Publication Guidelines and Review Procedure

The Publisher and the Editorial Board of all our Journals are putting rigorous efforts to deliver high-quality content with the highest transparency and cleanest ethical behaviour. With the - intent to follow the best practice, below procedures are adhered:

Electronic Submissions

The registration and submission of manuscripts is open for all, from all corners of the world. We are using Online Journals System (OJS) for submission and publication of articles in ADR. This system facilitates communication between authors, editors and reviewers in order to ensure a transparent and rapid review process. Assistance to Authors and steps for how to submit the manuscript can be accessed HERE.

Authors should follow the ethical codes of publications. They should:

• Present an objective, discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments.
• Ensure the fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are not given.
• Ensure that the articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate.
• Ensure that their work is entirely original work, and if the work and/ or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
• Not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently.
• Ensure that there is full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication, and that the corresponding author empowered on their behalf can submit the article.

Transparency

Authors are requested to submit their papers with a declaration of copyright and also state conflict of interest in their articles. ADR is committed to the quality and transparency of the Editorial process. We are trying hard to maintain ethical and transparent practices but it is not possible without the support of readers, authors, reviewers, whole team a and entire board of ADR. We humbly request all of you to support us in avoiding plagiarism and publishing beneficial content for the readers.

Editorial Policy

We are highly dependent upon Editors for their decision on each article as we assign the manuscripts on basis of their area of interest/ expertise. Editorial Policy can be accessed HERE.

Editors should be responsible for everything published in their journals. They should:

• Strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
• Constantly improve the journal;
• Ensure the quality of the material they publish is excellent;
• Follow freedom of expression;
• Maintain the integrity of the academic record;
• Preclude business needs from compromising intellectual standards
• Always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
• Ensure that the authors have informed the readers about who has funded research and about the role of funders in the research.
• Accept or reject a paper for publication based only on the paper's importance, originality, clarity, and the study's relevance to the remit of the journal.
• Ensure that peer review process is published.
• Ensure that the Journals have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against Editorial decisions.
• Ensure that the journal publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
• Not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
• Not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous Editor unless serious problems are identified.
• Publish guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to COPE's best practices.
• Have systems to ensure that peer reviewer identities are protected - unless they have an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.
• Have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
• Follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart as far as complaints are concerned.
• Ensure that cogent criticisms of published work are published unless Editors have convincing reasons why they cannot be. Authors of criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond.
• Ensure that the studies reporting negative results are not excluded.
• Ensure that the research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines. They should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board). However, they should recognize that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
• Protect the confidentiality of individual information (e.g. that obtained through the doctor-patient relationship). It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent from patients described in case reports and photographs of patients. It may be possible to publish without explicit consent if the report is important to public health (or is in some other way important); consent would be unusually burdensome to obtain; and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication (all three conditions must be met).
• Have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers. They should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases. They should first seek a response from those accused. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body) to investigate. They should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation is conducted; if this does not happen, Editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a solution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.
• Ensure integrity of the academic record. Whenever it is recognized that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence. If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction should be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.
• Make decisions about the articles that should be published based on quality and suitability for readers rather than for immediate financial or political gain of the authors, publishers, or owner of the journal.
• Have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing supplements. Misleading advertisements must be refused, and Editors must be willing to publish criticisms, according to the same criteria used for the in the rest of the journal. Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction is to be added.
• Have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest as well as those of their staff, authors, reviewers and Editorial board members.

Peer Review Policy

We request authors to give 3 references for peer–review. It is not necessary that we assign manuscript to their referred reviewer but it can be our internal reviewer's as well. Newly submitted manuscript primarily goes through plagiarism check via turn it in plagiarism through crossref's collaboration. Second step is their screening by the Editors: the manuscript might get rejected if it is found to be of insufficient quality, outside focus and scope of the Journal or if they are considered not original. Articles that meet minimal requirements are assigned to the Reviewers and we assign it to minimum 3 reviewers (2 are authors recommended and 1 random). Then we wait for their response and accordingly their decision is send to the editor.

The Final decision on the manuscript is taken by the Editor. In case there are any conflict issues then only we involve the Editor in chief of the Journal. Our Reviewer Policies can be accessed HERE.

Reviewers have an important role in publication. They should:

• Treat any manuscript submitted to them a confidential document.
• Keep privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review confidential and should not use it for personal advantage.
• Review the manuscript objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper.
• Report promptly if they feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript.
• 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.

Formatting and Proofreading:

Once the review process is through and if the manuscript is accepted then we outsource the article for copyediting. In case there are any queries by the copy-editor then we have to revert to the author. Once strict scrutiny is completed then we initiate formatting of the paper in our decided layout and send the camera ready copy to the Authors for proofreading. The is published with the formal consent of the author after proofreading the entire document.

Letter to Editors: We request the readers to verify our published content and for any concerns please feel free to write a letter to the publisher/ editor and get answer to your concerns.