HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION

H-9, Islamabad (Pakistan)

Phone: (051) 90402116, Fax: (051) 90402102,

E-mail: tshah@hec.gov.pk

Ethical Guidelines for Journals

Ethical Guidelines For the Editors

The Editor of a research journal plays an important role in establishing and maintaining the professional standards. Publication of a paper in an HEC recognized journal is expected to be a reflection of quality work of the author (s) and the affiliating institution (if any). The Editor is expected to perform the responsibility towards the journal on its all aspects and at varied stages i.e. from receiving of an article to publishing it. Keeping this in view, it becomes prime responsibility of an editor to adapt the following guidelines while publishing papers in his/her research journal.

1.   The Editor’s Responsibilities

The Editor of a research journal should be responsible for:

·  Establishing and maintaining quality of the journal by publishing quality papers in his/her journal.

·  Promotion of freedom of expression within the cultural, constitutional/legal framework,

·  Providing integrity and credibility of the research contributions,

·  Meeting the needs of authors and readers,

·  Maintaining ethical standards of their journal,

·  Providing corrigendum for any correction, clarification and apologies where required.

1.2  Good practices for their job would include to:

·         Encourage new ideas and suggestions of authors, peer reviewers, members of editorial board and readers for improving quality of his/her journal,

·         Apply the process of blind peer review in true letter and spirit,

·         Promote innovative findings in respective field and publishing them on priority,

·         Promote anti plagiarism policy,

·         Educate contributors (authors) about ethical practices in research, and

·         Implement the journal’s policy without institutional pressure and revise the policy from time

to time.

1.      Formation of Editorial Board

·  The Editor must ensure that the Editorial Board comprises prominent scholars of the field who can adequately promote the journal,

·  The Editorial Board should comprise of and be responsible for the following:

§  An Editorial Committee, who will be responsible for providing logistics, and

§  Advisory Committee, who will be responsible for reviewing the submitted research articles, this committee should have at least 50% representation of scholars from abroad.

·   May appoint Editorial Board members for a prescribed duration and add or revise constitution of the Board if required,

·   The Editor should inform new board members about ethical guidelines and their expected role and update the Editorial Board members about development, challenges and any changes made in the journal policy,

·   The Editorial Board should maintain quality of the journal because an assigned category by the HEC (e.g. W, X, Y, and Z categories) will depend on the quality of published papers in it. It is the professional duty of the Board members to select credible research work, and

·   To ensure smooth functioning of the journal, the Editors are responsible for conducting the Editorial Board meetings on regular basis (at least twice a year).

2.      Fair play and Impartiality

·      The criteria for the selection of research papers must be impartial and the Editor should select academically and scientifically sound articles,

The Editor should:

§  Promptly respond to the author (s) of the papers submitted for publication, and

§  Assign a specific number to an article submitted for processing; and pay impartial consideration to all research papers submitted for publication.

·    To ensure evaluation of the content of research papers impartially,

·      Disregard the discriminating factors, e.g. gender, race, ethnicity, religious belief, cultural sentiments, political affiliation, seniority and/or institutional association of the author(s) while selecting articles for publication,

§  To ensure impartiality of the review process by informing the reviewer (s) that s/he needs to disclose any conflicts of interest regarding the submitted research paper.

3.        Confidentiality

•          The  Editor  must   ensure   confidentiality   of   the   author(s)   and   reviewers   during   the  process of double-blind peer review,

•          Information pertaining to a research paper should not be disclosed by the Editor to anyone except the author(s), reviewer(s), and editorial board members,

•         Upon reaching a decision about a research paper, only the Editor may disclose or announce title of the study and name of the author(s) that has been accepted for publication. Any other information may only be disclosed with the prior approval of the

author(s), and

•          Confidentiality  of  the  participants  of  the  research  should  also  be  ensured   by   protecting personal  information  (e.g.  identifiable  personal  details,  images,   and/or   individual   results). Editor   should   declare   clear   guidelines   to   the    contributors    (authors)   regarding confidentiality of the individual participant.

•         Prior to publication, the content of the manuscript should be kept confidential, both the

Editor and reviewer(s) will not share or use any part of the work.

4.        Editing and Formatting Guidelines

•          The Editor should prepare clear guidelines about preparing  and  formatting  of  a  paper  and print these guidelines in each issue of the journal,

•          The  guidelines  should  cover  information  related  to   'content'   and   'format'   of   a   research paper,

•          Any  preferred  manual  of  style  (e.g.  APA,  Chicago  Manual,  MLA  Style,  etc)  should  be declared as a policy decision.

5.        The Review Process

•         Details about the review process should be declared,

•         Editor should ensure that all published papers have gone through a double-blind peer review, and at least one of the reviewers is from outside the country.

•         The Editor should ensure that peer-review is masked in both directions and as such the

identity  of  the  author  is  removed  from  the  manuscript  prior   to   its   review   in   order   to protect the confidentiality and privacy.

•         The Editor should provide sufficient  guidelines  to  reviewers,  including  necessary  information about  the  review  process   and   provide   them   a   reviewer   comment   form   for   recording his/her comments.

•         The Editor must ensure that peer review process is prompt, nondiscriminatory and  highly professional.

•         The Editor should develop a system of confidentiality of research papers undergoing the review process.

•         The Editor is required to send reviewers' comments to author(s) promptly and should ensure that the corrections suggested by the reviewers are incorporated by the author(s) in true letter and spirit.

•         The Editor to critically evaluate peer review practices regularly and make improvements, if,

require.

•         The Editor should maintain a database of competent and qualified reviewers. For this purpose, s/he may use various sources other than personal contacts to identify new reviewers (e.g. referring by author (s), citations and references section in a book/journal), and

•          The Editor should refer troublesome cases (e.g. in case of one acceptance and one rejection or any conflict  arisen  after  review)   to   Advisory   Committee   in   order   to   resolve   the matter amicably.

6.        Dealing with Misconduct

•          The Editor should encourage reviewers to comment on ethical issues and possible research

and publication misconduct (e.g. inappropriate research design, incomplete detail on participant's consent, data manipulation, and presentation).

•          The  Editor  should  encourage  reviewers  to  comment  on  the  validity  of   submitted  research paper  and  identify  'subtle  (simply  copy-paste)'  and/or  'blatant  (paraphrasing)'   type  of plagiarism, if, practised by the author(s).

•          The Editor should confirm plagiarism  (carry  out  objective  check  through  Turnitin)  and/or searching for similar titles to the submitted research paper, and

•          The Editor should be prepared to publish a corrigendum, remove  and  retract  a  plagiarized article if it comes to his/her knowledge subsequent to its publication.

7.        Transparency

•          The Editor must ensure that multiple papers as a principal investigator  submitted  by  an  author should not be published in the same issue.

•          Only   ONE   co-authorship    is    allowed    for    those    authors    who    also    contribute    a research paper as a principal investigator in the same issue.

•          For the members of the Editorial Board (including  the  Editor),  it  will  only  be  limited  to ONE  paper  per  issue  either  to  submit  research  paper  as  a   principal   investigator   or  co- author, and

•          The  Editor  should  adopt  authorship   or   co-authorship   policy   that   will   set   an   example   in the   scientific   community   and   strictly   discourage   any   misconduct   (e.g.   forcible    inclusion of a name in the author list).  Authorship  should  only  be  given  to  those  individuals  who have substantially contributed in the said article.

8.        Conflict of Interest

•          The Editor should not edit a submitted paper for those  author(s)  and/or  institution  against which  s/he  has  any  conflicts   of   interest   (e.g.   resulting   from   competitive,   collaborative and/or professional standing).

•         The Editor should also apply this guideline on their reviewers and Editorial Board members.

•          To ensure unbiased review, the Editor should declare a clear cut policy for his/her own submission and a research paper submitted by an Editorial Board member, and

•         The Editor must publish a list of  common  interests  (e.g.  financial,  academic  and/or  any  other type) for all Editorial Board members and  editorial  staff.  This  list  should  be  updated  from time to time.

•          To ensure unbiased review, the Editor should declare a clear cut policy for his/her own submission

and a research paper submitted by an Editorial Board member.

•          In case of article (s) submitted by the Editor, the decision pertaining to the editor's submitted article/s, one of the Associate Editors must take responsibility for the evaluation of the article and information pertaining to reviewers should be kept confidential.

9.        Disclosure

•         The Editor must not use any unpublished information/data from  the  submitted  research  paper without the permission of the author(s), and

•         Any  information  received  after  the  peer  review  process  must  be   kept  confidential  and   not used for personal gains.

10.   Publication Decisions

•          The Editor should only shortlist research papers which have relevance to  the  scope  of  the journal clearly stated in the Journal, using his /her judgment, but without any personal bias.

•         After  completion  of  the  reviewing  process,  the  submission  of  revised   manuscript,   and assessing  the  quality  and  validity,  the  Editor  has  a  right   to   accept   or   reject   a  research paper.

•         The Editor's decisions to accept  or  reject  a  paper  for  publication  should  be  based  purely  on merit, academic standards and professional demands of the journal.

•         The Editor must justify the reason (s) of rejecting a research paper to  author(s).  This  may include:

■       Failure to fit in the scope of the journal (may be communicated after preliminary review)

■        Insufficient depth of content

■        Major errors related to design, analysis, write up and format

■        Any misconduct or conflicting factors (e.g. plagiarism, copyright infringement, legal issues, fake data, authorship issues)

•         The Editor is required to timely communicate the editorial decision to the author(s),

•         The Editors should not reverse decisions in favor or against author(s) on their own.

11.   Establishing a Procedure for Appeal

•         The Editor is responsible for establishing a proper mechanism for appeals launched against:

■        The rejection of a research paper.

■        Objections to publications causing harm to any party.

■        Infringement of Ethical boundaries in any manner.

Ethical Guidelines for the Author(s)

The following ethical guidelines are obligatory for all author(s) violation of which may result in application   of   penalties   by   the   editor,   including   but   not   limited   to    the    suspension    or revocation of publishing privileges.

Reporting Standards

•          It  is  the  author(s)'  responsibility  to  ensure   that   the   research   report   and   data   contain adequate detail and  references  to  the  sources  of  information  in  order  to  allow  others to reproduce the results.

•         Fraudulent or  knowingly  inaccurate  statements  constitute  unethical  behavior  and  are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

•          It  is  the  author(s)'  responsibility  to  ascertain  that  s/he   has   submitted   an   entirely  original work, giving due credit, by virtue of proper citations, to  the  works  and/or  words  of  others where they have been used.

•         Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is not acceptable.

•         Material  quoted  verbatim  from  the  author(s)'  previously  published   work   or   other   sources must be placed in quotation marks.

•          As   per    HEC’s    policy,    in    case    the    manuscript    has    a    similarity    index    of    more than 19%, it will either be rejected or left at the discretion of the Editorial Board for the purposes of a conditional acceptance.

Declaration

•          Authors  are  required  to  provide  an  undertaking  /  declaration   stating   that   the   manuscript under consideration contains solely their original work that  is  not  under  consideration  for publishing in any other journal in any form.

•          Authors may submit a manuscript previously published in abstracted  form,  for  e.g.  in the proceedings  of  an  annual  meeting,  or   in   a   periodical   with   limited   circulation   and availability such as reports by the Government agencies or a University.

•         A   manuscript   that   is   co-authored   must   be   accompanied   by   an   undertaking explicitly stating  that  each  author  has  contributed  substantially  towards   the   preparation   of  the manuscript in order to claim right to authorship.

•          It is  the  responsibility  of  the  corresponding  author  that  s/he  has  ensured  that  all  those  who have  substantially  contributed  in   the   manuscripts   have   been   included   in   the   author   list and they have agreed to the order of authorship.

Multiple, Redundant and Current Publication

•          Authors  should  not  submit  manuscripts  describing   essentially   the   same   research   to   more than one journal or publication except  if  is  a  re-submission  of  a  rejected  or  withdrawn manuscript.

•          Authors  may   re-publish   previously   conducted   research   that   has   been   substantially   altered or corrected using more meticulous analysis or by adding more data.

•          The  authors  and  editor  must  agree  to  the  secondary   publication,   which   must   cite   the primary references and reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document.

•          Concurrent  submission  of  the  same  manuscript  to  more  than  one  journal  is  unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgment of Sources

•         A paper must always contain proper acknowledgment of  the  work  of  others,  including clear   indications   of   the   sources   of   all   information   quoted   or   offered,   except     what is common knowledge.

•         The  author(s)  must  also  acknowledge  the  contributions  of  people,  organizations  and institutes   who   assisted   the   process   of   research,   including   those   who    provided technical help, writing assistance or financial funding (in the acknowledgement).

•         It is duty of the author(s) to conduct a literature review and properly  cite  the  original publications that describe closely related work.

Authorship Credit

•          Authorship of the work  may  only  be  credited  to  those  who  have  made  a  noteworthy contribution in conceptualization, design, conducting, data analysis and writing  up  of  the manuscript.

•          It is the responsibility of the corresponding author  to  include  the  name(s)  of  only  those  co- authors who have made significant contributions to the work.

•          The corresponding author should ensure that all co- authors have seen and approved the

final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Others who have participated in certain substantive aspect of the research should be acknowledged for their contribution in an "Acknowledgement" section.

Privacy of Participants

•          Authors must respect the  privacy  of  the  participant  of  research  and  must  not  use  any information obtained from them without their informed consent.

•          Authors   should   ensure   that   only   information   that   improves   understanding   of   the     study is shared.

•          Authors  must  ensure  that  in  instances  where  the  identity  of  the  participant  needs  to be revealed in the study, explicit and informed consent of the concerned party is obtained.

•          In the case of the  demise  of  a  participant,  consent  must  be  obtained  from  the  family  of the deceased.

Data Access and Retention

•          If any question arises about the accuracy or validity of  the  research  work  during  the  review process, the author(s) should provide raw data to the Editor.

Images

•          The author(s) should  ensure  that  images  included  in  an  account  of  research  performed  or in the data collection as part of the research are free from manipulation,

•          The author(s) must provide an accurate description of how the images were generated and produced.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

•          The  potential  and  relevant  competing  financial,  personal,  social  or  other  interest  of   all author(s) that might be affected by publication of  the  results  contained  in  the  manuscript must be conveyed to the editor.

•          The author(s) should disclose any potential conflict of interest at  the  earliest  possible  stage, including but not  limited  to  employment,  consultancies,  honoraria,  patent applications/registrations, grants or other funding.

•          All  sources  of  financial  support  for  the  project  should  be  disclosed   alongside   a   brief overview of the role played, if any by the responses during various stages of the research.

Copyright

Authors may have to sign an agreement allowing the journal  to  reserve  the  right  to  circulate  the article and all other derivative works such as translations.

Manuscript Acceptance and Rejection

•          The review period can last between 1-2 months or longer and during  this  period  the  author(s) reserve the right to contact the Editor to ask about status of the review.

•          Once  the  review  process  has  been  completed,   the  author  will  be   informed   about  the   status of  the  manuscript   which   could   either   be   an   acceptance,   rejection   or   revisions.   In   the case of rejection, the author(s) reserves the right to publish the article elsewhere.

•          In case of revisions, the author(s) must provide an exposition of all corrections made in  the manuscript and the revised manuscript should, then, go through the process of  affirmation  of revisions and be accepted or rejected accordingly.

•          In case of dissatisfaction over the decision of rejection, the author can appeal the decision by contacting the Editor.

Ethical Guidelines For the Reviewers

Preamble:

Review of the manuscript by reviewers is  not  only  an  essential  component  of  formal scholarly engagement, but is also a fundamental step in the publication process as it aids Editor in the editorial decision making.    It    also    allows    author(s)    improve     their     manuscript     through     editorial communications.   Scholars    accepting    to    review    a    research    paper    have    an    ethical responsibility   to   complete   this   assignment   professionally.   The   quality,   credibility   and    reputation of a journal also depend on the peer review process. The peer review process depends on the trust, and demands that a reviewer is supposed to fulfill ethically. These professionals are the momentum arm of the review process, but they may be performing this job without any formal training. As a consequence, they may be (especially young professionals) unaware of their ethical obligations. The Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan wants to list down 'Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers' so that all reviewers provide their valuable services in a standardized manner.

Suitability and Promptness

The Reviewers should:

•          Inform  the  Editor,  if  they  do  not  have  the  subject  expertise   required   to   carry   out   the review and s/he should inform the Editor immediately after receiving a request.

•         Be responsible to act promptly and submit review report on time.

•          Immediately  inform  the  Editor  of  any  possible   delays   and   suggest   another   date of submission for a review report, and

•         Not   unnecessarily   delay    the    review   process,   either   by   prolonged    delay   in    submission of  their  review   or   by   requesting   unnecessary   additional   data/information   from   the   Editor or author(s).

Standards of Objectivity

•         The  reviews  should  be  objectively  carried  out  with  a  consideration  of  high   academic, scholarly and scientific standards.

•         All  judgments  should  be  meticulously  established   and   maintained   in   order   to   ensure  the full comprehension of the reviewer's comments by the editors and the author(s).

•         Both reviewers and author(s) in rebuttal should avoid unsupported assertions,

•         The reviewer may justifiably criticize a manuscript but it would be inappropriate to resort to personal criticism on the author(s), and

•         The reviewers should ensure that their decision is purely  based  on  the  quality  of  the  research paper  and  not  influenced,  either  positively  or   negatively,   by   any   personal,   financial,   or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual bias.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

•         A reviewer should not, for the purpose of his/her own research, use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript, without the approval of the Editor.

•          The       data       included       in       the       research       paper       is       confidential       and       the reviewer shall not be allowed to use if for his/her personal study,

•         A  reviewer  must  declare  any  potentially  conflicting  interests  (e.g.  personal,  financial, intellectual,  professional,  political  or  religious).  In  such  situation,  s/he  will  be  required  to follow the journal's policies.

•         A reviewer should be honest enough to declare conflicts of interest, if, the research  paper under review is the same as to his/her presently conducted study.

•         If  the  reviewer  feels  unqualified   to   separate   his/her   bias,   s/he   should   immediately  return the manuscript to the Editor without review, and justify to him/her about the situation.

Confidentiality

•         Reviewers should consider the  research  paper  as  a  confidential  document  and  must  not  discuss its  content  on  any  platform   except   in   cases   where   professional   advice   is   being   sought with the authorization of the Editor, and

•         Reviewers    are    professionally   and    ethically   bound    not    to    disclose    the    details   of   any research paper prior to its publication without the prior approval of the Editor.

Ethical Considerations

•         If the reviewer suspects that the research paper is almost the same as someone else's work, s/he will ethically inform the Editor and provide its citation as a reference.

•         If the reviewer suspects that results in the research paper to be untrue/unrealistic/fake, s/he will share it with the Editor,

•         If there has been an indication of violating ethical norms in the treatment of human beings (e.g. children, female, poor people, disabled, elderly, etc), then this should be identified to the Editor, and

•         If the research paper is based on any previous research study or is replica of an earlier work, or the work is plagiarized for e.g. the author has not acknowledged/referenced others' work appropriately, then this should be brought in the Editor's knowledge.

Originality

For evaluating originality, the reviewers should consider the following elements:

■        Does the research paper add to existing knowledge?

■        Are the research questions and/or hypotheses in line with the objective of the research work?

Structure

If the layout and format of the paper is not according to the prescribed version, the reviewers should discuss it with the Editor or should include this observation in their review report. On the other hand, if

the research paper is exceptionally well written, the reviewer may overlook the formatting issues. At other times, the reviewers may suggest restructuring the paper before publication. The following elements should be carefully evaluated:

■        If there is serious problem of  language  or  expression  and  the  reviewer  gets  the impression  that  the  research  paper  does   not   fulfill   linguistic   requirements   and readers   would   face   difficulties   reading   and    comprehending    the    paper. The reviewer  should  record  this  deficiency  in  his/her  report  and   suggest   the   editor to make its proper editing. Such a situation may arise when the author(s)’ native language is not English.

■        Whether the data presented in the paper is original or reproduced from previously conducted or published work. The papers which reflect originality should be given preference for publication.

■        The  clarity  of   illustrations   including   photographs,   models,   charts,   images   and figures is essential to note. If  there  is  duplication  then  it  should  be  reported  in  the review report.  Similarly,  descriptions  provided  in  the  “Results”  section  should correspond  with  the  data  presented   in   tables/figures,   if   not   then   it   should   be clearly listed in the review report.

■        Critically review the statistical analysis of the data. Also check the rational and appropriateness of the specific analysis.

■        The reviewers should read the “Methodology” section in detail and make sure that the author(s) has  demonstrated  the  understanding  of  the  procedures  being  used  and presented in the manuscript.

■        The relationship between “Data, Findings and Discussion” requires a thorough evaluation thoroughly.   Unnecessary   conjecture   or   unfounded   conclusions   that   are   not   based on the presented data are not acceptable.

■        Further questions to be addressed are whether: the organization of the research paper is appropriate or deviates from the standard or prescribed format?

■        Does  the  author(s)  follow  the  guidelines   prescribed   by   the   journal   for preparation and submission of the manuscript?

■        Is the research paper free from typographical errors?

Review Report

•         The reviewer must explicitly write his/her observations in the section of 'comments' because author(s) will only have access to the comments reviewers have made,

•                      For writing a review report, the reviewers are requested to complete a prescribed form (s).