Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

At a glance

Standard

COPE Core Practices

Peer review

Double-blind

Plagiarism check

Turnitin / iThenticate

Reporting misconduct

No time limit

Contact for concerns

submission@ijlsi.com

Principles

• Integrity. Published research must be an honest account of the work done. Fabrication, falsification and selective reporting are misconduct.
• Confidentiality. Manuscripts under review are confidential. No one handling them may disclose their contents or use unpublished material for their own work.
• Fairness. Manuscripts are judged only on academic merit and relevance to the Journal’s scope, never on the authors’ race, gender, nationality, religion, institution or political views.
• Independence. Decisions on acceptance are made by the editors alone, free of any commercial, funding or third-party influence.
• Transparency. The Journal’s policies on review, authorship, conflicts of interest, corrections and retractions are published and applied consistently.

Where this statement does not cover a situation, the Journal follows the COPE Core Practices and the COPE flowcharts.

Duties of authors

• Originality. The manuscript must be the authors’ own work and free of plagiarism in any form, including uncited copying, close paraphrase and self-plagiarism. Every submission is checked with Turnitin / iThenticate; citing a source does not excuse copying its words.
• One journal at a time. The same work must not be submitted to more than one journal at once, and previously published work must not be submitted as new.
• Honest reporting. Facts, sources and arguments must be stated accurately. Knowingly false statements lead to rejection, or to retraction after publication.
• Authorship. Only people who made a genuine intellectual contribution may be named as authors. Each author must have contributed to the work’s conception, research or analysis; drafted or critically revised it; and approved the final version. Up to four authors are permitted.
• Conflicts of interest and funding. Any financial or personal interest that could affect the work, and every source of funding, must be disclosed in the manuscript.
• Taking part in review. Authors must respond to reviewers’ comments point by point, within the time the editorial team gives.
• Errors after publication. Authors who find a significant error in their published paper must tell the editors at once and help to correct or retract it.

Duties of editors and reviewers

Editors decide on merit alone, keep every manuscript confidential, step aside from any manuscript in which they have a conflict of interest, and act on any credible concern about misconduct. Reviewers assess objectively, keep manuscripts confidential, declare conflicts and decline where they have one, and report suspected misconduct to the editors. Their duties are set out in full in the responsibility of editors and responsibility of reviewers.

Duties of the publisher

• Editorial independence. VidhiAagaz, the Journal’s publisher, does not interfere in editorial decisions or in the outcome of peer review.
• Preservation. Every published paper carries a permanent Crossref DOI and is indexed in databases including Manupatra, ROAD and Google Scholar, so that it remains available and discoverable.
• Honest communication. The Journal’s calls for papers and other messages are accurate and not misleading, and are not sent in bulk to people who have not shown an interest in the Journal.

What counts as misconduct

• Plagiarism: using another’s words, ideas or data without credit. A plagiarised paper is rejected, or retracted if already published.
• Fabrication or falsification: inventing or altering data, sources or findings.
• Gift or ghost authorship: naming someone who did not contribute, or leaving out someone who did.
• Duplicate or concurrent submission: sending the same work to more than one journal, or presenting published work as new.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest: by authors, reviewers or editors.
• Reviewer misconduct: using or disclosing a manuscript under review, or writing a dishonest review.
• Manipulating peer review: for example, contacting reviewers outside the editorial process.
• Failing to correct errors: not telling the Journal of a significant error in published work, or not cooperating with its correction.

Corrections, retractions and removal

• Correction. For a genuine error that does not affect the paper’s conclusions. A correction notice is published and linked to the article.
• Expression of concern. Where there is credible evidence of a serious problem but the investigation is not yet complete.
• Retraction. Where the findings are unreliable, plagiarism or duplicate publication is confirmed, the work was conducted unethically, or authorship is in serious dispute. The article is clearly marked as retracted, the authors are given a chance to respond first, and their institution may be informed.
• Removal. Only where the content is unlawful, for example defamatory or subject to a court order. A notice replaces the article, and its title, authors and DOI are kept in the record.

Every notice is permanently linked to the original article and its DOI.

Reporting a concern

Anyone (an author, reviewer, reader or institution) may report a concern about a manuscript submitted to or published in IJLSI. There is no time limit: concerns may be raised at any stage, however long ago the conduct took place.

Write to the Editor-in-Chief at submission@ijlsi.com. If the concern involves the Editor-in-Chief, address it to the Publisher at the same address. Please include:

• the Manuscript ID or the paper’s title;
• what the concern is;
• any supporting evidence, such as links to similar published work; and
• your name and contact details (you may report anonymously, but a named report allows us to follow up).

Reports are treated in confidence.

How a concern is handled

1. AcknowledgementThe concern is acknowledged within 5 working days.
2. InvestigationThe Editor-in-Chief appoints a committee of at least two editorial board members, which follows the relevant COPE flowchart.
3. ResponseEveryone concerned, including the authors, is given the chance to respond.
4. DecisionThe committee decides, and any action is taken in line with COPE guidance.
5. OutcomeThe person who reported the concern is told the outcome where appropriate.