Once submitted, your manuscript will be placed in Initial Assessment (Desk Review) for initial feedback/review by the Editor-in-Chief, and then it will be sent through the double-blind peer review procedure.
The peer review process is the driving force behind JMS journals and is at the heart of acceptable scientific publishing. JMS reviewers adhere to the highest ethical standards of scientific research, and all articles are subjected to a double-blind peer review procedure that takes place entirely within the JMS eEditorial Discovery® (EED)® online submission system.
The reviews are therefore freely accessible to the JMS editorial staff, guaranteeing that if accusations of questionable peer review surface, JMS will be able to assist its published authors and editors in rejecting these claims and assuring the continued success of the associated publications. View the entire journal Statement on Ethics and Malpractice.
Ethical Guidelines and Malpractice statement to Publication of research articles
The Editor-in-Chief and editorial board members of the publisher's journals provide a set of ethical rules for those involved in the publication of research articles, particularly editors, authors, and submission reviewers. The guidelines reflected in this document were prepared by the Editors of the publisher's publications. The ethics guidelines are changed on a regular basis to ensure their clarity, and the guidelines reflected in this document were revised in July 2018 by the Editors of the publisher's Publications Division.
The authors' publishers Ethical Guidelines are presented on the basis of the conviction that the adherence to high ethical standards is so vital to the entire scientific activity that a definition of those standards should be brought to the attention of all parties involved. As a result, it is critical to agree on required ethical behaviour norms.
"Breaking the standards of publication ethics can seriously harm your reputation as a researcher."
“Regardless of their nature, all journals serve to advance scholarly discussions of topics — whether religious, gender-based, environmental, ethical, political, or other potentially or thematically problematic matters. "An ethics and malpractice statement commits oneself to fulfilling and maintaining ethical standards at all levels of the review and publication processes."
The publishing industry supports the scientific profession in a variety of sectors (such as science, engineering, arts, and sports) through producing journals that communicate the findings of scientific study. Every editor of this journal publication bears responsibility for the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge by adhering to the ethical guidelines for selecting, reviewing, and accepting research articles submitted to the journals, and the quality of work of the authors is directly reflected in the standard of the journal that published. Importantly, these rules are formed from the editor's assessment of quality standards for scientific work and its presentation.
In this regard, the editors of the publisher's journals have now presented a set of ethical rules for anyone involved in the publication of research articles, specifically for editors, authors, and submission reviewers. These principles will be of great assistance to those who are new to research.
A summary of our key expectations for authors, editors and (peer-) reviewers, is here detailed:
Guidelines Ethical Obligations of Authors of Scientific Journals
"Through the ethical principles reflected in this series, we provide you with the support and advice you need to ensure the ethical soundness of your manuscript and activities."
- To submit the work in the format specified in the Authors' Instructions;
- To confirm that their manuscripts are their own work, and that if they have used the work and/or words of others, they have properly attributed or quoted them. The authors must state that all of the data in the publication is true and authentic. Fraudulent or wilfully incorrect claims are unethical and unacceptable;
- All Authors mentioned in the publication must have made a significant contribution to the research. Authorship should be limited to individuals who made a major contribution to the study’s conception, design, implementation, or interpretation. Co-authors should include everyone who made a substantial contribution. Others who have contributed to the substantive components of the study endeavour should be thanked or identified as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that the manuscript includes all suitable co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors, and that all co-authors have viewed and approved the final version of the paper and consented to its submission for publication.
- To list all sources utilised in the preparation of their manuscript;
- It is always necessary to properly acknowledge the work of others. Authors should cite publications that were influential in determining the nature of the reported work;
- Authors should ensure that any studies involving human or animal subjects comply with national, local, and institutional laws and requirements (e.g., WMA Declaration of Helsinki, NIH Policy on the Use of Laboratory Animals, EU Directive on the Use of Animals) and confirm that approval has been sought and obtained where appropriate. Human subjects' express permission should be obtained, and their privacy should be respected.
- We discuss why it is critical to follow existing guidelines and the implications of failing to do so. We then go over some of the rules governing authorship and plagiarism in further depth. Furthermore, we explain your rights as an author and how to seek permission to utilise content from copyrighted publications.
Guidelines Ethical Obligations of Editors of Scientific Journals
- To examine submissions for their intellectual merit without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic background, citizenship, or political ideology;
- To not reveal any information about a submitted article to anyone other than the manuscript's authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and, if applicable, the publisher;
- To carry out their expected obligations in a balanced and objective manner, without prejudice based on the authors' gender, sexual orientation, religious or political opinions, ethnic or geographical origin;
- To assign at least two reviewers from the associated field editors to review the uploaded papers. The reviews should be conducted on a first-come, first-served basis.
- To use and implement appropriate processes in the event of ethical or conflict-related concerns; to offer authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any issued complaints. All complaints should be looked into. Documentation related to any such complaints should be kept in a proper manner; the editor has total responsibility and authority to accept or reject a submitted paper for publication. The editor may consult with reviewers for an evaluation to use in making this decision; The editor is responsible for the publication's contents and overall quality; The editor should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable efforts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem; The editor should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members;
- Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used in the Editor-in-or Chief's Editorial Board members' own research without the author's express written consent; If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a paper published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate paper pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it.
Guidelines Ethical Obligations of reviewers of Scientific Journals
- Contribute extensively to the reviewing process and aid in increasing the quality of the work submitted for review and publication by objectively reviewing the manuscript within the time frame specified;
- To keep any information provided by the editor or author secret.
- It is forbidden to keep or copy the manuscript in any way.
- To notify the editor in chief of any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to the item under review and is not properly cited;
- To be mindful of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative, or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to notify the editor, withdrawing their services for that submission if necessary.
Identification of unethical (malpractice) behaviour:
- Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor in chief and publisher at any time, by anyone using any method of communication;
- Misconduct and unethical behaviour may include, but are not limited to, the examples provided above;
- Whoever informs the Editor-in-Chief or Publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be launched. All allegations should be treated carefully and consistently until a successful judgement or result is achieved.
- The Editor-in-Chief should make the initial choice, and if necessary, speak with or seek advice from the publisher.
- Evidence should be acquired while keeping any claims limited to those who need to know. Breach: Minor infractions may be addressed with without the necessity for a broader consultation. In any case, the author should be given a chance to respond to any claims.
- Serious wrongdoing may necessitate notifying the accused's employer. The Editor-in-Chief, in cooperation with the Publisher, should decide whether or not to include the employers, either by reviewing the available evidence or by consulting with a small group of specialists. Outcomes:
- Informing or teaching the author or reviewer when there appears to be a misunderstanding or misuse of appropriate norms;
- A stronger-worded letter to the author or reviewer outlining the wrongdoing and serving as a deterrent to future misconduct;
- Publication of an official notification outlining the wrongdoing;
- Publication of an editorial outlining the wrongdoing;
- A official letter to the author's or reviewer's department head or funding organisation;
- Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, together with notification to the head of the Author or Reviewer's department, Abstracting & Indexing services, and the publication's readership;
- Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period; papers found with signs of plagiarism / self-plagiarism are rejected; the author receives a letter in which he is also informed that he is barred from submitting another paper proposal to the Journal for two years;
- Reporting the case and its outcome to a professional body or higher authority for additional inquiry and action.
Conflict of interest and competing interest
A conflict of interest occurs when an entity or people becomes untrustworthy due to a conflict between personal (or self-serving) interests and professional duties or responsibilities, and it can be extremely damaging to scholarly papers.
- If an Editor-in-Chief senses a conflict of interest, he or she should notify the publisher as soon as possible (e.g., an author of submitted work is based at their same institution and on a competitive project).
- If a reviewer encounters a conflict of interest (e.g., they are aware of the identity of the article manuscript author and/or work at the same institution), they should immediately notify the Editor(s)-in-Chief.
- If an author believes that their submitted work may contain a conflict of interest, they should attach a declaration of any conflict of interest with the article manuscript upon submission.
Funding sources, financial interests, employment status, and those that go beyond financial interests are examples of competing interests (non-financial interests).
As a publisher of scientific publications, JMS understands how fraud undermines public trust and has a significant impact on the outcomes of all research results and conclusions disclosed in scholarly journals and academic reference books. As a result, JMS has implemented a number of preventative measures:
- The Editor(s)-in-Chief of a journal are the only people who are responsible for the initial review of a submission to ensure that it fulfils the journal's coverage and that authors' names and affiliations are removed from the manuscript before assigning it for review.
- All persons invited to join an editorial advisory or review board must provide a copy of their Curriculum Vitae/Resume for evaluation, and they must accept the nomination and appointment to the board in writing through email or letter.
- To assign reviewers to papers, all Editor(s)-in-Chief of journals must use the eEditorial Discovery® online submission system. Similarly, all reviews must be submitted through the system by the reviewers. This creates a paper trail in the case that a question about the review process emerges.
- Those Editor(s)-in-Chief of journals that are still in the process of transitioning all submitted papers to the eEditorial Discovery® online submission system and may be assigning some reviews outside of the system are asked to submit the reviewer's evaluation form when submitting an accepted paper to JMS for publication.
Plagiarism detection (Turnitin)
In addition to making this Publishing Ethics and Malpractice Resource Kit available, the publisher is involved in additional publishing ethics activities, both internally and internationally. Furthermore, the manuscript will be thoroughly reviewed in order to determine whether or not plagiarism occurred and, if so, to what amount. To aid in the identification of plagiarised content, JMS employs Turnitin, a plagiarism detection software.