Misconduct Handling & Complaints process

Misconduct Handling & Complaints Process:
*Misconduct Handling:
The term "research misconduct" includes a wide variety of unethical actions that compromise the reliability of scientific studies. The most common forms of unethical behaviour in research are:

(I) Plagiarism: To plagiarise is to take another author's thoughts or phrases and portray them as one's own original work by wrongfully appropriating and stealing and publishing. IJERR strongly discourages and condemns this kind of unauthorized copying.
Plagiarism is defined as follows:
#Changing the words but replicating the sentence structure of a source without providing a reference is considered plagiarism.
#Copying words or ideas from someone else without providing a reference is considered plagiarism.
#Using someone else's work as one’s own is unethical.
#Putting one’s name on someone else's essay or effort is considered plagiarism.
#Failure to enclose a quote inside quotation marks.
#Falsely identifying the source of a quote.
#Self-plagiarism: Plagiarism occurs when an author presents substantially similar material from their own published works as original work without properly attributing the sources. When dealing with such cases, we follow the rules set out by the COPE.
In a submitted manuscript, there is a possibility of redundant publishing (https://publicationethics.org/search?query=files+duplicate+publication+submitted+manuscript+cope+flowchart.pdf&urlfield=) whereas in a published article, there is a possibility of repetitive publication (https://publicationethics.org/search?query=files+duplicate+publication+published+article+cope+flowchart.pdf&urlfield=).
#Plagiarism cannot be prevented only by altering the terms of a source. No matter how significantly one modifies the context or presentation of a source's basic concept, one has plagiarised it if one has not mentioned it. This is true even if one has kept the source's essential idea. The majority of instances of plagiarism, on the other hand, maybe prevented simply by crediting sources. Plagiarism may typically be avoided by simply declaring that particular content has been taken and giving one’s readers the information they need to locate the original source.
Declaratory statement against plagiarism, upon submitting a work for consideration for publication in IJERR, the author(s) guarantee that:
#Using another person's idea or published work in order to pass it off as one's own is plagiarism, and authors are well aware that doing so is unlawful and bad. They also understand what plagiarism is and how it works. The students are also aware that plagiarism is defined as the intentional appropriation of another person's idea or published work in order to pass it off as one's own.
#To ensure that all sources consulted in the writing of the article or project have been recognized and properly cited, writers, sign a declaration before submitting their work for publication.
#Unless otherwise stated, the author(s) take full responsibility for the work they have done, the material in the article, and any errors or omissions in the citations.
Action is taken against plagiarism as:
(i) A double-blind peer-review process is used to ensure the highest quality and fair policy of evaluation and publication process to maintain the highest ethical standards and avoid plagiarism. Submitted research articles are assessed and reviewed by specialist reviewers (at least two – one from India and one from abroad) as invited for specific disciplines using the double-blind peer review process to ensure the highest quality and fair policy of evaluation and publication process to maintain the highest ethical standards.
(ii) Editorial board members have now double-checked such similarities with the help of the Turnitin plagiarism software.
(iii) Provide the author(s) with precise information.

(II) Fabrication:
Research misconduct includes the fabrication and presentation of fabricated data, results, or methodologies. In the event that any claims, grievances, or discoveries are made concerning falsification, the publishing house will inform the relevant author and ask for an explanation. The publisher will get in touch with the author(s)’ institution or place of employment if they do not receive a suitable response from the author(s). The matter is addressed in keeping with the standards set forth by COPE (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/case/possible-plagiarism-and-fabrication).
(III) Falsification:
Researchers commit research misconduct when they tamper with or withhold data, or when they manipulate study supplies, equipments, or processes in order to falsify the results. The following links detail the protocols proposed by COPE, which are followed when dealing with such matters:
*Before publication: Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript (https://publicationethics.org/search?query=files+fabricated+data+submitted+manuscript+cope+flowchart.pdf&urlfield=)
*After publication: Suspected fabricated data in a published article (https://publicationethics.org/search?query=files+fabricated+data+published+article+cope+flowchart.pdf)
*Figures: Inappropriate image manipulation in a published article (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/inappropriate-image-manipulation-published-article)

(IV) Authorship Issues:
Misconduct occurs when proper contributions are not acknowledged or when people who do not fulfill the authorship standards are included as authors. For help in spotting possible authorship problems, COPE (https://publicationethics.org/guidance/flowchart/how-recognise-potential-authorship-problems) offers several suggestions. Once a paper has been accepted, the authorship cannot be changed in any way, including adding or removing authors, changing the corresponding author, or changing the sequence of authors.

(V) Conflict of Interest:
It is considered a conflict of interest when researchers do not reveal any financial or personal relationships that may impact the results of their studies. The following procedures shall be followed for dealing with any instances of conflict of interest:
*Reviewers suspect undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript (https://publicationethics.org/search?query=files+conflict+of+interest+submitted+manuscript+article+cope+flowchart.pdf&urlfield=).
*Readers suspect undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article (https://publicationethics.org/search?query=files+conflict+of+interest+publlished+article+cope+flowchart+v2.pdf&urlfield=).

(VI) Manipulation of Citations:
This is the result of academics citing just the papers that back up their claims and disregarding the ones that could disprove them. Misleading narratives and skewed research landscapes might result from this strategy. Furthermore, when authors heavily rely on citing their own work, it can distort the perception of their significance and importance, which in turn undermines the credibility of the literature. Authors are asked to provide a reasonable explanation when something happens. After discussing each situation with the Co-Editors-in-Chief, a final judgement is reached.

(VII) Violation of Research Ethics:
Unethical conduct includes not getting participants' informed consent, breaking their confidentially, or putting them in danger. For the purpose of study subjects' rights and well-being, it is crucial to follow ethical rules. Concerns regarding ethics will be handled in line with COPE's guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/search?query=sites+default+files+ethical+problem+in+submitted+manuscript+cope+flowchart.pdf&urlfield=).

Complaints Process:
Although this is not always practicable, the journal is for authors to address such issues between themselves. The complainant must be informed that the problem will not be examined until the journal editor notifies the corresponding author or author and the institution or firm where the study was conducted of the complaint. Unless the author gives an acceptable explanation, the editor should inform the author that the issue may be addressed to the university or firm where the study was conducted and any other relevant institution or organisation (for example, a funding agency). In this fact-finding phase, the editor may want to solicit the opinions and comments of other parties who are likely to be familiar with the facts asserted by the complaint.