Duties of Authors

Reporting standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works and if the authors have used the work or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Duties of Reviewers

Dear Reviewers,

Here are the duties for JHRS:

Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author, who may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research report in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement or observation, derivation, or argument that had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call the editor's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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.

JHRS Editor-in-chief

Version IV: Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

According to the new guidelines, all published content, including special issues and conference proceedings, should adhere to these Principles. A journal’s procedures must be transparently communicated if they differ from those outlined.

The publication should also promote accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusivity. The decision to publish should be based on scholarly merit. It should not matter where the manuscript originates, including the authors’ nationality, ethnicity, politics, race, or religion. Managing policies for inclusivity should be a regular part of the journal’s operations to ensure none create an exclusionary environment.

There are four major areas that these principles cover, that is, journal content, practices, organization, and business practices. These tenets form the bases on which principles of transparency and best practices for scholarly publications are assessed by COPE, DOAJ, WAME, and OASPA for membership suitability. Additionally, each organization has its own criteria for evaluating applications. Those who failed to demonstrate transparency and best practices will not be included in the list of member journals.

These guiding principles serve as a foundation for best practices and help existing and new journals reach the highest standards possible. It provides guidance on how to make information available on websites, peer review, access, author fees, and publication ethics. Additionally, these principles cover ownership and management, copyright, and licensing, as well as editorial standards.

Considering the changes in scholarly publishing landscapes since the last update of these guidelines in 2018; Four organizations have collaborated on the fourth edition of the principles in order to align them with today’s scholarly publishing environment.

According to Margaret Winker, MD, WAME Trustee; The new version includes more information about peer review practices, publication ethics policies, and author fees to achieve journal transparency. This version emphasizes practices that are achievable by journals regardless of their resources, just as previous versions did. A thorough reorganization has been made to make this version easier to use. It emphasizes the need for inclusivity in scholarly publishing and emphasizes the importance of editorial decisions based on merit and not on the author’s nationality, political beliefs, or religion.

Source: https://blog.theacse.com/

Peer Review Week 2022

WHAT IS PEER REVIEW WEEK?

Peer Review Week is a community-led yearly global virtual event celebrating the essential role that peer review plays in maintaining research quality. The event brings together individuals, institutions, and organizations committed to sharing the central message that quality peer review in whatever shape or form it may take is critical to scholarly communication.

WHY PEER REVIEW WEEK?To emphasize the central role peer review plays in scholarly communication

To showcase the work of editors and reviewers

To share research and advance best practices

To highlight the latest peer review innovations and applications

WHERE CAN I FIND PEER REVIEW WEEK RESOURCES AND SCHEDULED EVENTS?

Explore the events happening this Peer Review Week, as well as planned resources (i.e., blog posts, infographics, etc.)

HOW CAN I ADD MY ACTIVITIES TO PEER REVIEW WEEK

Fill out this Google form to let us know about any activities you have planned for Peer Review Week 2022. We will help you promote them on the Peer Review Week website and Twitter. Activities can include webinars, blog posts, videos, podcast episodes, or anything else that contributes to a robust conversation related to this year’s Peer Review Week theme.

Source: https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com/

Peer Review Week 2022 Explores the Importance of Peer Review in Supporting Research Integrity

This year’s Peer Review Week (PRW), an annual event to celebrate the value of peer review that brings together scholarly communication stakeholders, including academic publishers, associations, institutions, and researchers, will be dedicated to the theme “Research Integrity: Creating and supporting trust in research.” During the week of September 19-23, 2022, participating organizations will host events and activities to highlight the ways in which peer review contributes to and reinforces trust in scholarship. The theme was chosen via an open global poll of the scholarly community.

*Results of open global Peer Review Week theme poll

With the “reproducibility crisis” and increased politicization of science testing trust in research, the issue of research integrity is arguably more important than ever. Identifying ways to ensure and promote quality peer review and confidence in the process is essential, especially now in the face of numerous global crises, including climate change and the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Peer review shapes how researchers and the general public view individual studies and scientific research as a whole. Whether reviews are published or private, anonymous or signed, posted to a preprint, or raised to editors after publication, we rely on expert opinions to vet research prior to publication and help correct the record when mistakes occur. How can the scholarly community demonstrate research integrity, enhance understanding of peer review, and promote trust in review processes? We’ll explore these questions and more during PRW 2022.

“The topic of research integrity has become more pressing than ever. With the proliferation of digital media outlets, we’re all tuned into constant content streams. At the same time, academia is seeing an acceleration of information sharing via preprints and expedited review processes. The upside of this is more widespread and rapid dissemination of information. But it’s also introducing challenges, particularly in terms of differentiating research that has been peer reviewed from unvetted findings and ensuring rigorous review on tighter publication timelines. This PRW is an opportunity to share innovations around promoting research integrity and look ahead to remaining challenges,” said Danielle Padula, Head of Marketing and Community Development at Scholastica and co-chair of the 2022 PRW steering committee.

“Peer review has been one of the bulwarks of scholarly publishing because of its role in helping uphold research quality. Peer review involves an underlying assumption of trust from every stakeholder. Authors go through the process with the implicit trust that editors will source the most suited peer reviewers who will be in a position to understand their work, and that peer reviewers will provide them with valid and constructive criticism. Editors trust that authors have followed best and ethical publishing practices before and during the submission process. They also trust their peer reviewers to approach reviews with an unbiased mindset. Peer reviewers expect authors to present their work ethically. And then, at the outlet of this funnel, we have academic and non-academic audiences that trust the integrity of the information that is being disseminated after a thorough peer review. It is safe to say that trust and integrity are at play at all times here. By focusing on integrity in peer review, PRW 2022 is an unmissable opportunity for the global scholarly community to talk about how peer review helps not only maintain but also strengthen the integrity of critical scientific research,” said Jayashree Rajagopalan, Senior Manager, Global Community Engagement, at Cactus Communications and co-chair of the 2022 PRW steering committee.

We invite all scholarly societies, researchers, editors, publishers, libraries, universities, funding bodies, and anyone interested in the advancement of quality research to join us during Peer Review Week for this celebration and learning experience.

Activities may include blog posts, videos, podcasts, infographics, and more. Submit items for promotion through this online form.

You can follow the latest announcements for Peer Review Week 2022 and share what your organization has planned using the hashtags: #PeerReviewWeek22 and #ResearchIntegrity

Source: https://peerreviewweek.wordpress.com

Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

Introduction

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) are scholarly organisations that have seen an increase in the number, and broad range in the quality, of membership applications. Our organisations have collaborated to identify principles of transparency and best practice for scholarly publications and to clarify that these principles form the basis of the criteria by which suitability for membership is assessed by COPE, DOAJ and OASPA, and part of the criteria on which membership applications are evaluated by WAME. Each organisation also has their own, additional criteria which are used when evaluating applications. The organisations will not share lists of or journals that failed to demonstrate that they met the criteria for transparency and best practice.

This is the third version of a work in progress (published January 2018); the first version was made available by OASPA in December 2013 and a second version in June 2015. We encourage its wide dissemination and continue to welcome feedback on the general principles and the specific criteria. Background on the organisations is below.

Principles of Transparency

1. Website: A journal’s website, including the text that it contains, shall demonstrate that care has been taken to ensure high ethical and professional standards. It must not contain information that might mislead readers or authors, including any attempt to mimic another journal/publisher’s site.

An ‘Aims & Scope’ statement should be included on the website and the readership clearly defined. There should be a statement on what a journal will consider for publication including authorship criteria (e.g., not considering multiple submissions, redundant publications) to be included. ISSNs should be clearly displayed (separate for print and electronic).

2. Name of journal: The Journal name shall be unique and not be one that is easily confused with another journal or that might mislead potential authors and readers about the Journal’s origin or association with other journals.

3. Peer review process: Journal content must be clearly marked as whether peer reviewed or not. Peer review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers expert in the field who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff. This process, as well as any policies related to the journal’s peer review procedures, shall be clearly described on the journal website, including the method of peer review used. Journal websites should not guarantee manuscript acceptance or very short peer review times.

4. Ownership and management: Information about the ownership and/or management of a journal shall be clearly indicated on the journal’s website. Publishers shall not use organizational or journal names that would mislead potential authors and editors about the nature of the journal’s owner.

5. Governing body: Journals shall have editorial boards or other governing bodies whose members are recognized experts in the subject areas included within the journal’s scope. The full names and affiliations of the journal’s editorial board or other governing body shall be provided on the journal’s website.

6. Editorial team/contact information: Journals shall provide the full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors on the journal website as well as contact information for the editorial office, including a full address.

7. Copyright and Licensing: The policy for copyright shall be clearly stated in the author guidelines and the copyright holder named on all published articles. Likewise, licensing information shall be clearly described in guidelines on the website, and licensing terms shall be indicated on all published articles, both HTML and PDFs. If authors are allowed to publish under a Creative Commons license then any specific license requirements shall be noted. Any policies on posting of final accepted versions or published articles on third party repositories shall be clearly stated.

8. Author fees: Any fees or charges that are required for manuscript processing and/or publishing materials in the journal shall be clearly stated in a place that is easy for potential authors to find prior to submitting their manuscripts for review or explained to authors before they begin preparing their manuscript for submission. If no such fees are charged that should also be clearly stated.

9. Process for identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct: Publishers and editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In no case shall a journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. In the event that a journal’s publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in their journal, the publisher or editor shall follow COPE’s guidelines (or equivalent) in dealing with allegations.

10. Publication Ethics: A journal shall also have policies on publishing ethics. These should be clearly visible on its website, and should refer to: i) Journal policies on authorship and contributorship; ii) How the journal will handle complaints and appeals; iii) Journal policies on conflicts of interest / competing interests; iv) Journal policies on data sharing and reproducibility; v) Journal’s policy on ethical oversight; vi) Journal’s policy on intellectual property; and vii) Journal’s options for post-publication discussions and corrections.

11. Publishing schedule: The periodicity at which a journal publishes shall be clearly indicated.

12. Access: The way(s) in which the journal and individual articles are available to readers and whether there are associated subscription or pay per view fees shall be stated.

13. Archiving: A journal’s plan for electronic backup and preservation of access to the journal content (for example, access to main articles via CLOCKSS or PubMedCentral) in the event a journal is no longer published shall be clearly indicated.

14. Revenue sources: Business models or revenue sources (e.g., author fees, subscriptions, advertising, reprints, institutional support, and organizational support) shall be clearly stated or otherwise evident on the journal’s website. Publishing fees or waiver status should not influence editorial decision making.

15. Advertising: Journals shall state their advertising policy if relevant, including what types of adverts will be considered, who makes decisions regarding accepting adverts and whether they are linked to content or reader behavior (online only) or are displayed at random. Advertisements should not be related in any way to editorial decision making and shall be kept separate from the published content.

16. Direct marketing: Any direct marketing activities, including solicitation of manuscripts that are conducted on behalf of the journal, shall be appropriate, well targeted, and unobtrusive. Information provided about the publisher or journal is expected to be truthful and not misleading for readers or authors.

In the event that a member organization is found to have violated these best practices, or other specific requirements of the organization, OASPA/DOAJ/COPE/WAME shall in the first instance try to work with them in order to address any concerns that have been raised. In the event that the member organization is unable or unwilling to address these concerns, their membership in the organization may be suspended or terminated. OASPA/DOAJ/COPE/WAME have procedures for dealing with concerns raised about members.

Source: https://oaspa.org/

ADVERTISEMENTS AND SPONSORSHIP

Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences (JHRS) accepts advertising and sponsorship for its website according to the following principles: 

• Advertising is separate from content. Advertisers and sponsors have no advance knowledge of our editorial content, nor do the editors have advance knowledge of advertisers. Content is never altered, added, or deleted to accommodate advertising. Advertisers and sponsors have no input regarding any of our editorial decisions or advertising policies. The advertising sales representatives have neither control over, nor prior knowledge of, specific editorial content before it is published. 
• Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences reserves the right to decline or cancel any advertisement at any time. 
• Advertising must be factual and in good taste in the judgment of the Publisher and Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences management. Please note: Readers who click on an advertising banner or other advertising links may connect to a site different from the Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences to view additional information. Such sites may also ask visitors for additional data. Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences does not participate in, nor control such sites. 
• Advertised products must be compliant with the regulations in the country where the advertisement will be seen. 
• Users will be able to distinguish between advertising and editorial content clearly on the website. 
• Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences does not endorse any company, product, or service appearing in its advertising. 
• Advertisers and sponsors have no control or influence over the results of searches a user may conduct on the Journal of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences website. Search results are based solely on the functionality available through our search software (e.g., keywords or natural language) and user-defined criteria. 
• Updates to our Internet advertising policy will be posted on this website.

Types of Advertising

These types of advertisements are generally acceptable for consideration: research and laboratory reagents; medical/research equipment products and services; medical software; practice-management products and services (including office equipment and supplies, medical billing systems, medical software products), and medical websites.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE

Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could have direct or potential influence or impart bias on the work. Although an author may not feel there is any conflict, the disclosure of relationships and interests provides a more complete and transparent process, leading to an accurate and objective assessment of the work.

Awareness of a real or perceived conflict of interest is a perspective to which the readers are entitled. This is not meant to imply that a financial relationship with an organization that sponsored the research or compensation received for consultancy work is inappropriate.

Examples of potential conflicts of interests that are directly or indirectly related to the research may include but are not limited to the following: 

• Research grants from funding agencies (please give the research funder and the grant number)
• Honoraria for speaking at symposia
• Financial support for attending symposia
• Financial support for educational programs
• Employment or consultation
• Support from a project sponsor
• Position on advisory board or board of directors or another type of management relationships
• Multiple affiliations
• Financial relationships, for example, equity ownership or investment interest Intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, copyrights, and royalties from such rights)
• Holdings of spouse and/or children that may have a financial interest in the work.

In addition, interests that go beyond financial interests and compensation (non-financial interests) that may be important to readers should be disclosed. These may include but are not limited to personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research, or professional interests or personal beliefs that may influence your research.

The corresponding author collects the conflict of interest disclosure forms from all authors. In author collaborations where formal agreements for representation allow it, it is sufficient for the corresponding author to sign the disclosure form on behalf of all authors.

The form can be downloaded here: ICMJE form.

Publication ethics

Dear Authors,

Our Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is based on the "Codes of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines" developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct). The International Standards for Editors and Authors were developed at the 2nd WCRI (see http://publicationethics.org/resources/international-standards-for-editors-and-authors).

Publication decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play: An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's research without the express written consent of the author.

JHRS Editor-in-chief

Review procedure

Dear Authors,

Once a manuscript is submitted, it is assigned to an Editor most appropriate to handle it, based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors and Reviewers. If the Editor determines that the manuscript is not of sufficient quality to go through the normal review process or if the subject of the manuscript is not appropriate to the journal scope, the Editor rejects the manuscript with no further processing.

If the Editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, he/she assigns the manuscript to a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 4 external reviewers for peer-review. The reviewers submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:

• Accept submission (Publish Unaltered)
• Revisions required (Consider after Minor Changes)
• Resubmit for review (Consider after Major Changes)
• Decline submission (Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel)

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations: Publish Unaltered, Consider after Minor Changes, Consider after Major Changes, Reject.

If the Editor recommends "Publish Unaltered," the manuscript is accepted for publication.

If the Editor recommends "Consider after Minor Changes," the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the Acknowledgment can be accepted.

If the Editor recommends "Consider after Major Changes," the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the Editor can then make an editorial recommendation, which can be "Publish Unaltered" or "Consider after Minor Changes" or "Reject."

If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Also, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of the inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal, since any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the journal.

The peer-review process is double-blinded, i.e., the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are, and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are. Without the significant contributions made by peer reviewers, the publication of the journal would not be possible.

JHRS Editor-in-chief

Scientific writing and English language

Dear Authors

Before submitting, check your manuscript with https://www.goodreports.org/ made by the EQUATOR Network writing guidelines. The guidelines may be found at https://www.equator-network.org/. Using the appropriate guideline when writing your manuscript improves the quality of the manuscript significantly and improves the chance for publication. Another tool called www.penelope.ai may also be helpful in the initial screening of completeness of your manuscript. Also, reviewing previously published articles in the Current Issue is useful to familiarize yourself with the structuring requirements of the JHRS.

The manuscripts have to conform to standard scientific English language style, grammar, and clarity. Authors who feel that their manuscript may benefit from additional academic writing or language editing support before submission are encouraged to seek out such services at their host institutions, engage with colleagues and subject matter experts, and/or consider professional English language editing vendors. Clearly and well-written manuscripts have a much better chance of acceptance. You can consult English native speaker to proofread your article. Please note that the use of these services is not mandatory for publication in the JHRS, and JHRS does not endorse or take responsibility for these service providers.

JHRS Editor-in-chief

JHRS Sections

Dear authors,

JHRS has following sections:


1. Editorial

2. Health Research

3. Rehabilitation Research

4. Neuroscience Research

5. Special Education Research

6. Psychological Research

7. Developmental Diversity Research

8. Social Policy Research

9. Practical Experiences / Empirical Case Reports

10. Book Reviews

11. Abstracts from master and doctoral thesis

JHRS Editor-in-chief

Article types in JHRS

Dear readers,

We are accepting following article types:

• Original Research articles
• Review articles
• Case series/reports with a review of the literature
• Letter to editor
• Editorial
• Commentary
• Abstracts from master thesis
• Abstracts from doctoral thesis

JHRS Editor-in-chief

Submission process

Dear authors,

Before your submission, please prepare a Cover letter.

Prepare names, institutions, and emails of all the authors
Check the manuscript file for writing and formatting requirements

The submitting author takes responsibility for the article during submission and peer review. There are three mandatory documents you should submit to editorial office.

1. Main text article (without names, affiliations)
2. The cover page is mandatory (take it from the web site documents).
3. The cover letter is mandatory and should include:

• Explanation of the importance of the manuscript (why your manuscript should be published?)
• Declaration of any competing interests.

JHRS Editor-in-chief

Ethics toolkit for a successful editorial office

JHRS follows COPE guidelines!

A COPE guide

To help ensure the integrity of the scholarly record and the publication process, editorial offices should define and implement best practices in publication ethics. This COPE guide is a comprehensive toolkit that explains expected ethical practices in scholarly publishing, and highlights resources for editorial offices to develop their codes of ethical conduct and practice.

You can also use this toolkit to prepare your application for COPE membership by identifying areas in need of development within your policies and processes to align with COPE's Core Practices and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

Key pointsJournals should have robust and well described practices for all the areas within the COPE Core Practices.

Journals should be transparent about their processes and business practices according to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. COPE expects journals to apply these principles in publishing practice.

Clear and transparent policies should be in place describing requirements for authorship and contributorship.

Peer review processes, including what is peer reviewed, what model of peer review is used and how the process is managed must be transparent.

Journals must have processes in place to respond to allegations of research, publication, and review misconduct whether before or after publication.

Journals should clearly describe definitions of what, and how, conflicts of interest must be disclosed by authors, reviewers, editors, journals and publishers.

Requirements for data availability, use of reporting guidelines, and registration of clinical trials and other study designs should be clear in journal guidelines.

Journals must publish clear guidelines on the ethical conduct of research, according to the research discipline.

Copyright and publishing licences must be clearly described, as well as any author or reader fees.

Transparency of journal management is required including the business model, policies, processes, and software for the efficient running of the journal.

Journals must describe how they manage post-publication debate and perform corrections and retractions.

The journal and publisher must have guidelines in place to handle complaints against the journal, its staff, editorial board or the publisher.

Source: https://publicationethics.org/

How to register and login on JHRS

Dear Authors,

You can find suggestions how to register on our journal web site.

Every OJS journal site. We need at least 1 account to be able to submit an articles or for other purposes.
So, here we will create an account for the OJS website.

Below are 2 options:Registration Process (if you don’t have an account on the OJS website).
Login process (if you already have an account on the OJS website).
Registration process

So, here we will create an account for the OJS website.

1. Visit the journal website

First of all, go to the OJS site (but enter the url / address of the OJS journal you want).
Example : https://yourojssite.com/

2. Visit the “Register” page

Then select “Register” (In the top right corner).

3. Fill in the information for your account

Then fill in the information data about your account. if done, select “Register”

4. And you have successfully registered the account!

You have successfully registered your account on the OJS 3 site!
Login process

So, here we will login to the OJS website using an account that has been registered.

1. Visit the journal website

First of all, go to the OJS site (but enter the url / address of the OJS journal you want).
Example : https://yourojssite.com/

2. Visit the “Login” page

Then select “Login” (In the top right corner).

3. Fill in your account data

Then fill in your username and password. Then press “Login”

4. You have successfully logged into the OJS 3 Journal site!

Congratulations, you have successfully logged into the OJS site!
Source: https://openjournaltheme.com/

International open access journal