Science Vision endorses a high degree of ethical values and practices. Our statement addresses the policy of the journal and responsibilities of the authors, editors and reviewers. In addition, they are also advised to get familiarised with scholarly ethics laid down by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
An author should have a major contribution on the manuscript, meaning that use of paid writers or students is not acceptable. In multi-authored manuscript, all authors must agree to the submission and should approve of the contents.
Co-authors should be included only when they satisfy at least any of the following duties:
1. Substantial contributions to the preparation of the study, or
2. Involvement in the execution of the experiment, or data analysis, or
3. Constructing the paper and make important intellectual contributions.
Listing of author(s) merely on partnership or for promotion is not accepted.
To verify the identity and their involvement, emails of all authors should be included in the cover letter/mail.
The corresponding author must provide contact details including email and ZIP/PIN codes. He/she is responsible for all communications and issues arising from the manuscript and its contents. Therefore, in a multi-authored paper, the corresponding author must be the leader of the research team or collaborative task force.
Authors must give their full names as in their official documents authorised by governments.
Conflict of interests, if any, such as financial aspects and data ownership by others, should be clearly stated by the corresponding author.
We consider plagiarism as an intellectual corruption. Plagiarism can be of any of the followings:
1. Substantial copying verbatim of published materials, even with full citation.
2. Cut and paste of statements from published materials without proper attribution.
3. Submitting the work of other people in one’s own name.
3. Reuse of the author’s published materials even in parts.
We adopt the Indian University Grants Commission policy, the UGC (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations 2018, for resolving the levels of plagiarism, which basically states that:
1. <10% similarity, minor and acceptable.
2. 10-40% similarity, plagiarism and should be revised.
3. >40% similarity, serious plagiarism and should be rejected.
We use plagiarism checkers such as Plagiarism Checker X and SmallSeoTools.
Manuscripts are submitted with the understanding that all authors have read and consented to it. Submission should not be duplicated, i.e. submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to other journals. However, important papers that are published, such as historical and groundbreaking studies, can be considered for secondary publications. However, written permission from the publisher will be required, unless they are in public domain or free culture media. In such case, details of the previous publication should be provided.
Duties of the editors
The Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editors are responsible for receiving the manuscripts and assigning editors and reviewers. They also make initial and final decision on the suitability of manuscripts received. They communicate with the corresponding authors. Managing Editor oversees the accepted manuscript and production process in the press and web.
Editors make decision on the suitability of the scientific content and relevance of the manuscripts. Editors are appointed from all broad disciplines of science, and each is assigned a manuscript of his/her own subject. Once passed, they forward the manuscripts to peer reviewers. After peer review they make their comments to the Editor-in-Chief or Executive Editor for final decision.
Peer review and referee
All research articles, original research, research report, brief commincation, research note, research review, and analysis must pass peer reviewing. New manuscripts are first read by the editors, and those which meet the journal aims and scope are processed for peer reviewing.
Peer reviewing is a noble academic task and should not be done with any intention of prejudice to authors (their manuscripts) on their nationality, religion, institution, gender, or political beliefs. It is a voluntary assignment that requires commitment and open-mindedness. Referees are responsible for verifying the validity of the works presented in the manuscript. The referee will submit a note of advice to the editor whether the manuscript is to be
- accepted as it is;
- revised; or
- outright rejected.
We follow two-step reviewing process for all technical papers. The manuscript has to pass through editorial review and peer review. Upon submission manuscript is first reviewed by an editor for suitability and plagiarism. Common reasons of rejection at this stage is plagiarism and poor write up such as not complying with the journal guidelines. The eligible manuscript is then sent to an external peer. We generally adopt single-blind review arranged by the Editor-in Chief. The reviewers know the details of the authors as mentioned in the manuscript, but the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. On some conditions we also employ open-peer reviewing in which authors suggest peers who are independent of the work and affiliation.
Peer reviewers are assigned and invited by the Editor-in-Chief or Executive Editor from the field of expertise of the submitted research. In case of open peer reviewing, authors may submit at least three reviewers, from which the Editor-in-Chief or Executive Editor will make a selection. These open reviewers are required to declare all potential conflicts of interests.
Following editorial and reviewer's comment, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on the manuscript on the following grounds:
- it is accepted and fit for publication;
- it requires revision/improvemnt and is withhled from publication untill the revised version is received; or
- it is not suitable for publication and is rejected.
Experiments involving live animal and human subjects should be explicitly defined. Use of laboratory animals should comply with the guidelines of Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) of India, or equivalent authority of one's country. Sources of the animals, permission from the institional ethics authority, and the level of ethical care should be mentioned. Study of animals in general should adhere to the acts and rules of national authorities such as the Animal Welfare Board of India. In India, the status of protection of animals should be understood and stated as in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
Human studies involving patients, research volunteers, school children and questionnaire respondents must be informed consent. Participants should sign their written agreement, and researchers should make them aware all the possible risks and outcomes. Identity of the subjects should be maintained confidential. In clinical cases, the subject must be made aware of his/her mention in the manuscript. In India, the ethical guidelines of Indian Council of Medical Research should be followed.
Misconduct, dispute and retraction
Misuse of data and literature sources, undisclosed funding when there is, plagiarism, false credit, and ethical negligence all amount to scientific misconduct. Editors shall examine the manuscript or published paper. Readers can also file any suspicion on abvious malpractice. Allegations from readers will be investigated by the editors, and if found genuine, same action will be taken. The final decision will be made by the Editor-in-Chief. Depending on severity of the misconduct, papers will be retracted, and in place will be put a disclosure statement.
Retraction will be made if the paper is evidently plagiarised (which may be an oversight initially), data fabrication and manipulation, unreliable finding, irreproducible results, previous publication (not having permission), and if any author applies for withdrawal for legitimate reason. The reason of retraction will be clearly stated in the website.