Ethical Guidelines

Author Guidelines

Duties of the Publisher

1. Guardianship of the scholarly record

The guidelines have been written by keeping allthese requirements in mind butspecially determining thatitis a significant role of the publisher to hold up the great efforts made by journal editors, and the often work undertaken by peer reviewers volunterly, just to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

Inspite of that, ethical codes inevitably focus on the contraventions that occur sometimes, it's a accolade to scholarly practice that the problems are comparatively rare and also the system works so well. The role of publisher is very supportive, investigative and nurturative in the scholarly communication process. Ultimately the publisher is also responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.

RW Materials, as a journal, guards the scholarly record extremely seriously. It also record "the minutes of science" and recognise its responsibilities as the keeper of those "minutes" in allits policies. These policies and procedures are adopted by RW Materials to support editors, reviewers and authors, so that they all can perform in their ethical duties under these guidelines.

2. Safeguard editorial independence

The RW Materials journal is committed that any kind of advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue will not affect on the editorial decisions.

3. Provide editors with technical, procedural & legal support

The publisher always give full supportto editors in communicating with different publishers or journals which is lucrative to editors and if necessary the publishers are ready to provide specialised legal review and counsel.

4. Educate researchers on publishing ethics

We are providing education on large scale and advice early career researchers on publishing ethics standards.

Duties of Editors

1. Publication decisions

The editor of a scholarly journal is only responsible one who scrutinise the submitted articles in the journal should be published. The editorial board guided the editor about the policies of the journal and also constrained him by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding issues such as libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. Sometimes, the editor may confer with other reviewers or editors in making these decisions.

2. Peer review

The editor shall make sure that the process of peer review is unbiased, fair and in a short span of time. Accepted articles must be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and if required then the editor should search for supplementary opinions.

The duty of editor allow him to select reviewers who are expertise in the relevant field and he also follow best practice to avoid selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. The editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.

3. Fair play

Evaluation of the manuscript for their intellectual content is done by the editor without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

4. Confidentiality

Neither editor nor the editorial staff must not disclose the confidentiality of the manuscript submitted to the journal and all communications with the authors, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. In exceptional situations and discussion with the publishing group, the editor can share limited information with other journal’s editors where considered obligatory to investigate suspected research misconduct.

5. Declaration of Competing Interests

Any potential editorial conflicts of interest should be declared to the publisher in writing prior to the appointment of the editor, and then updated if and when new conflicts arise. The publisher may publish such declarations in the journal. There is no involvement of editor in making decisions of paper which is written by himself or his colleague or family members and also which relate to products or services in which the editor has an interest. Furthermore, this type of submission must be subject all usual procedures of the journal, also peer review must be handled independently of the relevant author/editor and their research groups.

6. Vigilance over the Published Record

In conjunction with the publisher, the editor should take an extra effort to take safety measures for the integrity of the ublished record by reviewing and assessing reported or suspected misconduct.

Generally these type of safety measures will include contacting the author of the article and giving due consideration to the particular complaint or claims made, but it also involve further communications to the relevant research bodies and institutions.Further,the publisher’s systems for the detection of misconduct, such as plagiarism will be used by the editor. An editor along with cogent evidence of misconduct should contact to the publisher to manage the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other correction to the record, as may be relevant.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

In making editorial decisions, peer review helps the editor and author may get assistance in improving article by communications through the editorial.

The vital component of formal scholarly communication is the Peer review and lies at the heart of the scientific method.

Additionally, the specific ethics-related duties described further, generally reviewers are asked to treat authors and their work.

Any chosen reviewer who finds himself untrained for reviewing the research described in a text or feels that prompt review of this manuscript will be impossible, then he should apprise the editor and also refuse to engage in that particular review process.

2. Confidentiality

Reviewer must treat any manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. Information about the paper must not be shared with anyone or communicate with authors directly without permission from the editor is prohibited. Reviewer cannot use the unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without express written consent of the author.

3. Alertness to Ethical Issues

Being a reviewer, he must be attentive regarding the potential ethical issues in the manuscript and also make aware the editor about any major similarity or overlap between the article under reviewing and other published article which is in personal knowledge of reviewer.

4. Standards of Objectivity & Competing Interests

Allthe reviews should be conducted objectively. Whenever reviewing a paper, reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account. Its very inappropriate to criticise the author personally by reviewers. They should express their views with supporting arguments.

Reviewers should consult the Editor before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

If a reviewer suggests that an author includes citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work, this must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing the reviewer’s citation count or enhancing the visibility of their work (or that of their associates).

5. Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows thatits prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be described properly in the paper. A paper should always contain enough detail and references so that anyone get permit to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

2. Data Access and Retention

Sometimes authors may be asked to furnish the research data supporting their paper for editorial review and/or to comply with the open data requirements of the journal.

After publication, for number of years, authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if possible, as well as they should be prepared to retain such data for a reason.

3. Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources

The authors make sure that they have written absolutely original works, and in case the authors have copied the work and/or words of others,thatthis has been appropriately cited or quoted and permission has been obtained where necessary.

An acknowledgment of others work must always be given. Authors should always cite publications that have influenced the reported work and that give the work appropriate context within the larger scholarly record. Information which has been obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported 15 without explicit, written permission from the source. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable. 4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

Generally, an author should not publish manuscripts representing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. The author should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.

Generally, the author should not submit for consideration in another journal a paper that has been published previously, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis or as an electronic preprint.

5. Confidentiality

All the informations obtained in the course of confidential services, like refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, should not be employed without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

6. Authorship of the Paper

The authorship always limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors.

Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the paper like language editing or medical writing, they should be recognised in the acknowledgements section.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

7. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the research work includes chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

In case, if the research work includes the use of animal or human subjects, the author make sure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them.

8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

9. Notification of Fundamental Errors

If the author finds out a significant error or inaccuracy in his own published work, then it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper if deemed necessary by the editor. If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains an error, it is the obligation of the author to cooperate with the editor, including providing evidence to the editor where requested.

10. Image Integrity

It is not acceptable to enhance, obscure, move, remove, or introduce a specific feature within an image. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original.

Authors should comply with any specific policy for graphical images applied by the relevant journal, e.g. providing the original images as supplementary material with the article, or depositing these in a suitable repository Article withdrawal Policy. It is the policy of Research Wheel Publishers that published article should not be amended, altered or removed, in line with the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers' (STM) guidelines:

“Articles that have been published should remain extant, exact and unaltered to the maximum extent possible” (STM Guidelines on Preservation of the Objective Record of Science)

Authors who wish to publish the corrections to their articles or who are seriously concerned that they may retract their published articles should contact the journals' editorial office. Readers who find “errors of consequence” in the article of others should contact the corresponding author of that article. All requests from the authors for corrections and retraction are subjectto the editor’s decision. The editor may also request correction or retraction of the published articles to address the scientific and ethical issues after publication.

Research Wheel Publishers follows the guidelines outlined by the Committee of Publishing Ethics (COPE) regarding the ethical concern, correction and withdrawal of the published article.

Correction

Journals will consider issuing correction at the editor’s decision if:

• there is an inaccuracy or misleading in reported scientific results (it should be distinguishable from misconducts relating to the retractions)
• the addition or correction brings new and relevant information.
• the author/contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

Journals should work with authors and the publisher to correct published errors. The corresponding author should submit the corrected manuscript along with corrections through the journal’s submission system. The original article should be cited along with DOI in the corrected article. Minor additions and corrections will not be published unless it may affect 16 the contribution in a material way or if the issue does not significantly impair the reader's understanding of the contribution, such as a spelling mistake or grammatical error. The correction will be published online as “Errata” and linked to the original article. The corrections are free to view.

Journals should publish corrections when important errors are found and should consider retraction when errors are so fundamental that they invalidate the work.

Corrections arising from errors within an article should be distinguishable from retractions and statements of concern relating to misconduct.

Corrections should be included in indexing systems and linked to the original article. Corrections should be free to access.

Expression of concern

An expression of concern may be issued at the editor’s decision if:

• The evidence of authors’ misconduct related to the research or publication is inconclusive;
• There is evidence for unreliable findings, but the authors’ institution will not consider the case;
• an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive;
• an investigation is underway, but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time.
• Upon completion of any related investigation, and when a final determination is made about the outcome of the article, the Expression of Concern may be replaced with a Retraction notice or Correction.
• The expression of concern will be published online, and it is free to view.

Retraction

An article may be considered for its retraction if there exists unambiguous evidence that the articles violate the professional code of ethics such as,

Reporting unethical research.

Upon retraction, the information on the retraction signed by all the authors will be published and it is free to view. The original article remains online with the digitally marked watermark "RETRACTED" on all pages of the article, except in exceptional cases (e.g. if this is required by law or the availability of the published content possibly cause harm to public health).

• False claim of authorship, missing authorship, Unclear authorship, Affiliation error and the like.
• Submission of the same article to the different journal after its publication.
• Presence of seriously flawed and erroneous findings that are unreliable, as a result of misconduct (fabrication of data) or honest error (such as a miscalculation, experimental error, unreproducible work or difference in opinions) that invalidate the work.
• Plagiarism (such as submitting the article that describing the published work in a slightly different way, usage of published data without proper permission and the like)