Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

Journal of Ultra Scientist of Physical Sciences Policy
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Peer Review Policy

To scrutinize an author’s scholarly manuscript from others who are experts in the domain, prior to the publication process is defined as a peer-review process. Journal of Ultra Scientist of Physical Sciences (JUSPS) follows a double-blind peer review process filter from a collection of manuscripts we receive in every issue. As a result of the peer review process JUSPS team generates a detailed review report which acts as a guide to authors, so they enhance the manuscript further(if required). It stimulates a desire for improvement among young and energetic authors. Peer review is defined as obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers experts in the field who are not part of the journal’s editorial staff.

The JUSPS follows the Principle of Transparency and Best Practice in the Scholarly Publishing of COPE Committee On Publication Ethics.

Elsevier recommendations and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal

Publication Ethics Policy

Getting your manuscript published in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential step to intensify the consistency and network of knowledge hierarchies. It gives an impression of the author’s work quality and the organizations which help them. Such articles endorse the scientific method, it is thus important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for the parties included: the publisher, the journal team, the author(s). The Journal of Ultra Scientist of Physical Sciences follows the Code of Conduct as defined by the COPE. Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).

Responsibilities of the Author

The author’s names should be listed on the article in order of their contribution to the article, and all authors take responsibility for their own contributions. Only those individuals who have made a substantive contribution should be listed as authors, those whose contributions are indirect or marginal (for Example. Colleagues or supervisors who have reviewed drafts of the work or provided proofreading assistance, head of research institutes/centres/labs) should be named in an “Acknowledgements” section at the end of the article, immediately preceding the reference list. The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the articles and that all listed co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the articles and agreed upon its publication.

Where an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in an article of his/her that has been published in JUSPSthe author has the obligation to promptly notify the editors and cooperate with them to correct the article or retract it as appropriate.

An author should not normally publish manuscripts describing essentially the same in multiple journals or publication venues. Such redundant publication is generally considered to constitute unethical publishing behaviour, and if considered may result in a manuscript under consideration being rejected, or a published article being retracted.

Authors of manuscripts reporting on original research should present an accurate account of the work performed, accompanied by an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. The fabrication of results and the making of fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and may be cause for rejection or retraction of a manuscript or published article.

Where the manuscript reports on commercial software, hardware, or other products, authors must include a declaration at the beginning of the manuscript in which they must either state that no conflict of interest exists or describe the nature of any potential conflict. All sources of financial support for the research should also be disclosed in the manuscript.

Creative Commons License

The author(s) of the manuscript agree that if the manuscript is accepted for publication in JUSPS, the published article will be copyrighted using a Creative Commons” Attribute-Non Commercial-Share Alike” License. The license allows the author to retain the copyright but also allows others to freely copy, distribute, and display the copyrighted work, and derivative works based upon it, under certain specified conditions.

Plagiarism Policy and Ethical Responsibilities

To maintain originality and avoid plagiarism by the research scholar. To avoid the condition of double plagiarism,self-plagiarism, or at least publication units. To acknowledge the sources with full authenticity. The copyright form submitted should contain the signed consent of each author in the manuscript.

All papers submitted are initially screened and checked through the Advanced Plagiarism Detection Software (CrossCheck by iThenticate)

It is absolutely necessary that the author(s) obtain permission to reproduce any published material, figures, schemes, tables, or any abstract of a text which does not fall into the open domain, or for which they do not hold the copyright.

Permission is required for:

Your own research work published by any other publisher and for which you did not retain copyright. Substantial extracts from any other work or series of work. Use of Tables, Graphs, Charts, Schemes, and artworks if they are unchanged or slightly changed. Photographs for which you do not hold the copyright.

Permission is not required for:

Reconstruction of your own table with data that is already published anywhere else. Please notice that in this case, you must give the source of the data in the form of either “Data taken from… “Or “Used from….”. Reasonably short quotes are considered fair and these do not need permission. Graphs, Charts, Schemes, and Artworks that are completely redrawn and changed beyond recognition do not require permission.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

JUSPS reviewers perform review work on a voluntary basis as most of them are full-time employed, their reviewing activities may not be on priority. Reviewers are free to decline the invitation to the review process any manuscript at their discretion may be due to the workload of other assignments. They also do not accept manuscript review assignments on topics for which they are not very confident.

Reviewers who have accepted manuscript assignments are normally expected to submit their review report in stipulated time. Privileged information or ideas obtained by reviewers are through the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents and must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by JUSPS’s chief editor.

When conducting their reviews, reviewers are asked to do so as objectively as possible, refraining from engaging in personal criticism of the author(s). They are encouraged to express their views clearly, explaining and justifying all recommendations made. They should always attempt to provide detailed and constructive feedback to assist the author(s) in improving the work, even if the manuscript is in their opinion not publishable.

The reviewers should identify in their reviews relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s) including any areas where proper attribution of sources has not been provided in the manuscript. They should bring it to the attention of the editor/chief editor any major resemblances between a manuscript under consideration and other published articles or papers of which they are aware, as well as concerns they might have in relation to the ethical acceptability of the research reported in the manuscript.

Responsibilities of Editors

The JUSPS Editor and Chief Editor has ultimate responsibility for deciding if a manuscript submitted to Journal of Ultra Scientist of Physical Sciences should be published and in doing so guided by JUSPS policies determined by the editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding label, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may consult with the associate editor and other members of the editorial team as well as reviewers in making publication decisions.

The editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the race, color, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). They will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and in some cases editorial board members, as appropriate. Additionally, the editor will make every effort to ensure the integrity of the double-blind review process by not revealing the identity of the author(s) of the manuscript to the reviewers and vice-versa.

When evaluating a manuscript for publication in addition to considering standard criteria pertaining to the rigor of the manuscript, the quality of its presentation, and its contribution to humanity. The editors will also seek evidence that ethical harms have been minimized in the conduct of reported research. They will question whether the benefits outweigh the harms in the particular case study. Since JUSPS welcomes the submission of manuscripts from every country, it is necessary to recognize that laws and regulations regarding research ethics and ethical approval vary worldwide. As such, the editors may need to seek clarification in this regard with the author(s) and request that they supply a letter from the relevant institutional ethics committee or board that approved the research.

The editors will be guided by CORE’s Guidance for Retracting articles when retracting, issuing an expression of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in JUSPS. They are committed to working closely with research organizations and institutions in line with CORE’s advice on Cooperation between Research Institutions on Research Integrity Cases.