Suggestions

Introduction

The OARS guideline for Research Journal Editor is intended to provide a set of tools for streamlined research editorial process to which all OARS associates are expected to strictly follow. These suggested guidelines are more helpful and were refined based on feedback received from Journal Editors. It serves as a hand tool for solving a comprehensive set of complicated moral problems in publishing a research journal. We take suitable actions against associates who are not strictly following it, we also realize that the editors may not be able to obey all the proposals (hence they are kept optional), but we are sure that our proposals will definitely enhance basic features of journal policy which will boost regular reviews, judgments and decisions.

 

Association with authors

Research Journal should reflect detailed procedure for making an appeal by Researchers to reviewer/editor's decision.

  • *Editorial Board has to be empowered to accept papers on its weighted basis only which are unpublished, original and having clarity and validity.
  • Editorial Board should not change their decisions once the submission is accepted unless there is a major setback in the accepted norms.
  • Submissions once accepted by previous editors should not be rejected by existing editors unless same is found totally unacceptable in the defined norms.
  • Editors are supposed to justify important deviation [if any] from the published peer review procedure
  • There should be defined method in journal enabling authors to plea against the decisions of editor s
  • Publication of guidelines [with regular updating] by editors indicating all “Dos” & “Don’t Dos”
  • Editors should release guidelines showing benchmarks for enlistment of prospective authors.

 

Expectations from editors

Concerned editors are answerable for whatever is published in their Research Journals. This means the Journal editors

  • Should try continuously to put efforts for improving quality of their journal
  • Should have rigid and foolproof quality control measures for the journal they launch
  • Should try his level best to fulfill the requirements of its readers
  • Are expected to be an expert in communicating their views without fear
  • Should be able to sustain the reliability of the journal records
  • Should be innovative and support author’s innovations
  • Should use the latest software and tools to manage journal and technically sound to meet requirements in this ever-changing world
  • Should not compromise intellectual property and moral standards merely for materialistic gains
  • Are expected to act vigorously after getting feedback/realizing their mistakes by using proper tools viz. Corrections, clarifications, disclaimers & apologies whenever required.

 

Ideal expectations from editors

  • To make sure that all published journals/papers are properly reviewed and approved by expert reviewers.
  • To categorize visibly non-peer reviewed section of the journal.
  • To ensure foolproof system for detecting and correcting errors, applying technical tools, guidelines and checklist for enabling to release perfect journal.
  • Should use professional and reliable tools to detect plagiarism at the early stage
  • To be able to implement crystal clear policy to expose the original source of non-research papers/general articles/review articles.
  • To work out such a foolproof device which rewards genuine researcher/editors and reprimand the guest author and award ghost authors.
  • To pledge to readers for promising impartial assessment of the papers submitted by the editorial board.

 

Association  with  Authors

      Research Journal should reflect detailed procedure for making an appeal by Researchers to reviewer/editor's decision. 

    • Editorial Board has to be empowered to accept papers on its weighted basis only which are unpublished, original and having clarity and validity.
    • Editorial Board should not change their decisions once the submission is accepted unless there is a major setback in the accepted norms.
    • Submissions once accepted by previous editors should not be rejected by existing editors unless same is found totally unacceptable in the defined norms
    • Editors are supposed to justify important deviation [if any] from the published peer review procedure
    • There should be defined method in journal enabling authors to plea against the decisions of editors.
    • Publication of guidelines [with regular updating] by editors indicating all “Dos” & “Don’t Dos”
    • Editors should release guidelines showing benchmarks for enlistment of prospective authors.

 

Best practice for editors would include

 

IDEAL  GUIDELINE  FOR  EDITORS

    • Editors should respond to authors’ queries with suggestions of appropriate links
    • Editors are expected to issue publication oferratum if any errors are discovered after publication.
    • Editors should make sure that only suitable and talented reviewers who are expert in their field and free from any ineligibility are selected
    • Editors should honor author’s justified decision for not assigning work to a particular reviewer


The editor should refer OARS guidelines whenever disputes regarding plagiarism arise 

  • To find out solution with the help of the OARS manual whenever a disagreement between author and editors arises.
  • To make concerned people aware of modus operandi how the delinquency is to be tackled.
  • To make readers aware of the dates when the paper was submitted, acceptedand published

REGULATIONS – Cum – GUIDELINE FOR JOURNAL EDITORS

 

Association  with  reviewers

  • Reviewers should be given all the directions by editors including assurance of tackling confidentially all the submitted article. The directions should be validated/authenticated periodically.
  • Reviewers should be motivated to unearth anticipated conflicting research topics/subjects at the initial stage.
  • Editors should have an effective secured system for maintaining secrecy/confidentialities of names of authors and reviewers unless they have adopted a transparent system

 

Guidelines  for  editors

  • Motivate reviewers to share their opinion onethical issues that may arise after publishing article while reviewing an article. [viz. Presentation, fraudulent data, animal, religion, racism etc.]
  • Motivating reviewers to maintain uniqueness in author’s submissions and to avoid plagiarism.
  • Reviewers are equipped with proper software to correlate/refer similar papers e.g. Bibliographic Managers etc.
  • Motivating institution to identify peer review activities as a portion of the academic process.
  • Passing on the reviewers’ original remarks to authors if the same is not too much objectionable.
  • Pursuing to recognize contributors to the journal.
  • Evaluating peer reviewers’ functioning and takes corrective measures for maintaining quality
  • keeping detailed records of selected reviewers based on their functioning and interests.
  • Discouraging the disqualified reviewers whose performance is not acceptable with regard to quality and time
  • Refers guidelines from OARS manual whenever reviewer’s behavior found doubtful
  • Makes sure that the reviewers’ database is useful to journal users’ society and also enrolls new entrants.
  • Uses various tools to invite/recognize potential fresh reviewers

 

Relations with reviewers

 

Interactions  with  editorial  board  members

             Editors are expected to guide editorial board associates with regular updating of revised policies and developments.
      Ideal policy for editors should contain:

  • policy should reflect the system of treating the submissions from editorial board members which ensure impartial assessment
  • Selection of experienced editorial board members who can apply their expertise to ensure quality journal
  • The main responsibility of editors should include
  • Periodical appraisal of incorporation of board
  • Communicate editorial board members properly with regard to expectations, duties which may include
  • [a] to act as emissaries of the journal
  • [b] Sponsoring and encourage marketing of journal
  • [c] Provide best possible inputs such as writing editorials, reviews, comments, clarifications to get the best output
  • [d] Participating and sharing ideas to editorial board meetings.
  • Reviewing with editorial board member sannually to share and views inviting suggestions for qualitative improvements for the journal as well as for relevant policies to overcome threats.

https://AssociationofResearch.org Relations with reviewers

 

Partnerships  with  journal  owners  and  publishers

  • Interactions from editors to publishers and owners frequently invites conflicts but it must not harm on liberty of editors.
  • Editors should be independently allowed to take a suitable decision for accepting quality articles for publishing without any intervention from owner/publisher.
  • Editors should have a written agreement clearly an indication of their commitments and obligations with the journal’s owner and/publisher.
  • The terms & conditions of the Agreement should be conforming to the OARS Regulations for Journal Editors.

 

The  best  method  for  editors  should  include

  • work out the Grievance Red ressal system in case of any dispute between editors and journal owner/publisher
  • Regularly updating with journal owner and publisher.

 

editorial  and  peer  review  processes

  • Editors are expected to make sure that the peer review process of their journal is impartial, reasonable and in time.
  • There should be a foolproof system implemented by editors which provides security and secrecy during review of the article submitted for journal
  • They should make sure that concerned people get proper trainings, updating them with the latest technology and guideline, suggestions about peer review and journal administration.
  • Sharing all the latest information technology developments about the process with peer reviewers.
  • Implementing best process of peer review for the journal and research community.
  • assessing peer review process regularly for upgradation
  • Refers to OARS to sort out the dispute regarding publication of doubtful misbehavior where OARS guideline is not clear
  • Whenever disputes are unsolvable internally then expertregulator’s intervention should be sought.

 

Quality assurance

               Editors are supposed to adhere to strict quality control measures for journal to meet the expectations of its readers by maintaining best quality parameters

  • A foolproof system to identify the plagiarism/correctness/manipulation of the article.
  • Judgments regarding acceptance of quality improvement factors should have a concrete base instead of personal opinion.

 

safeguarding  of  individual  data

Editors are supposed to adhere strictly for maintaining privacy for the individual information, irrespective of applicable laws. It is suggested to get approval of concerned people [who may be identified] in black and white. If written consent is not available, then the essence of same can be published in the newspaper to get no objection within stipulated time.

 

Best   method   for   editors  should  also  contain

  • displaying of policy on publishing individual information with clarity for authors.
  • Making aware the concerned persons the difference between approval to take part in research vs. approval to publish personal details/quotations/photographs.
  • Motivating moral research (e.g. Research involving humans or animals)
  • Editors must attempt to publication of research papers are conforming to international standard/parameters
  • Editors should ensure that all the researches are duly certified by the appropriate authority (e.g. Research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists.

 

Best  method  for  editors  should  also  contain

  • should be able to insist demand of proof moral research approval and inquire about moral features i.e. method applied for minimum animal suffring and for obtaining approval for the research member.
  • makes sure that investigation report are duly complid with concerned appropriate authority
  • recuiring a moral advisor or board for journal to advice on particular cases time to time

dealing with possible misconduct

 

Method  to  sort  out  probable  misbehavior

  • Editors are supposed to take action if they have doubts of misbehavior or it the same is proved which is applicable for both the cases whether it is published or unpublished.
  • Editors are not advised to scrap the paper simply because of probable misbehavior, but are supposed to track unproven cases.
  • Editors should obey OARS guidelines where required.
  • Editors are required to demand clarification from the alleged person for misbehavior. if the explanation is not satisfactory then the help should be sought from relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to interrogate.
  • Editors should make all possible efforts to make sure that a proper interrogation into alleged misbehavior is done; if this does not work then editors should make all justified attempts to carry on in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is a tedious but important duty.
  • Making sure the trustworthiness of the academic record
  • Correction of all the errors or misguiding reports with due importance should be done thoroughly.
  • Editors should follow the OARS guidelines on withdrawal

 

 

Best  method  suggested  for  editors  should  also  contain

  • minimize publication of surreptitious (secret) and superfluous material
  • making sure of providing fully protectedstorage for published article

 

Intellectual  property

  • Editors are supposed to be cautious for intellectual property and capable enough to tackle anticipated breach of relevant laws resolutions.

 

 

Best   method   suggested   for   editors   should   also   contain

  • incorporate foolproof process which can easily identify plagiarism in submitted articles by using the latest methods/softwares/technology.
  • helping victimized authors who are actually sufferers due to plagiarism.
  • stand by their publishers to protect the rights of authors and tackle lawbreakers

 

Motivating  debate

  • Editors should motivate logical criticisms for the articles published by them.
  • Editors should give chance to authors to reply for their logically criticized published articles.
  • Outcomes of unfavorable feedback should also be included.

 

Best  method  suggested  for  editors  should  also  contain

  • should accept the disputes positively regarding past (earlier) publications.

 

Grievances

Editors are supposed to be an expert in handling Grievance Redressal from any number of unhappy readers which should reflected in the journal along with the modus operandi for forwarding unsettled disputes to OARS.
Editors are supposed to adhere strictly the guidelines of OARS in settling disputes.

 

Commercial  considerations

Policy makers of the journal should ensure that editor's decision is not affected adversely just because of commercial gains (e.g. Commercial incharge should not interfere in the decisions taken by editors)

 Editors should design their policies on advertising in relation to the journal content and on methods for publishing funded supplements.

Reprints should be conforming with original journal although rectifications can be incorporated with clear identification.

  • displaying breakups in the journal regarding various money earning sources contributing to income.
  • Convincing readers for adopting same peer review process for both journal i.e. sponsored and main.
  • convincing readers that funded additions are considered not on the basis of commercial gain but the same is beneficial for readers’ benefit

 

Conflicts  of  interest

  • Editors are expected to handle their disputes mutually with colleagues, authors, reviewers and with editorial board members. Journal should ensure written procedure of accepting articles/papers from the editors, staff or editorial board members which should also guarantee for impartial review.
  • publishing of personal details with regard economical, academic etc. to of all the employees, editorial board members with regular updating at least once in a year.