We use the iThenticate software in collaboration with CrossRef
to check similarity in submitted manuscripts. The Journal follows the
guidelines of Committee on
Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts
in cases of reported malpractice. It is the policy of Advanced
Research Publications not to accept any kind of duplication of submission or
publication of article, plagiarism, unclear authorship.
If, after publication, any of the malpractices is
proved, the article will be retracted and the author (and the co-authors if
any) will be banned in further submissions.
In case of suspected plagiarism, we would contact
the author. We expect a response within a given date. If no response is
received within a given time frame, then the editor will contact the author’s
institution for further investigation.
In case of a request to add or remove an author at
any stage, authors have to provide explanation and signed statement of
agreement for the requested change from all authors listed in the article and
from the author to be removed or added.
The Journal is committed to ensuring ethics
in publication and quality of articles as well as freedom of expressions.
Editorial Board has the final say in matters related to all aspects of
publication and advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue does
not influence editorial decisions. Conformance to standards of ethical
behaviour is therefore expected of all parties involved: editors, authors,
reviewers and the publisher. Following guidelines have been developed on the
basis of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for
Journal Editors (available from https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf).
should be responsible for everything published in their journals. Their
Fair play: Editor’s
should take decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication based only on
the paper’s importance, originality, clarity, and the study’s relevance to the
scope of the journal.
will protect all information related to manuscript and discuss only with
corresponding author, reviewers, and the publisher, if appropriate, to maintain
interest:Editor should decline to edit a manuscript in which
they might have personal, financial, political, academic interest. In such
cases, they should ask another member of editorial board to handle the
decision: All manuscripts should undergo peer review by at
least two reviewers. All decisions must be taken on the basis of validity,
significance, reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are in force
regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism at the time.
should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart when complaints are
raised. They should consider appeals of authors against editorial decisions
should follow the ethical codes of publications. Their duties include:
and plagiarism: Authors must ensure that the manuscript is
their original contribution and has not previously been published elsewhere.
Authors must not use any words/figures/tables from other works without
appropriate citation and permission.
submissions: Sending manuscript for publication to more
than one publication will be considered unethical behaviour and breach of
All authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the
research. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors are
included on the manuscript, and all co-authors have approved and agreed upon
the final manuscript submission.
interest: Authors must declare all sources of funds and
conflicts of interest.
errors: Authors are obliged to notify about errors at any point
immediately if a significant error is discovered in manuscript submitted for
publication. They should cooperate with editors in the procedure of retraction
have an important role in publication. They should:
should treat any manuscript submitted to them as confidential document, keep
all information obtained through peer review confidential and not use for
improvement: Reviewers should provide objective comments
and formulate observations clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors
can use them for improving the paper.
response: Reviewers should report promptly if they feel
unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript.
interest: 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.
of sources: Reviewers should provide citation of relevant
published work that has not been cited by the authors. A reviewer should also
notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the
manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or
unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.