Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their ideas. International Network for Natural sciences is committed to peer review integrity and practices the highest standards of ethical publishing as well as publication ethics encourages integrity in the research and peer review process, and prohibit any malpractices regarding publication.
All the authors, who intend to publish their research manuscripts in the INNSpub must read and follow all the guidelines for ethical publication. INNSpub adheres to the policies of ethical practice. Therefore, we always try to stop the abuse in the publication of scientific works.
The ethical issues in research may be violated in different ways for that hereunder are self-explanatory policy statements for the authors to follow strongly.
All contributing authors should qualify for authorship. The order of authorship should be a joint decision of the co-authors. Sufficient participation in the work is of utmost importance:
Authorship credit should be based on a substantial contribution to the conception and design, execution, or analysis and interpretation of data. All authors should be involved in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, must have read and approved the final version of the manuscript, and approve of its submission to this journal.
All individuals who made significant scientific contributions to the research work should be given the opportunity to be included as co-authors. Other persons who contributed to the study should be acknowledged but need not be identified as co-authors. Every coauthor should be aware of the content of an article to be submitted, agree to its submission, and share appropriate responsibility for the work. Any individual unable to take appropriate responsibility for the article should not be included as a co-author
Criteria for authorship
Everyone who has made substantial intellectual contributions to the study on which the article is based (for example, to the research question, design, analysis, interpretation, and written description) should be an author. Only an individual who has made substantial intellectual contributions should be an author. Performing technical services, translating text, identifying patients for the study, supplying materials, and providing funding or administrative oversight over facilities where the work was done are not, in themselves, sufficient for authorship, although these contributions may be acknowledged in the manuscript. One author (a “guarantor”) should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole. Often this is the corresponding author, the one who sends in the manuscript and receives reviews, but other authors can have this role. All authors should approve the final version of the manuscript. It is preferable that all authors be familiar with all aspects of the work.
Number of authors
Editors should not arbitrarily limit the number of authors. There are legitimate reasons for multiple authors in some kinds of research, such as multi-center, randomized controlled trials. In these situations, a subset of authors may be listed with the title, with the notation that they have prepared the manuscript on behalf of all contributors. If editors believe the number of authors is unusually large, relative to the scope and complexity of the work, they can ask for a detailed description of each author’s contributions to the work. If some do not meet the criteria for authorship, editors can require that their names be removed as a condition of publication.
The authors themselves should decide the order in which authors are listed in an article. No one else knows as well as they do their respective contributions and the agreements they have made among themselves.
Changes to authorship
For all submissions to INNSpub, authorship change requests should be submitted to the editorial office of INNSpub through the corresponding author. Requests to add or remove an author, or to rearrange the author names, must be sent to the journal editor from the corresponding author of the accepted manuscript and must include the reason the name should be added or removed, or the author names rearranged. The corresponding author should certify that all authors meet the committee on publication ethics authorship standards and that all authors consent to the change. All authors will be asked to sign an authorship statement after the manuscript has been accepted. By signing the change of authorship form, any authors who have been added, removed or reordered indicate that they agree to the changes. Until the editorial office gets the completed form, the relevant submission will be kept on hold for further processing. No authorship change is allowed after the publication of the manuscript.
Authorship is the process of deciding whose names belong on a research paper. In many cases, research evolves from collaboration and assistance between experts and colleagues. Some of this assistance will require acknowledgment and some will require joint authorship. Each person listed as an author of an article should have significantly contributed to both the research and writing. In addition, all listed authors must be prepared to accept full responsibility for the content of the research article.
INNSpub Publisher provides access to archived material through INNSpub archives. Manuscripts are the parts of an open archive, which are made freely available from INNSpub website. All articles published with open access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download. Permitted reuse is defined by a creative commons user license called “Creative Common Attribution”. The INNSpub and the end-users have non-exclusive rights under the creative commons attribution license (CC-BY). Any supporting information along with the contribution of authors in all subsequent versions for publication in INNSpub is granted a perpetual, non-exclusive license to publish, transfer, and distribute as a whole or part of the information throughout the world in all languages. The corresponding author authorized the co-authors to enter into the copyright agreement Form. The corresponding author and co-authors guarantee that the submitted manuscript is original has not been submitted to any other journals, has not been published previously, and does not infringe on other person’s rights (including without limitation copyrights, patent rights, and trademark right). All authors further guarantee that the contribution does not contain any libelous statement, facts, or instructions that can cause damage and injury to third parties and disclosure of any secret or confidential information.
All others who contributed to the work who are not authors should be named in the Acknowledgments, and what they did should be described. List all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship, such as a person who provided purely technical help, or writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support. Financial and material support should also be acknowledged.
The INNSpub is made available to the public under the open access policy. The accepted submissions are free to read, reuse, download, copy, distribute, and share as long as the author(s) of the manuscript are credited. INNSpub will ask all authors of the accepted article to sign a Copyright Agreement Form for granting the necessary publishing rights once the manuscript has been accepted. The accepted manuscript is moved into production after the copyright transfer form from the relevant author of the manuscript is received. Because the author(s) publish their manuscript as open access, the author(s) retain(s) certain rights such as patents, trademarks, and designs, while other copyright is transferred to the INNSpub. The conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License are incorporated into the author(s) contract, dictating what others can do with the author(s) manuscript after it is published. Furthermore, after being properly attributed, the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License allows for unrestricted use, distribution, modification, and reproduction in any medium.
Plagiarism and self-plagiarism
Authors should not use without attribution, text, concepts, data, figures, or tables from another work published either by others or by themselves. Plagiarism of others’ works and self-plagiarism are serious breaches of ethics and are not tolerated. If a direct quotation is appropriate, the original source should be properly cited. Figures, tables, and other images reproduced from another source normally require the publisher’s permission.
Mainly three issues for data management (ethical and truthful data collection, responsibility of collected data, and data sharing) can be addressed by researchers before and during the establishment of a new research project. Ethical data collection refers to collecting data in a way that does not harm or injure someone. Harm and injury could range from outright physical injury to harmful disclosure of unprotected confidential health information. In comparison, truthful data collection refers to data that, once collected, are not manipulated or altered in any way that might impact or falsely influence results. Assigning and ensuring responsibility for collecting and maintaining data is one of the most important ethical considerations when conducting a research project.
The two most important ethical concepts in the peer review process are confidentiality and the protection of intellectual property. Reviewers should not know the author (or authors) they are reviewing and the author (or authors) should not be told the names of the reviewers. Only by maintaining strict confidentiality guidelines can the peer review process be truly open and beneficial. Likewise, no person involved in the peer review process- either the editor, reviewers, or other journal staff can publicly disclose the information in the article or use the information in a submitted article for personal gain.
INNSpub aims at rapid publication of high-quality research while maintaining a rigorous Cooperative peer-review process. Research papers with significant results will be reviewed and published at the highest priority and speed. Research papers other than those that are of insufficient quality, not in the prescribed format, or unlikely to be competitive enough for publication will be peer-reviewed by two or more experts in the fields, and a decision is returned to the authors in about one month. If minor revision is required, authors should return a revised version as soon as possible after getting the review report.
Research fraud is publishing data or conclusions that were not generated by experiments or observations, but by invention or data manipulation. There are two kinds of research and scientific publishing:
Making up research data and results and recording or reporting them.
Manipulating research materials, images, data, equipment, or processes. Falsification includes changing or omitting data or results in such a way that the research is not accurately represented. A person might falsify data to make it fit with the desired end result of a study.
Conflict of interest
Any potential conflicts of interest (e.g: employment, stock ownership, patent licenses, etc.) should be reported to the editorial office. These include personal, academic, political, financial, and commercial gains.
Responsibilities for conflicts of interest
Public trust in the scientific process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how transparent conflicts of interest are handled during the planning, implementation, writing, peer review, editing, and publication of scientific work. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership or options, honoraria, patents, and paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships or rivalries, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs. All authors should comply with the journals’ policies on conflict of interest. All participants in the peer-review and publication process, not only authors but also peer reviewers, editors, and editorial board members of journals must consider their conflicts of interest when fulfilling their roles in the process of article review and publication and must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest.
When authors submit a manuscript of any type or format they are responsible for disclosing all financial and personal relationships that might bias or be seen to bias their work by signing a conflict of the interest disclosure form.
Reviewers should be asked at the time they are asked to critique a manuscript if they have conflicts of interest that could complicate their review. Reviewers must disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript and should recuse themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if the potential for bias exists. Reviewers must not use knowledge of the work they’re reviewing before its publication to further their own interests.
Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should recuse themselves from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential conflicts related to articles under consideration. Other editorial staff members who participate in editorial decisions must provide editors with a current description of their financial interests or other conflicts (as they might relate to editorial judgments) and recuse themselves from any decisions in which a conflict of interest exists. Editorial staff must not use information gained through working with manuscripts for private gain. Editors should publish regular disclosure statements about potential conflicts of interest related to the commitments of journal staff. Guest editors should follow these same procedures.
Duplicate or multiple submissions are the most common ethics violation encountered. It is unethical for authors to publish articles describing essentially the same research result in more than one journal. It is also unacceptable for authors to submit the same manuscript concurrently to more than one journal.
Duplicate publication or self-plagiarism is the publication of an article that is identical or overlaps substantially with an article already published elsewhere, with or without acknowledgment.
The redundant or repetitive publication is the publication of copyrighted material with additional new or unpublished data.
Salami publication/Salami slicing
The “slicing” of research that would form one meaningful paper into several different papers is called “salami publication” or “salami-slicing”. Unlike duplicate publication, which involves reporting the exact same data in two or more publications, salami-slicing involves breaking up or segmenting a large study into two or more publications. These segments are referred to as “slices” of a study. As a general rule, as long as the “slices” of a broken-up study share the same hypotheses, population, and methods, this is not acceptable practice. The same “slice” should never be published more than once.
INNSpub reviewers are very keen and prompt to report suspected duplicate publication, fraud, or plagiarism to the Editor. A reviewer may find out a similar or identical paper for another journal by the same author(s). Even readers of the journal articles may report that they have seen the same article elsewhere, or authors may see their own published work being plagiarized.
In every case, we, at INNSpub address ethical concerns diligently following an issue-specific standard practice as summarized as follow.