SJSSR adopts the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on publication ethics. We request our contributors, editors, reviewers and people encompassed in different steps of publication to follow the ethical guidelines to progress the significance of academic publishing.
There is no universally agreed definition of authorship, although attempts have been made (see Appendix). As a minimum, authors should take responsibility for a particular section of the study.
Authorship should be mentioned those who have made a significant contribution to the commencement, design, implementation, data collection and writing of the reported study. All individuals who have made noteworthy contributions in the manuscript build up should be listed as co-authors.
(1) The award of authorship should balance intellectual contributions to the conception, design, analysis and writing of the study against the collection of data and other routine work. If there is no task that can reasonably be attributed to a particular individual, then that individual should not be credited with authorship.
(2) To avoid disputes over attribution of academic credit, it is helpful to decide early on in the planning of a research project who will be credited as authors, as contributors, and who will be acknowledged.
(3) All authors must take public responsibility for the content of their paper. The multidisciplinary nature of much research can make this difficult, but this can be resolved by the disclosure of individual contributions.
(4) Careful reading of the target journal`s "Advice to Authors" is advised, in the light of current uncertainties
SJSSR request our authors for a statement that the submitted work to SJSSR and its material have not before been published and are not in being consideration for publication elsewhere.
All authors who submit to SJSSR are supposed to observe the international standards for authors voluntarily.
Conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest comprise those which may not be fully apparent and which may influence the judgment of author, reviewers, and editors.
They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.
They may be personal, commercial, political, academic or financial.
"Financial" interests may include employment, research funding, stock or share ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies and company support for staff
(1) Such interests, where relevant, must be declared to editors by researchers, authors, and reviewers.
(2) Editors should also disclose relevant conflicts of interest to their readers. If in doubt, disclose. Sometimes editors may need to withdraw from the review and selection process for the relevant submission.
Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others’ published and unpublished ideas, including research grant applications to submission under "new" authorship of a complete paper, sometimes in a different language.
It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing, or publication: it applies to print and electronic versions.
(1) All sources should be disclosed, and if large amounts, of other people are, written or illustrative material is to be used, permission must be sought.
For plagiarism detection we use universally acceptable ithenticate to detect the plagiarism of an article.
Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by editors to provide written opinions, with the aim of improving the study. Working methods vary from journal to journal, but some use open procedures in which the name of the reviewer is disclosed, together with the full or "edited" report.
(1) Suggestions from authors as to who might act as reviewers are often useful, but there should be no obligation on editors to use those suggested.
(2) The duty of confidentiality in the assessment of a manuscript must be maintained by expert reviewers, and this extends to reviewers’ colleagues who may be asked (with the editor`s permission) to give opinions on specific sections.
(3) The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied.
(4) Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors permission.
(5) Reviewers should provide speedy, accurate, courteous, unbiased and justifiable reports.
(6) If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should write in confidence to the editor.
(7) Journals should publish accurate descriptions of their peer review, selection, and appeals processes.
(8) Journals should also provide regular audits of their acceptance rates and publication times.
Reviewers of SJSSR are expected to meet the international standards for reviewers when they accept review invitations.