International Journal of Pedodontic Rehabilitation

Home Aim & Scope Editorial Board Archives Articles Author instructions Online Submission Contact Us

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement:

Editorial and Peer Review Processes generally follow these steps:

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential model for our journal "International Journal of Pedodontic Rehabilitation". For all parties engaged in publishing the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer(s), and the publisher standards of expected ethical behaviour must be established. In all instances, IJPR closely follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) principles laid out in its core practice documents. Their advice includes support on handling issues such as conflicts of interest, authorship and contributor ship issues and disputes, misconduct allegations and data issues, overlap and plagiarism, and peer review integrity.

Publication decisions

The editor of the IJPR is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.

The editorial board's policies and any applicable laws at the time concerning libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism may serve as the editor's guide and limits respectively. When making this choice, the editor may consult with other editors or reviewers.

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. For details regarding peer review of the journal kindly visit the link:

Best Practice IJPedoR — MM Publishers

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. For details regarding peer review of the journal kindly visit the link: Best Practice IJPedoR — MM Publishers

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

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge. Plagiarism is not acceptable in IJPR journals. Plagiarism includes copying text, ideas, images, or data from another source, even from your own publications, without giving credit to the original source. Reuse of text that is copied from another source must be between quotation marks and the original source must be cited. If a study's design or the manuscript's structure or language has been inspired by previous studies, these studies must be explicitly cited. All IJPR submissions will be checked for plagiarism using the industry standard software Turnitin. If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, an investigation will take place and action taken in accordance with our policies.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Journals should be committed to playing their part in maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record, therefore on occasion, it may be necessary to retract articles. COPE has published guidelines for retracting articles which suggest that journals should consider publishing retractions for articles when:

They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (e.g. of data) or falsification (e.g. image manipulation)

It constitutes plagiarism

The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)

It contains material or data without authorization for use

It reports unethical research

It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process

The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest or conflict of interest that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of reports on original research ought to give a realistic summary of the work done and an unbiased analysis of its relevance. The paper should appropriately depict the underlying data. A paper should have enough information and citations to let someone else duplicate the work. False or deliberately inaccurate statements are inappropriate and represent unethical behaviour.

Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should make sure that their writing is wholly unique and that, if they do utilise someone else's words or work, they have properly cited or quoted them.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

Typically, an author shouldn't submit articles detailing essentially the same study to more than one journal or primary publication. It is unacceptable to simultaneously submit the same paper to multiple journals as this is unethical publishing behavior.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper

Only individuals who significantly contributed to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported study should be given the privilege of authorship. Co-authors should be named for everyone who contributed significantly. Other people who have contributed to the research endeavour in meaningful ways should be recognised or identified as contributors when applicable.

The corresponding author is responsible for making sure that the manuscript has all necessary co-authors, none of whom should be, and that all co-authors have seen, approved, and agreed to the paper's submission for publication.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

The author must make it apparent in the manuscript whether the work uses any chemicals, techniques, or tools that have any unusual risks inherent in their use.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Any financial or other significant conflicts of interest that could be taken to have an impact on the findings or interpretation of a manuscript should be disclosed by all authors in the publication. Disclosure of all funding sources for the project is required.

Withdrawals

There may be instances where an article is withdrawn after publication. Wiley's mission is to actively discourage the withdrawal of the Version of Record in accordance with the norms for retractions set forth by the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers and the preservation of the impartial record of science. The complete international journal of pedodontic rehabilitation withdrawal policy is based on the discretion of the Journal Editor.

Fundamental errors in published works

It is the responsibility of the author to contact the publisher or journal editor as soon as a serious error or inaccuracy in the author's own published work is found, and to work with the editor to retract or fix the manuscript.

Duplicate or redundant publication

The Council of Science Editors incorporates a definition of duplicate or redundant publication into its White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications:

Authors must avoid duplicate publications. If found out that any previously published results, including numerical information and figures or images, are labelled to make it clear where they were previously reported. Ensuring that the Copyright Transfer Agreement or Open Access Agreement – one of which must be signed the corresponding author before publication– includes a warranty that the manuscript is an original work, has not been published before, and is not being considered for publication elsewhere in its final form. The following types of “prior publication” do not present cause for concerns about duplicate or redundant publication (see also the information in these guidelines on preprints):

Abstracts and posters were presented as part of the conference proceedings.
Results presented at meetings (for example, to inform investigators or participants about findings).
Results in databases and clinical trial registries (data without interpretation, discussion, context or conclusions in the form of tables and text to describe data/information).
Dissertations and theses in university archives.
If a manuscript is published and later found to be redundant, the journal editor will work with the publisher to retract the duplicate paper.

Ethics Approval, Informed Consent, and Data Confidentiality

It is mandatory to get approval from a Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), -registered ethics committee before commencing a sponsored drug trial. It is mandatory to register clinical trials with the Clinical Trials Registry of India. Obtaining informed consent from all the study participants is critical and should not be trivialized by the authors. The DCGI and ICMR provide templates for the consent form (Appendix V, Schedule-Y), which must be adopted by all the authors. The author should also be aware of the guidelines provided by the International Conference on Harmonization of Good Clinical Practice and the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Recording audio-visual consent is the norm for industry-sponsored randomized clinical trials currently. The consent forms must commit on protection of patients' personal identity and other confidential data. In addition, the consent forms must include patient rights clearly in a language understandable by patients. The editorial board of journals may ask for documented proof of the consent form used by the researchers, and these should be maintained for a minimum of 5 years from the time of termination of the study.

Consequences if Detected

The Committee on Publication Ethics provides clear guidelines and steps to be taken when each of the above-mentioned misconducts are identified. The first step taken by the editorial board is contacting authors and informing them that their misconduct has been identified. If the authors acknowledge and accept their fault, the paper will be rejected and the leadership in the authors' institution is informed. If the paper were already published, authors are provided with an opportunity of self-confession in the form of an erratum in the journal. After conducting due diligence and confirming any substantial misconduct, the editor has the ability to cancel the paper. The journal has the option of placing the authors on a blacklist, and information is communicated with COPE so that all of its member journals are aware. If authors dispute their wrongdoing, editors may recognise it and take appropriate measures in accordance with COPE rules. Additionally, writers may face inquiries from local organisations' ethics committees, like the Disciplinary Committee of the Indian society of pedodontic and preventive dentistry and appropriate sanctions may be imposed in accordance with established operation protocols.

Editor, International Journal of Pedodontic Rehabilitation