Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

IJOHMN strictly complies with the moral justice and moral philosophy, and would likewise direct a lawful audit if required on a case-by-case base. We encourage the best standards of publication ethics and take all possible measures against publication malpractices. The journal guarantees reproducing or promoting does not impact the decision of the editors. The Editorial Board of the title permits you to speak with different publishers, journal, and authors on solicitation for the association.

Responsibilities of Author:

IJOHMN has confered some responsibilities to its authors as mentioned below:

All authors are responsible for the entire work. All authors shall work with the editorial board members to correct the mistakes (if any) . Authors should publish only original and unusual work.  It should not have been published anywhere else and an appropriate citation should be made on citing the works of others. An author should not admit the same research in more than one manuscript for a primary publication or journal. The reported scope of work should be based on a proper citation from the other publications. All listed authors must have made a significant contribution to the research presented in the manuscript and approved all its claims. It is important to list everyone who made a significant contribution, including students and laboratory technicians. An author should disclose financial or personal interest that governs the findings or research in the manuscript along with the details of fiscal backing. With the submission of research work, the writer agrees that the research work neither is under consideration nor published in any other journal.

Responsibilities of Reviewers:

IJOHMN has assigned some responsibilities to its Reviewers:

Confidentiality: Reviewers should not share, examine with outsiders without the prior permission from the editor, or uphold the information from an assigned manuscript. Competence: Reviewer with their expertise should complete the review. A reviewer with inadequate expertise should feel responsible and can refuse the review as it is presumed that reviewers will be an expert in respective areas.

Productive assessment: Reviewer comments should appreciate the positive aspects of the work, identify negative aspects constructively, and indicate the enhancement needed. A reviewer should explain and hold his or her judgment clearly enough that editors and authors can understand the basis of the comments. The reviewer should ensure that an observation or argument that has been previously reported be accompanied by a relevant citation and should immediately alert the editor when he or she becomes aware of duplicate publication. A reviewer should not use any kind of abusive language while commenting on an article.

Responsibilities of Editors:

  • Do the utmost to fulfill the requirements of the research paper.
  • Continually upgrade themselves to make improvements in the journal.
  • Use their experience and knowledge to improve the quality of the paper to be published.
  • Rule out the compromising state and work at par with their intellectual standards.
  • Editors must take responsibility to respond to the queries, complaints or concerns raised. 

Impartiality and Integrity:

Reviewer’s decision should only depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, the scope of the journal rather than financial, racial, ethnic origin, etc., of the authors.

Disclosure of conflict of interest:

To the extent feasible the reviewer should minimize the conflict of interest. In such a situation, the reviewer should notify the editor describing the conflict of interest.

Timeliness and responsiveness:

Reviewers should morally abide to provide the review comments within the stipulated time and be active enough in responding to the questions raised by the editor if any.

Responsibilities of Editor and Editorial Board:

IJOHMN editors have a responsibility to assert the wholeness of the Journal by corrections identifying anything of meaning and looks of concern as early as possible.

Review process:

Editors are responsible for monitoring and ensuring the impartiality, correctness, thoroughness, and respect of the peer-review editorial process.

  • Make recommendations for improving the evaluation and dissemination of the manuscript of the journal.
  • To ensure that the content or the author information present in the manuscript is readable.
  • To evaluate all manuscripts such that they fall within the scope of the IJOHMN Journal.
  • Keep the journal's internal integrity by recommending the corrections, dealing with retraction, supplemental data etc.
  • Decision-making: The editor is entitled to carry out decision-making in consultation with reviewers or members of the editorial board.
  • Impartiality: An Editor should evaluate manuscripts without any prejudice towards cast, creed, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, nationality, or political viewpoint of the authors.
  • Privacy: The Editor or any Editorial staff must not reveal any data about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate depending on the need and stage of processing.
  • Conduct Double Blind Review process (reviewers of the research work won’t get to know the identity of the author(s) and the author(s) won’t get to know the identity of the reviewer)
  • Adhere to the guidelines and procedures laid down by the IJOHMN.

 Guidelines for withdrawing of articles:

IJOHMN is concerned to maintain the integrity and entirety of the research work for the entire educational fraternity very sincerely. The journal places great importance on the authority of research work after they have been published. IJOHMN Editor-in-Chief has all the authority for deciding which research work shall be published. In making this decision, the Editor in Chief is guided by the policies of the IJOHMN’s Editorial board and constrained by some legal requirements regarding copyright violation and plagiarism. Articles that have been published shall remain present, exact and unchanged as far as possible. However, due to unavoidable circumstances may happen where after the publication of research work requires retraction or even removal from a particular journal. Above can only occur under below circumstances, such as article retraction. This is only used for “Article in Press” which represents the early versions of the articles. If any article at the stage of “Article in Press”, by any means, represents infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or similar incidences, the article may be withdrawn depending on the Editor’s discretion. Infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submissions, sham claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data and similar claims will lead to the retraction of an article. Occasionally, a retraction will be used to correct errors in submission or publication.

Article Removal: Subjected to legal limitations of the publisher.

Article Replacement: Identification of false or inaccurate data that, if acted upon, would pose a serious health risk and any fraud associated with science should be treated with equal strictness. Maintain the integrity of the academic record Encouraging academic integrity Consider appointing a journal ethics panel to advice on specific cases and review journal policies periodically. Ensuring the integrity of the academic record  Ensure that published research work is firmly archived. Have systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available.   

Publisher Responsibilities:

Provides practical support to the editor and ensures the autonomy of editorial decisions.

 Conflict of Interest Policy:

If there is any conflict of interest regardless of its nature like relationship personal or professional, economical or non-economical among authors, reviewers, editors, journals and publishers:

  • Concern or Issue can be raised or brought to the notice immediately in a written form to the publisher/editor at editor@ijohmn.com.
  • Concern or Issue will be taken seriously and required action will be taken against the complaint (if any).
  • Our team of intellectuals will review the case and its detail. An unbiased decision or action will be taken based on the final report.
  • Serious action will be taken like withdrawal or removal of the paper from publication (if published).
  • Unless there is an issue of plagiarism, misconduct or conflict of interest, the published paper will not be removed.

 
http://ijohmn.com/index.php/ijohmn/publication-ethics-and-malpractice-statement
ijohmn.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-16
21591
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:MKYTVCOZHRIW3AWVPTTLHTMXPEJUWKE4
<urn:uuid:3fb988c1-329c-4b01-b7b8-1673158588f9>
2020-04-06T12:15:23Z
216.119.142.115
text/html
sha1:E6W6EWH4YOPU66IJHW4WJRM33QD7SFDH
<urn:uuid:93c35bf5-dc74-4940-b153-b98f6cbe31ac>
http://ijohmn.com/index.php/ijohmn/publication-ethics-and-malpractice-statement
response
<urn:uuid:8be91086-31c5-4515-b66e-2abb90017fba>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-16
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for March/April 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-81.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/