International Journal of Preventive Cardiology
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).
Editors should be responsible for everything published in their journals. Their responsibilities include:
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.
Confidentiality: Editors will protect all information related to manuscript and discuss only with corresponding author, reviewers, and the publisher, if appropriate, to maintain confidentiality.
Conflict of 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 manuscript.
Editorial 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.
Investigations: Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart when complaints are raised. They should consider appeals of authors against editorial decisions also.
Authors should follow the ethical codes of publications. Their duties include:
Originality 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.
Multiple submissions: Sending manuscript for publication to more than one publication will be considered unethical behaviour and breach of copyright.
Authorship: 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.
Conflict of interest: Authors must declare all sources of funds and conflicts of interest.
Fundamental 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 or correction.
Reviewers have an important role in publication. They should:
Confidentiality: Reviewers should treat any manuscript submitted to them as confidential document, keep all information obtained through peer review confidential and not use for personal advantage.
Assistance in improvement: Reviewers should provide objective comments and formulate observations clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper.
Prompt response: Reviewers should report promptly if they feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript.
Conflict of 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.
Acknowledgment 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.