It is essential for all parties either the author, the editor or the reviewer to follow the below standard.

Responsibility of Editor

• Publication Judgement

The Editor is authorized to selecting and publishing of the article. He has right to accept or reject the paper or can also request for modification. The manuscript is evaluated by them deprived of author's name, gender, religious belief or philosophy. And the accepted manuscript is reviewed by one or two reviewers. He is responsible for anything that is published in the journal. The editor can take help in the decision with other editors. They are guided by the journal editor board policies. The acceptance decision is purely based on originality, clarity, importance or its relevance. And if found plagiarism or copyright material it should be in rejection phase. Editors are responsible for guiding the reviewers what points need to follow to submit the paper and this guidance is regularly updated.

The Editor-in-Chief is answerable for judgment based on reviewers. For modification or error or any other correction, a note will be published for the author.

• Concealment

No one has right to disclose the information about a manuscript that is submitted to the journal for review. The editor can only share that details with the reviewers, the publisher but not with other editor or author. The information of submitted paper will be confidential.

• Fair Play

An editor will evaluate the manuscript for their academic content without respect to gender, religious belief, citizenship, philosophy of authors.

• Disclosure and conflict of interest

Without any consensus of the author, their unpublished material that is revealed in manuscript could not be used by editors for their own research material.

Responsibility of Author

• Reporting standards

Data of quantitative statement should be represented precisely in the paper. That paper includes the accurate details, objective and significance or references to allow others to check the information and if any fraudulent or inappropriate standards are found that will not acceptable.

• Data access and retention

During the review, process authors could be asked to submit the raw data of their related research and make it publically available. After publication authors should make sure the accessibility of paper for other professionals is at least for ten years.

• Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources

The author should ensure that the work they have submitted finally is original and have no duplicity. Plagiarism includes the content or words copied from reference paper and if found similarity in two papers, your paper is not accepted by the publisher.

• Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

Submitting the same research paper in multiple journals may constitute the unethical publication or is unacceptable. Under review, the manuscript is also not authorized to resubmit.

• Authorship of the paper

Authorship of paper should be limited to those have submitted the same manuscript in more than one journal. The corresponding authors ensure that all co-authors have approved the final phase of paper and they agree for submission.

• Fundamental errors in published works

When authors come to know about their error in their own published research, it is their accountability to inform prompt to the publisher or request them to correct the inaccuracy or retract the paper. And if editor or reviewer comment on your submitted work for correction, it is your obligation to modify it soon.

• Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should include the statement in their manuscript that conversant assent was obtained for participants experiment process. Information collected through conversation or corresponding source must not be used without any written permission.

For the project, the financial support sources must be disclosed. At the initial stage, they can disclose the conflicts of interests which interpret their results.span>

Responsibility of Reviewer

• Contribution to editorial decisions

This step of peer reviewing is essential, where editors are responsible for taking a decision and to give a comment authors to make required modification on their submitted manuscript.

• Promptness

Reviewers selected by Editor-in-Chief to review the submitted paper in the journal found themselves unqualified for that particular purpose inform promptly to the editor and decline the invitation.

• Confidentiality

The editor needs to ensure that the material submitted is confidential during review session by reviewers. The document or other information should not be disclosed to any person. Only the details can be shared with the authorized persons.

• Standards of objectivity

Reviews should define objectively. No personal criticism is allowed. Comment to the author should be clearly defined so they can modify their paper accordingly.

• Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers are responsible for notifying the editor if any similarity or overlap is found between two manuscripts. Reviewers identify the related published material that is not quoted by an author.

• Disclosure and conflict of interest

Information in the manuscript that is not published by the author could not be used by the reviewers for their own research work. Reviewers who have a conflict of interest are authorized to reveal the information to other editors or reviewers. Information gathered through peer review is kept secret and not used for personal benefits.

Retraction Guidelines

Journal editors should take decision for retracting a publication if:

• they have clear proof that the results are unreliable, either as a result of or honest error (e.g. error or experimental error)
• the results have previously been printed elsewhere while not correct cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
• it constitutes plagiarism
• it reports unethical analysis

Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if:

• a little portion of associate otherwise reliable publication proves to be dishonest (especially as a result of the honest error)
• the author/contributor list is wrong (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or someone WHO doesn't meet authorship criteria has been included)

Principles of Transparency

Double Blind Peer review process:

Journal clearly states that this is double blind peer reviewed International Journal. 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 double blind peer review procedures, is clearly described on the journal’s Website.

Governing Body:

Journal has 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 editors are provided on the journal’s Website.

Editorial team/contact information:

Journals provide the full names and affiliations of the journal’s editors on the journal’s Web site.

Author fees:

Any fees or charges that are required for manuscript processing and/or publishing materials in the journal is 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.

Copyright:

Copyright and licensing information have clearly described on the journal’s Web site, and licensing terms is indicated on all published articles in PDFs.

The website: 

A journal’s website (www.ijaers.com) demonstrates that care has been taken to ensure high ethical and professional standards.

Reference: https://publicationethics.org/