Ethical Principles and Publication Policy
Ethical Principles and Publication Policy
Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
1) The manuscript must be related to your research area of expertise. Please, only accept if you can provide a high-quality review.
2) If you have a potential conflict of interest, you must inform the associate editor/editor in chief.
3) You must allow sufficient time for the review.
4) Before you respond to agree to review, make sure you will be able to meet the deadline.
5) Review invitations have to be replied as soon as possible. It should be taken into account that late invitation responses will prolong the review process.
When You Agree to Review
1) All materials you receive from the editors and author(s) are confidential, that means it is not to be shared with other parties without getting authorization from the associate editor and editor in chief.
2) Any information regarding your review also cannot be shared with anyone without informing the editor(s) and the author(s) as peer review is confidential.
Before you start
1) Please read the manuscript to get an overall idea
2) Then give yourself some time to think
3) Re-read the manuscript again in accordance to get details
4) Consider the manuscript from your perspective
5) Please take a copy of a the journal reviewing criteria
Your review report
1) Your review report is highly crucial as it helps the associate editor decide whether or not to publish the manuscript
2) Reviewer opinions and observations must be given about the manuscript.
3) Any deficiencies in the manuscript must be given.
4) Your judgment must be explained and supported.
5) Editor(s) and author(s) should be able to understand the reasoning behind your comments.
6) Point out whether your comments are your opinions or reflected by data
7) It is important to give constructive feedback and well-mannered comments
8) Do not include any personal remarks and/or personal details
9) Do not add your name in your comments
1) Write a brief to point out that you have read and fully understand the material.
2) Give your overall opinion of the research and include whether
- Does the paper contribute to the body of knowledge?
- Is the paper technically sound?
- Is the subject matter presented in a comprehensive manner?
- It is novel and/or interesting
- It has an impact
3) In your commentary include your opinions on layout and format, title, abstract, introduction, graphical abstracts and/or highlights, method, statistical errors, results, conclusion/discussion, language and references.
4) Mention any journal specific points. If it happens to adhere to the journal’s standards, write it in your review
5) If there is an issue of plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, share your suspicions with the associate editor in detail.
Considering the categories the editor most likely uses for classifying the manuscript:
Accept without revision
Accept with minor/major revision (explain the revision required, and indicate to the editor whether or not you would be happy to review the revised article)
Reject (explain reason in report in detail)
The final decision
It is editor’s decision whether to accept or reject the article. The editor takes all views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper. The online editorial system provides reviewers with a notification of the final decision, if the journal has opted in to this function. If this is not the case, you can contact the editor to find out if the article was accepted or rejected.
Every submitted manuscript compares to a massive database of content from major newspapers, magazines, scholarly journals, and books as well as a database of over 14 billion current and archived pages of web content by secretary of the journal.
The editorial board of EJRnD complies with the following rules for plagiarism policy;
- The authors are asked to reduce the similarity of their articles below 20%.
- Manuscripts with a similarity rate ≤ 20% are taken into the review process.
- The above mentioned rules are accepted by all authors who have uploaded manuscript to the journal.
Ethical guidelines for Author(s)
- The manuscript of author(s) must promise that their manuscript is their own original work. Moreover, Author(s) must promise that they do not violate the intellectual property rights of any other person or entity, and cannot be construed as plagiarizing any other published work, including their own previously published work. Author(s) are fully responsible for the content, scope and all data of the published of their article.
- The manuscript of Author(s) are equally responsible for the content of a submitted manuscript or published article.
- Author(s) must not submit their same research or manuscript to more than one journal.
- People who have made important scientific or literary contributions to the manuscript should be named as co-authors.
- If it is required that author(s) must provide to access to data sets described in the manuscript.
- Authors are required to obtain all necessary official and documented ethical approvals for the studies that require ethics committee permission. It must provide, including informed consent from the client(s) or patient(s) being studied.
ICMJE & COPE
In scientific papers to be sent to our journal,
* Recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) should be considered.
* COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)'s "International Standards for Editors and Authors" should be considered.