graciously welcomes the same. He also assures him to take suitable corrective actions. He then contacts another peer reviewer for ascertain his opinion.

After getting a second opinion from the peer reviewer, the editor approaches the author to express his concern with a request to submit the original workings of the data calculation.

In turn, either 1) the Author responds or 2) keeps silence

  •  If author responds, either [A] the author gives a misleading reply [B] author gives an acceptable and logical reply.
  •  If the author gives a misleading reply, keep informed all the concerned authors and editor threats regarding the disciplinary future action plan.
  •  Editor contacts authors’ guild and requests for detailed scrutiny.
  •  In the inquiry, If an author is found responsible, then the editor publishes a retraction/disclaimer/withdrawal.
  •  In the inquiry, If an author is found innocent, the editor begs an apology.
  •  If the authors’ guild is not responding or gives a negative reply, then the editor publishes a letter of expression of concern and updates reader[s] about the conclusion.

B. If the author gives an acceptable and logical reply, begs apology from the author, and then the editor publishes a corrigendum in case of honest error and also informs concerned reader[s]

7. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF ADDING OWNERSHIP i.e. HOW TO PROCEED WHEN AUTHOR REQUESTS FOR INCLUDING ANOTHER AUTHOR’S NAME PRIOR TO PUBLISHING AN ARTICLE

  • When an author approaches a journal editor for the addition of ownership, the editor has to ascertain the exact reason. In case the editor is successfully convinced. He has to insist on obtaining written approval from all the authors concerned.
  • Now there are two probabilities.
  •  All the concerned authors agree to the inclusion of an additional author and give written approval.
  •  After getting written approval, an editor has to complete the journal’s existing formalities with the help of a new author.
  •  Finally, the editor updates the ownership list, i.e. Authors’ full list with details & completes publication formalities.
  •  All or any of the concerned authors do not agree to the inclusion of an additional author. In this case, an editor has to withhold publishing work till the dispute among the authors is sorted out

8. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF ELIMINATING OWNERSHIP, i.e., HOW TO PROCEED WHEN AUTHOR REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION OF ANOTHER AUTHOR’S NAME PRIOR TO PUBLISHING AN ARTICLE

  • When an author approaches the journal editor for the REMOVAL of ownership, the editor has to ascertain the exact reason. In case the editor is successfully convinced. He has to insist on obtaining written approval from all the authors concerned.
  • Now there are two probabilities.
  • All the concerned authors agree to the DELETION of an EXISTING author and give written approval.
  •  After getting written approval, the editor has to rectify the journal’s existing list and show deleted author’s name in acknowledgment [if desired by all the authors]

  Finally, the editor updates the ownership list, i.e., the Authors’ full list with details & completes publication formalities.

 All or any of the concerned authors do not agree to the EXCLUSION of an EXISTING author. In this case, an editor has to withhold publishing work until the dispute among the authors is sorted out.

9. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF ADDING OWNERSHIP AFTER PUBLISHING OF AN ARTICLE i.e., HOW TO PROCEED WHEN AUTHOR REQUESTS FOR ADDITION OF ANOTHER AUTHOR’S NAME AFTER PUBLISHING AN ARTICLE

  • When an author approaches the journal editor for the addition of EXTRA ownership, the editor has to ascertain the exact reason. In case the editor is successfully convinced, He has to insist on obtaining written approval from all the concerned authors ADDING EXTRA ownership.
  • Now there are two possibilities.
  •  All the concerned authors agree to the inclusion of an additional author and give written approval.
  •  After getting written approval, an editor has to complete the journal’s existing formalities with the help of a new author.
  •  Finally, the editor updates the ownership list, i.e., Authors’ full list with details & publishes the corrected [revised] list
  •  All or any of the concerned authors do not agree to the inclusion of an additional author. In this case, an editor has to express his inability to do the needful until and unless all the authors are agreeable

10. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF ELIMINATING OWNERSHIP AFTER PUBLICATION, i.e., HOW TO PROCEED WHEN AUTHOR REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION OF ANOTHER AUTHOR’S NAME AFTER PUBLISHING AN ARTICLE

When an author approaches the journal editor for the REMOVAL of ownership, the editor has to ascertain the exact reason. In case the editor is successfully convinced. He has to insist on obtaining written approval from all the authors concerned.

Now, If

  •   All the existing authors give reasonable and justified convincing answers for exclusion, then the editor publishes suitable corrections, and the matter is concluded.
  •   All or any author raises the alarm indicating data manipulation, and then the editor refers illustration of the stated data manipulation.
  •    There may be differences of opinion among the authors regarding the explanation. In this case, the editor gives an opportunity to all the authors to clarify, and if he is convinced, he may promise to publish both replies with a correct and logical reason, but it should not be offensive.

The next process is classified into the following two sub-groups.

  •   If all authors give a suitable reply, the editor publishes all the letters. In case a reply is not received from all the authors, he publishes a minority-view letter.
  •  Authors either keep silent or reply in discourteous language.

In both cases, an editor publishes a correction indicating the removal of an author’s name ONLY AFTER getting approval from all the authors.

11. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF DOUBTFUL GUEST/GHOST/GIFT AUTHOR DETECTED*

(Actions may vary from journal to journal, which are based on their internal process)

  • First of editor is supposed to evaluate Ownership Statement [submitted by authors while submitting text] in the receipt department of a journal and send a copy of the same to all the concerned authors for verification with a request to specify the contribution quantum of each concerned author.
  • After getting back the authors’ list from all the authors, he has to reconcile all statements.
  • The list may not show somebody’s name, but there may be contributions i.e., GHOST AUTHOR
  • The editor is to insist on the inclusion of the missing author.
  • Get written approval from all the remaining authors with reference to the journal’s policy.
  • & editor has to treat the matter seriously and also involve their Institution’s H.O.D.
  • The list may show the name of author included without any contribution, i.e., GUEST/GIFT AUTHOR.
  • In this case, the editor should insist on eliminating the name of GUEST/GIFT AUTHOR and can agree to show the name of such authors in the ‘Acknowledgement Portion’ if required. He can refer to the publication policy journal. An editor has to treat the matter seriously and should involve their Institution’s HOD.
  • The list is perfectly found alright, and if so, the editor proceeds with the normal procedure for review and publication.
  • The list is misleading and creates suspense: In this case, the editor can find out [with the help of Google] whether anybody has any objection/ownership of relevant research and take suitable actions accordingly

12. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN WHEN DOUBTFUL HIDDEN CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN A MANUSCRIPT

While reviewing, as soon as the peer reviewer comes to know that there is a hidden conflict of interest in a manuscript, He immediately informs the editor. In turn, the editor expresses gratitude and entrusts him with an in-depth inquiry. The editor approaches author and expresses his pain.

I. In turn, either author/owner shares the facts and factual

  • In turn, either the author/owner shares the facts and factual.
  • The editor gets delighted but makes author understand the significance of the omission.
  • He rectifies competing interest statements as per the law.
  • He completes all the remaining formalities regarding review and publication.
  • He also gives feedback to peer reviewers with updated status.
  • OR
    • If the author/owner disagrees, the editor refers journal’s policy and insists on submitting letters in writing regarding conflict of interest

13. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN WHEN DOUBTFUL HIDDEN CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN A PUBLISHED ARTICLE

  • While reading, as soon as the reader comes to know that there is a hidden conflict of interest in a published article/text/paper,
  • He immediately informs editor.
  • The editor expresses thankfulness and entrusts him with a detailed probe.
  • The editor approaches author and expresses his sorrow.
  • In turn, either the author/owner shares the reality.
  • The editor conveys thanks but makes author understand the significance of omission.
  • He rectifies competing interest statements as per law.
  • He completes all the remaining formalities regarding review and publication.
  • He also gives feedback to the concerned reader with updated status.

OR

  • If the author/owner disagrees, the editor refers journal’s policy and insists on submitting letters in writing regarding conflict of interest.

14. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN WHEN DOUBTFUL MORAL PROBLEM IN A MANUSCRIPT

Generally, the moral problem is detected by a peer reviewer [barring some cases when the editor himself finds such problems] and reports to the editor. In turn, the editor requests him to get the manuscript to be scrutinized with words of thanks. After receiving a scrutiny report from a peer reviewer, the editor contacts the author and insists on an explanation.

Resultantly there can be two options from the author

  • The author gives a reasonably logical reply: in this case, the editor expresses regret and informs the peer reviewer about the conclusion and requests for the re-starting review process.
  • The author gives an unacceptable or vague reply or Keeps silent: in both cases,
  • The editor gives notice to the author to keep the review process pending till a suitable reply is received from author.
  • The editor also sends copies of the above notice to the senior authority of the concerned author or his research institution’s head of department
  • If the editor gets a judicious reply, he concludes the matter & informs peer reviewer about conclusion with a request to re-start review process
  • If the editor does not get any reply or gets an inadequate answer, he follow-ups with authors’ guild regularly with an interval of 2-4 months till he gets final verdict Meanwhile, he instructs peer reviewer to keep reviewing work pending

15. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN WHEN REVIEWER STEALS ANY AUTHOR’S DATA i.e. MISREPRESENTATION

  • Either to opt for open review where peer reviewer’s name is disclosed
  • In this case, the editor tries to get maximum possible evidences to find out the real culprit, and gets the same checked through competent person. There will be two probabilities
  • Result not clear: In this case, the editor requests author to submit more proofs and then the process starts as follows
  • The result is clear and reviewer has found the culprit: In this case, editor issues a letter indicating all the facts and gives him a chance to explain/give clarification. Here also there are two options
  • Either peer reviewer replies with logical answer and in such case, the editor gives feedback to the author
  • Or he keeps silence or gives misleading answer. If an editor is convinced, he forgives reviewer and gives feedback to the author. If not convinced, editor contacts reviewers’ guild with a request to have probe
  • If the reviewer, found the culprit, then he is fired [i.e. Services are terminated]
  • If the reviewers’ guild does not respond, then editor contacts them regularly with an interval of 2-4 months till the matter is concluded
  • In all the case, the editor keeps concerned author updated with the latest status.
  • Or to opt for secret review: in such cases, there are two methods
  • All the steps indicated above are taken
  • Author complains to editor by specifying somebody’s name who was not at all responsible for review work. In this case following steps are taken
  • Editor tries to find out the relation between the actual reviewer and the person whose name is referred by the author
  • Editor approaches concerned reviewer and asks his explanation and analyses the process i.e. identifies the persons who all were involved during the review process and updates author
  • In both the cases, declaring the reviewer’s name is optional for an editor, which depends upon the supreme authority of the journal’s policy/approval

16. ACTIONS BEING TAKEN BY “O.A.R.S.” WHEN GRIEVANCES RECEIVED AGAINST MEMBER JOURNALS

All grievances are received and handled by our “GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM” by scrutinizing in details.In depth reports are made by senior executives of “Grievances Redressal Forum “as per illustrations Of OARS which includes the following steps

  • First of all, senior executive gets convinced that grievance reported is against OARS member only
  • The grievance is within the purview of OARS illustrations
  • The grievance is dated after the date of inception of OARS
  • The system followed for submitting grievance is followed as per OARS illustrations
  • The grievance contains all necessary details
  • After checking all the above parameters, the senior executive forwards the formal complaint to journal. He also contacts OARS Council Member. In this meeting they conclude the matter as follow
  • All of them agrees that journal has really committed a fault
  • They all may not agree to accept journal’s fault in this case they insist for other documentary evidence and inquiry
  • The matter is then forwarded to OARS Sub Group members [which is consist of senior executives of “Grievances Redressal Forum “, OARS executive, two other OARS Council Members
  • The OARS Sub Group members investigate and makes a statement
  • Such report is forwarded to OARS Chair Person for final approval [except faulty journal]
  • Approved report is forwarded to editor for correcting mistakes and a copy of the same is also marked
  • to OARS Council Member & also to accuser (i.e. The person who complained)