Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

The Editorial Board, Staff, and Authors of the International Journal of Research on Multidisciplinary Studies (IJROMS) are committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct in scholarly publishing. IJROMS adheres to internationally recognized principles of research integrity and publication ethics, ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability throughout the editorial and peer-review process.

Responsibilities of Authors

• Authorship should accurately reflect individuals who have made a significant intellectual or practical contribution to the research. Academic rank or administrative position does not confer automatic authorship. In collaborative research involving students, the student should normally be listed as the primary author for work derived primarily from their thesis or dissertation. Authorship agreements should be established early in the research process.

• The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors have reviewed, approved, and consented to the final manuscript. Any changes to the author list must be confirmed in writing.

• Authors must submit only original work and avoid duplicate or redundant publication. Previously published data, images, or content must not be submitted as new research. Manuscripts will be screened using plagiarism detection tools.

• Self-citation should be relevant and not excessive. Authors should appropriately reference their prior work when it directly contributes to the current study.

• Authors should make underlying data available to qualified researchers for verification, provided confidentiality and legal requirements are maintained. Data should only be used for the stated research purpose.

• Research findings must be presented honestly and objectively. Data should be accurately reported, and conclusions should be supported by evidence. Misrepresentation or fabrication of results is strictly prohibited.

• All sources and ideas taken from other works must be properly cited or quoted. A similarity index of 20% or lower is expected using standard plagiarism detection software.

• Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest, including financial, professional, or personal relationships that may influence the study or interpretation of results. Funding sources should be clearly acknowledged.

• Authors are required to report any errors or inconsistencies discovered after publication promptly, allowing the Editorial Board to correct or retract the work as necessary.

Responsibilities of the Editors

• Editors are responsible for deciding which manuscripts are published, based solely on academic merit, originality, and relevance, without influence from personal, commercial, or political considerations.

• Manuscripts are evaluated impartially and confidentially. Editors must maintain strict confidentiality regarding submitted work and use unpublished information only with the author’s consent.

• Editors must handle conflicts of interest by assigning alternative editors or reviewers. Decisions should not be influenced by financial gain, personal relationships, or institutional affiliations.

• Editors ensure that ethical concerns, including suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, or other misconduct, are addressed in accordance with the journal’s policies and international guidelines (e.g., COPE).

• Corrections, retractions, clarifications, and expressions of concern must be issued when necessary to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Reviewers assist editors in evaluating manuscripts fairly, objectively, and confidentially.

• They should accept review assignments only if qualified and able to complete them in a timely manner.

• Manuscripts must not be shared or discussed with others without explicit permission.

• Reviews should be constructive, objective, and free from personal bias. Reviewers should identify any relevant works not cited by the authors and disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

• Privileged knowledge gained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage or research before publication.

Peer Review Process

IJROMS employs a double-blind peer review process to ensure impartial evaluation, uphold academic integrity, and maintain rigorous scholarly standards. Each stage is assigned to a specific member of the editorial team to guarantee accountability and efficiency. The process aligns with international best practices (COPE, Elsevier, Springer) and supports high-quality publications.

Total Timeline: 4 weeks (from submission to acceptance/rejection decision)

Stage 1: Initial Screening (2–3 days)

Responsible: Managing Editor/Editorial Staff

Purpose: Ensure manuscripts meet basic submission requirements and ethical standards before entering full review.

Tasks:

• Verify submission completeness: abstract, keywords, references, figures, tables, and author information.

• Check compliance with journal formatting and submission guidelines.

• Conduct preliminary plagiarism and ethical compliance checks.

• Return manuscripts that do not meet standards to authors with administrative feedback.

Output: Manuscript cleared for editorial desk review or returned for corrections.

Stage 2: Editorial Desk Review (3–4 days)

Responsible: Editor-in-Chief

Purpose: Assess the manuscript’s relevance, originality, and scope to ensure suitability for peer review.

Tasks:

• Evaluate alignment with IJROMS’ focus and target audience.

• Identify potential conflicts of interest.

• Assess overall quality, contribution to the field, and novelty of research.

• Decide whether to send the manuscript to peer review or reject with constructive feedback.

Output: Decision to proceed to peer review or desk rejection notice with feedback.

Stage 3: Peer Review (1 week)

Responsible: Executive Editor/ Associate Editors

Purpose: Conduct rigorous double-blind evaluation of the manuscript by independent experts.

Tasks:

• Assign the manuscript to at least two qualified reviewers in the relevant subject area.

• Ensure reviewers evaluate:

  • Originality and novelty of research

  • Methodological rigor and data integrity

  • Clarity, organization, and quality of writing

  • Ethical compliance, citations, and references

  • Contribution to theory, practice, or policy

• Collect detailed, constructive reviewer reports with recommendations (Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject).

• Maintain confidentiality and impartiality throughout the process.

Output: Consolidated peer review reports submitted to Associate Editors.

Stage 4: Associate Subject Editor Evaluation (3–4 days)

Responsible: Associate Subject Editor

Purpose: Synthesize reviewer feedback and make a preliminary editorial recommendation.

Tasks:

• Analyze reviewer comments for consistency, fairness, and completeness.

• Prepare a recommendation report for the Editor-in-Chief:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

• Ensure reviewer comments are constructive and actionable for the author.

Output: Recommendation report for Editor-in-Chief and feedback to authors.

Stage 5: Author Revision and Response (1 week)

Responsible: Authors (Monitored by Associate Editor)

Purpose: Allow authors to address reviewer and editorial feedback comprehensively.

Tasks:

• Revise manuscript according to feedback.

• Prepare a point-by-point response document addressing each reviewer comment.

• Submit the revised manuscript to Associate Editor for evaluation.

• If revisions are major, Associate Editor may seek additional reviewer input.

Output: Revised manuscript ready for final editorial decision.

Stage 6: Final Decision & Acceptance (2–3 days)

Responsible: Editor-in-Chief

Purpose: Make a definitive decision based on peer review and revisions.

Tasks:

• Review Associate Editor’s recommendation and revised manuscript.

• Issue final decision: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.

• Communicate decision clearly to authors with feedback and next steps.

Output: Manuscript accepted for production or rejected with detailed justification.

Stage 7: Production & Publication

Responsible: Managing Editor/Editorial Staff

Purpose: Ensure polished publication-ready manuscripts.

Tasks:

• Copyediting, formatting, proofreading, and quality assurance.

• Assign DOI and prepare metadata for indexing.

• Send proofs to authors for final approval.

• Publish manuscript online or in print, ensuring accessibility and discoverability.

Output: Final published manuscript in IJROMS.

Ethics

• Double-blind review: Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous.

• Confidentiality: Manuscript content, reviewer comments, and editorial deliberations are strictly confidential.

• Ethical compliance: All participants adhere to COPE standards, including plagiarism, authorship, and conflict-of-interest policies.

• Transparency: All stages are documented and traceable to the responsible editorial role.

Confidentiality

All information about authors, reviewers, and submitted manuscripts is strictly confidential and shared only with relevant editorial staff and reviewers.

Dealing with Misconduct

Any suspected ethical or research misconduct is treated seriously and handled according to COPE guidelines. Misconduct may include plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or breaches of ethical standards.

Plagiarism and Data Accuracy

All manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using reliable detection software. Data and references are manually verified to ensure accuracy. Manuscripts failing these checks will not proceed to publication.

Copyright and Open Access

Upon acceptance, authors sign a copyright transfer agreement. IJROMS is an open-access journal, and all published articles are freely available for reading and download, supporting global knowledge dissemination and accessibility.