Publication Ethics and Quality Control
International Centre for Integrated Development Research (ICIDR) publishes peer-reviewed journals and academic books on diverse scientific disciplines. This statement explains ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article for its journals, (the author, editors, peer-reviewers and the publisher). This statement is based on internationally accepted Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors curled from different websites of journals publishers and international indexing agencies such as Lifescience Global Journal, African Journals Online and the Committee for Publication Ethics.
DUTIES OF EDITORS
Each journal published by International Centre for Integrated Development Research (ICIDR) has its own Editorial Board. The approach of these publications is that knowledge is a continuum, a unity. They try to avoid erecting barriers between disciplines whore; in reality no barriers exist. To ensure the generalizations and interrelationship not only within disciplines but also in the interdisciplinary conglomerates that make up life, a member of the Editorial Board in one journal may be a member in another journal published by ICIDR or somewhere else.
Decision on the Publication of Articles
The Editor-in-Chief of each Journal published by ICIDR is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board and subjected to such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers to make decision in this regard.
Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit without regard to authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. To ensure quality assurance, ICIDR employs double blinded technique in peer-review process. But in a situation where the reviewers’ views on the paper vary on the acceptability status, a third assessor is employed.
The Editor-in-Chief/editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to any other person except the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial consultants, and the publisher.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript (while handling it) in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
Importance of Peer Reviewing
Peer review is an essential part of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. 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. Peer Reviewers need to recognize the importance of their role and commit to contributing high quality work to the process of publishing scholarly research.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a paper, or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process. If a selected referee agrees to review a paper, they should then adhere to timelines set by the editor.
Any paper received for review must be treated as confidential document. 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.
Reviewers are encouraged to comment on ethical questions and possible research misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects, including animals).
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers are encouraged to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism. 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.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. 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.
DUTIES OF AUTHORS
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 represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited or quoted.
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement 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
Authorship should be 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 significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
Corresponding author is the author responsible for communicating with the journal for publication. 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.
Acknowledgment of Funding Sources
Sources of funding for the research reported in the article should be duly acknowledged at the end of the article.
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.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, 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. However, when retraction is necessary, a statement about the retracted paper must be published, and the COPE Retraction Guidelines must be strictly adhered to in the process.