Publication Ethics and Malpractice

Medico Research Chronicles, is a Bi-monthly, open access, double – blind peer-reviewed publication. All individuals participating in the journal 's work in one capacity or the other are expected to follow appropriate ethical guidelines, since there is significant discouragement from misconduct.

Acceptance/ Rejection of Manuscript: The decision to either accept or reject the manuscript relies on the opinion of the editor-in - chief and co-editor, who are directed by rules of the editorial board of the journal and subject to certain legal standards as are in place with regard to marking, violation of copyright and plagiarism. Users are duly notified by e-mail regarding the status of their manuscript and can check themselves on the online journal management system from time-to time.

However, sending the manuscript for peer-review does not guarantee acceptance. The peer-reviewers’ comments play an important role in acceptance of the manuscript.

Time taken for editorial decision: Since inception, it has been a policy of journal to provide speedy decisions on the editorial decision without compromising on the quality of the journal. Normally, the decision takes around 1-2 weeks, but can be extended in exceptional circumstances.

Fair, unbiased decision: The editor-in-chief, editorial board and the journal's technical committee review manuscripts for its intellectual material, regardless of the authors' race, gender, gender, spiritual belief, ethnic origin, nationality or political philosophy.

Confidentiality: The editor, editorial team and team of experts will not reveal any information about a manuscript submitted to anyone except the corresponding author, potential editors, other editorial advisers and the publisher, as appropriate.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

Contribution to Editorial Decisions: To review the manuscripts submitted for content and consistency for journal publication, and to assist the editor in decision making to approve the manuscript.

Promptness: The appointed reviewer should be responsive in expressing readiness to review or not be able to examine the manuscript within 3 working days of being appointed by The Editor to him / her.

Confidentiality: Any manuscripts provided for review shall be considered as confidential. They are not to be displayed or shared with others except as approved by the publisher.

Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Checks will be carried out critically. The author's personal criticism is unacceptable. Referees should explicitly express their opinions with reasons that justify it.

Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewer should identify relevant published work which the authors have not cited. Any statement previously published of an interpretation, derivation, or argument should be followed by the related quotation.

It is also the responsibility of the reviewer to bring to the attention of the editor any significant resemblance or connection between both the manuscript under review or any other published paper they have direct experience of.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or suggestions gained by peer review shall be held confidential and shall not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should not accept publications in which they have conflicts of interest arising out of financial, contractual, or other relationships or associations with any of the authors, businesses, or organizations related to the papers.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

Reporting standards: Authors of original research articles must also provide an accurate and unaltered description of the work performed, and should include an informed explanation of its purpose. A manuscript must contain adequate information and references to allow a reproduction of the work by others. Fraudulent or willfully misleading declarations that comprise unethical behaviour and are inappropriate and may lead to disapproval of the manuscript, even after publication has been accepted and withdrawn.

Data Access and Retention: The editor reserved the authority to question the authors provide the original data for editorial review in conjunction with the manuscript, to validate the integrity of the manuscript and also to cross-check the data on request of the reviewer. The data should therefore be prepared, if practicable, to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable period of time following publication.

Originality and Plagiarism of Research: The authors should ensure that they have written completely original works, and that this has been appropriately cited or quoted if the authors have used the work and/or words of other people. Plagiarised manuscripts are duly rejected and the editor generates a Plagiarism report for each manuscript, which is sent as a supporting document to the reviewers.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: An author should not generally publish manuscripts in more than one journal or primary publication which describe essentially the same research. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes and is illegal unethical publishing behaviour; which can result in the author being blacklisted or barred from publishing in the journal.

Acknowledgement of Sources: Proper recognition of another's work must always be given. Authors should cite publications which have influenced the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those that have contributed substantially to the concept, design, implementation or analysis of the published research. Only those who have contributed substantially should be classified as co-authors. Where there are others who have taken part in some substantive aspects of the research project, they should be recognized as contributors or listed.

The corresponding author will ensure that all relevant co-authors and no unauthorized co-authors are included in the document, and that the final version of the document has been interpreted and accepted by all co-authors, and has agreed to its publication. Authors are requested not to grant guest authorship because it degrades the quality of the work published in the journal.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: If the work involves chemicals, processes or equipment with any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the researcher should explicitly define these in the document and list them.

Ethical clearance and patient consent: Studies requiring ethical approval must seek prior authorisation from an ethical committee. All intervention / experimental research must clarify the subjects of the study's possible benefits and risks and, ideally, should obtain a written consent. Journal reserves the right to request, for verification of the information given in the submitted paper, any documents relating to the same.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors must disclose any financial and other meaningful conflict of interest in their manuscript that could be construed to influence the outcomes or interpretation of their manuscript. They will report all aspects of finance support.

Fundamental errors in published works: If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his / her own published work, it is the author's obligation to notify the journal editor or publisher promptly and to cooperate with the editor in retracting or correcting the paper.

Timely communications: Authors are asked to respond in a timely manner to mails of communication sent by the publisher, as it affects the entire publishing cycle. Specific information should be given promptly where appropriate. Due to a delay in supplying the requisite data, the manuscript could be put on hold and miss the publication deadlines for that particular month, and published in the next month. All the communication regarding to the manuscript will be done on the email of corresponding authors given at the time of submission.