As publishers, we are dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics, and we take all reasonable precautions to prevent publication malpractice. When submitting an article to one of our journals or a proposal to one of our book series, authors must certify that their work is unique, unpublished, and not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. Furthermore, writers attest that their journal article is entirely original, free of plagiarism, and that they have declared any actual or possible conflicts of interest relating to their work or any linked partial advantages. This policy is aggressively and properly enforced.
The Editor(s) in Chief will decide which of the articles submitted to the journal “Journal of Physical Rehabilitation research”, published by Swami Vivekananda University, Kolkata, shall be published or accepted for publication. The chief editor of journals may be influenced by the ideas of the editorial board. The Editor in Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers before making this decision.
The Editors in Chief of a journal additionally ensure that each article undergoes at least ‘blind’ peer review by a minimum of two reviewers (we are striving towards double blind for several of our Journals). Additionally, we employ an industry technology to screen papers for plagiarism before ever accepting them for consideration. Papers with a similarity score of more than 20% are automatically rejected. If desired, individual journals can set lower similarity ratings.
Book series editors serve as the first line of quality control for submitted book proposals, but they also need to be examined by a minimum of one additional reviewer. In order to make sure that writers and editors are aware that they have been included on proposals, we also randomly verify the other listed editors or authors on such proposals.
Anyone who has access to an unpublished work may not utilize any of the revealed materials for their own research without the author's express written approval. To make sure all referees are operating honorably, we regularly spot check and update our reviewer's database.
The only criterion for evaluating manuscripts will be their intellectual worth; the writers' race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political ideology will not be taken into consideration. To help assure this, we are moving toward double-blind reviewing.
Any information regarding a submitted article may only be shared with the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher by the Editor in Chief, editors, and our editorial staff.
Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors must be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information.
Reviews ought to be carried out impartially. The author will not be subjected to personal criticism. Reviewers ought to clearly state their opinions and provide evidence to back them up. By 2022, we want to have switched to a double-blind review process for all journals. All reviews are currently blind, and some are double blind.
Reviewers ought to locate pertinent published literature that the authors have not cited. Any claim that has already been made publicly should be supported by the appropriate citation. Any significant resemblance or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published material about which the reviewer has firsthand knowledge should also be brought to the attention of the Editors in Chief.
Reviewers ought not to consider manuscripts for which they have competing, cooperative, or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, businesses, or organizations associated with the papers that could give rise to a conflict of interest.
Report writers of original research should give a factual description of the work done and a dispassionate analysis of its importance. The paper should accurately present the underlying data. A paper should have enough information and citations so that other people may do the same research. It is unethical and unprofessional to make false or intentionally erroneous statements.
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.
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.
Generally speaking, an author shouldn't publish submissions that effectively describe the same research in multiple primary publications or journals. It is immoral and improper to submit the same paper simultaneously to many journals as this is considered unethical publishing behaviour.
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.
Only individuals who have significantly influenced the idea, planning, execution, or interpretation of the published study should be able to claim authorship. As co-authors, everyone who has contributed significantly ought to be mentioned. Other people who have contributed to the study effort in any significant way should be recognized or identified as contributors
Any financial or other material conflict of interest that could be interpreted to affect the manuscript's interpretation or outcomes should be declared by each author in their submission. Disclosure of all funding sources for the project is required.
Should an author discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify us and cooperate with us to retract or correct the article.