It is very important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.
(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.)
The International Journal for interdisciplinary studies Human Research in rehabilitation (HRR) is a Half-Yearly, open access, peer reviewed international journal which Calls for Unique, Unpublished research papers in various subjects of rehabilitation. International Journal for interdisciplinary studies Human Research in rehabilitation (HRR) is known for the publication of unique and authentic research articles which truly considers the copyright guidelines and to protect the rights of our authors. The research papers are written by scholars after in-depth study and wish to protect the rights of use. Our dedicated team of scientists and academicians help and improve research work with cutting edge forefront innovations by avoiding plagiarism. Most of the authors represent some institutions or are guides to budding scholars and their original research work will be the base for further studies. Infringing the content of knowledge or work of other scholars will be harm to the community of education.
All submitted research articles are assessed by our Review board and Editorial board members utilizing twofold dazzle associate evaluation process so as to avoid plagiarism. The International Journal for interdisciplinary studies Human Research in rehabilitation (HRR) set quality standards for the acceptance of appropriate and most effective research articles. It expects from authors that they will check their compositions for written falsification test and determine they are submitting just extraordinary content for publication.
It is advised to the authors to avoid copy and paste tactic of writing articles.
Articles should maintain its durability and excelling ability to attract its target intellectuals to refer it for further studies.
Articles must showcase novelty in thoughts and content.
Creditability and reliability of the content establishes the best publication ethics.
Formatting standards should be maintained in piece of publication so that it could be sufficient informative about the research and profile of authors.
Appropriate Citations, referencing of individual articles, authors and publications are expected while writing articles.
International Journal for interdisciplinary studies Human Research in rehabilitation (HRR) provides sufficient foundation for the timely publication of high quality and standard piece of research articles.
International Journal for interdisciplinary studies Human Research in rehabilitation (HRR) follow transparent and peer- review process for publications. Authors must agree to participate in the peer-review process.
Authors are expected to present the entirely original article and should cite or mention in references if content or words of other articles are used.
Every author will be held responsible for the performance and fulfillment with the policy to avoid malpractices and breach of ethical standards of publication.
Authors should assure that the piece of knowledge ready for publication is original copy and have not been published anywhere earlier and is not in consideration for publication anywhere else.
Authors should accept and correct the mistakes and consider the suggestions given by the panel of reviewers.
Authors should bring in knowledge of editor the corrections and retraction of mistakes or error if have identified even after publication.
This text is downloaded from https://www.elsevier.com/ as a recommendation for the Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK) for editors. Useful link is (https://www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/plagiarism-complaints)
Literal copying is reproducing a work word for word, in whole or in part, without permission and acknowledgment of the original source. Literal copying is obvious plagiarism and is easy to detect by comparing the papers in question.
Substantial copying is reproducing a substantial part of a work, without permission and acknowledgment of the original source. In determining what is “substantial,” both the quantity and the quality of the copied content are relevant. Quality refers to the relative value of the copied text in proportion to the work as a whole. Where the essence of a work has been reproduced, even if only a small part of the original work, plagiarism may have occurred. For example, a relatively short extract from a piece of music may be instantly recognizable and may constitute a substantial part.
In addition to judging the quantity and quality of the copied content, you should consider the following question: Has the author benefited from the skill and judgment of the original author? The degree to which the answer to this question is “yes” will indicate whether substantial copying has taken place.
Copying may take place without reproducing the exact words used in the original work, i.e. without literal or substantial copying. This type of copying is known as paraphrasing, and it can be the most difficult type of plagiarism to detect.
To determine whether unacceptable paraphrasing has occurred, you should apply a test similar to that for substantial copying: Look at the quantity and quality of what has been taken and also at whether the second author has benefited from the skill and judgment of the first author. If it seems clear, on a balance of probabilities, that the second author has taken without permission or acknowledgment all or a substantial part of the original work and used it to create a second work, albeit expressed in different words, then such use amounts to plagiarism.
Authors are expected to present their research articles compatible with standards of original work with accuracy which enlightens the significance of writing the paper.
Discussion underlying the data should accurately match with the title of paper showcasing the importance. Research articles should comprise of detailed citations and references of the content used in article of others. Deceptive, unethical practice or knowingly infringing the quality standards is strictly prohibited.
Authors are expected to submit the original research articles for peer review, and accept the global access of their work.
Authors should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Ethically it is suggestible to authors to not publish the same content of knowledge at various platforms for publication
Simultaneous submissions or concurrent reviews of same paper are mark of unprofessionalism and are strictly not acceptable.
A paper already published in some national or international journal should not be presented for consideration to again publish at any other Journal. It is considered as breach of novelty.
During the course of study whatever sources are accessed and used must be mentioned in the article for publication.
Authors must cite and mention in references if the content of some other research work influences the reported work.
Information received during training tenure or confidential services or by third party discussion then it is advisable to use data of somebody else’s research only after getting a written permission from the source.
Names of authors and co-authors should be significantly mentioned in the research article.
The contributors, agencies and institutions supporting the study or who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be mentioned in the acknowledgements or listed as contributors.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.
The corresponding author and all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them.
Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects.
The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.
All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions.
The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests:
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article. This article has no conflicts of interests and has never been published before.
I agree that my article may all interested people to use for reading and citation without charge.
The author received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
Declaration of plagiarism
I agree that the Journal is not liable for any form of plagiarizing, and the sole responsibility for such actions lies upon author of the articles.
Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.
If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations. Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant even if it is discovered years after publication.
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.