International Review of Social Sciences
|Journal Papers (1)||Details||Call for Paper||Manuscript submission||Publication Ethics||Contact||Authors' Guide Line|
Academy of IRMBR is committed to maintaining a high academic standard of the journal. The publisher is non-political (i.e., only scholarly) and absolutely unbiased to any political party or ideology (religious, national, ideological), and completely research-based. Thus we commit to maintain a high ethical standard and be absolutely impartial to anyone.
We expect similar standards from the editors and reviewers. Honesty, originality and fair dealing on the part of authors, and fairness, objectivity and confidentiality on the part of editors and reviewers are among the critical values that enable us to achieve the journal aim. The publisher respects the codes of conduct and international standards established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and available free of charge on its website (http://publicationethics.org/). Any behaviour against publication ethics when proven will be treated as publication malpractice and beyond doubt is unacceptable.
Authors of Academy of IRMBR must confirm the following:
Submitted manuscripts must be the original work of the author(s).
Only unpublished manuscripts should be submitted.
It is unethical to submit a manuscript to more than one journal concurrently.
Any conflict of interest must be clearly stated.
Acknowledge the sources of data used in the development of the manuscript.
All errors discovered in the manuscript after submission must be swiftly communicated to the Editor.
Reviewers of academy of IRMBR must confirm the following:
That all manuscripts are reviewed in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry nor political values of author(s).
That any observed conflict of interest during the review process must be communicated to the Editor.
That all information pertaining to the manuscript is kept confidential
That any information that may be the reason for the rejection of publication of a manuscript must be communicated to the Editor.
Editors of Academy of IRMBR must confirm the following:
That all manuscripts are evaluated in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry nor political values of authors.
That information pertaining manuscripts are kept confidential.
That any observed conflict of interest pertaining manuscripts must be disclosed.
The Editorial Board takes responsibility for making publication decisions for submitted manuscripts based on the reviewer’s evaluation of the manuscript, policies of the journal editorial board and legal restrain acting against plagiarism, libel and copyright infringement.
Editor have the responsibility for acceptance or rejection of manuscripts rests with the Editors. Doing so normally entails advice from Reviewers; however, manuscripts that Editors deem clearly inappropriate may be rejected without such review.
Editors have the duty to judge manuscripts only on their scholarly merits. Editors should operate without personal or ideological favoritism or malice.
Conflict of Interest:
Editors should avoid any practice that gives rise to a conflict of interest or the reasonable appearance of one.
Editors and their editorial staff including student workers shall not disclose information about a manuscript to anyone other than Reviewers and Authors.
Normally, three Reviewers should be invited to comment on a manuscript, but a minimum of two Reviewers is acceptable. Authors may request that certain Reviewers not be used, but this decision should be left to Editor's discretion.
Editors should take steps to ensure the timely review of all manuscripts and respond promptly to inquiries from Authors about the status of a review.
Editors should write high-quality editorial letters that integrate reviewer comments and offer additional suggestions to the Author. Editors should not send a decision letter, without explanation, attached to a set of reviewer comments.
An Editor presented with convincing evidence by a Reviewer that the substance or conclusion of an unpublished manuscript is erroneous should promptly inform the Author. If similar evidence is presented for a published manuscript, the Editor should ensure prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as appropriate.
The Editor-in-Chief should respect the Journal's constituents (readers, Authors, Reviewers, Editors, editorial staff and publisher), and work to ensure the honesty and integrity of the Journal's contents and continuous improvement in journal quality.