The IJVR guideline
for Research Journal Editor is intended to provide a set of tools for
streamlined research editorial process to which all IJVR 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.
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.
IDEAL
GUIDELINE FOR EDITORS
o Editors should respond to authors’ queries with suggestions of
appropriate links
o Editors are expected to issue publication oferratum if any errors are
discovered after publication.
o Editors should make sure that only suitable and talented reviewers who
are expert in their field and free from any ineligibility are selected
o Editors should honor author’s justified decision for not assigning work to a particular reviewer
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 IJVR 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.
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
IJVR 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 IJVR to sort out the dispute regarding publication of
doubtful misbehavior where IJVR 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.
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 IJVR 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 IJVR 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 IJVR.
Editors are supposed to adhere strictly the guidelines of IJVR 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.