International Journal of Health & Medical Research

“The Advantage of Co-Publishing over Self Publishing”

The major difference between Self Publishing and Co-Publishing being that under the Co-Publishing arrangement, IJHMR provides the distribution network, manages the project from line editing, typesetting, proofing, printing, book design, co funds production, provides promotional support including a personalized page for the author’s work and bio. IJHMR can arrange for author launches/talks to promote their title. The problem with the alternative, Self Publishing, is that this method places the onus for the above entirely on the author and, in consequence, most fail. A good manuscript assessment is extremely worthwhile. An objective opinion is imperative; writers should NOT ask friends or relatives to offer an opinion but send their manuscripts to a recognized editor.

IJHMR provides this service and will not consider manuscripts from unpublished authors unless the IJHMR editors carry out the assessment as we have not always been impressed with some of the evaluations offered by other agencies.

All submitted research articles are assessed by our Review board and Editorial board members utilizing two fold dazzle associate evaluation process so as to avoid plagiarism.(IJHMR) set quality standards for the acceptance of appropriate and most effective research articles. It expects from authors that they will check their compositions for written falsification test and determine they are submitting just extraordinary content for publication.

Researchers should conduct their research from research proposal to publication in line with best practices and codes of conduct of relevant professional bodies and/or national and international regulatory bodies. In rare cases it is possible that ethical issues or misconduct could be encountered in your journal when research is submitted for publication.

The ethics statement for journal is based on those by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org

This journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record. As a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) the journal will follow the COPE guidelines on how to deal with potential acts of misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant even if it is discovered years after publication.

1. The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions.
2. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
3. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
4. An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should reuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
8. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.
9. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations. Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.
10. The manuscript should not be submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration.
11. The submitted work should be original and should not have been published elsewhere in any form or language (partially or in full), unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work. (Please provide transparency on the re-use of material to avoid the concerns about text-recycling (‘self-plagiarism’).
12. A single study should not be split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time (i.e. ‘salami-slicing/publishing’).
13. Concurrent or secondary publication is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. Examples include: translations or a manuscript that is intended for a different group of readers.
14. Results should be presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation (including image based manipulation). Authors should adhere to discipline-specific rules for acquiring, selecting and processing data.
15. No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the author’s own (‘plagiarism’). Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given (this includes material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarized and/or paraphrased), quotation marks (to indicate words taken from another source) are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions secured for material that is copyrighted.
16. Authors should make sure they have permissions for the use of software, questionnaires/(web) surveys and scales in their studies (if appropriate).
17. Authors should avoid untrue statements about an entity (who can be an individual person or a company) or descriptions of their behavior or actions that could potentially be seen as personal attacks or allegations about that person.
18. Research that may be misapplied to pose a threat to public health or national security should be clearly identified in the manuscript (e.g. dual use of research). Examples include creation of harmful consequences of biological agents or toxins, disruption of immunity of vaccines, unusual hazards in the use of chemicals, weaponization of research/technology (amongst others).
19. Authors are strongly advised to ensure the author group, the Corresponding Author, and the order of authors are all correct at submission. Adding and/or deleting authors during the revision stages is generally not permitted, but in some cases may be warranted. Reasons for changes in authorship should be explained in detail. Please note that changes to authorship cannot be made after acceptance of a manuscript.

1. Reviewers should assist in improving the quality of a submitted article by reviewing the manuscript with care, consideration and objectivity, in a timely manner.
2. Reviewers should inform the journal editor of any published or submitted content that is similar to the material under review, or any suspected plagiarism.
3. Reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest relating to a specific article or author.
4. Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of any information or material supplied during the review process.
5. Providing a detailed, constructive, and unbiased evaluation in a timely manner on the scientific content of the work.
6. Indicating whether the writing is relevant, concise & clear and evaluating the originality and scientific accuracy.
7. Maintaining the confidentiality of the complete review process.
8. Notifying the journal editor about any financial or personal conflict of interest and declining to review the manuscript when a possibility of such a conflict exists.
9. Notifying the journal editor of any ethical concerns in their evaluation of submitted manuscripts; such as any violation of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or any considerable similarity between the previously published article and any reviewed manuscript.

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. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. IJDATICS shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

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.

Acknowledgement 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.

Disclosure and Conflict 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.

1. Authors should declare that all work in their submitted piece is original, and cite content from other sources appropriately to avoid plagiarism.
2. Authors must ensure their contribution does not contain any libellous matter or infringe any copyright or other intellectual property rights or any other rights of any third party.
3. The listing of authors should accurately reflect who carried out the research and wrote the article, and the order of authorship should be jointly determined by all of the co-authors.
4. All authors should be aware of the submission of their paper to the journal and agree to the main author signing an IPR form on their behalf.
5. Authors should ensure that their manuscript as submitted is not under consideration (or accepted for publication) elsewhere. Where sections of the manuscript overlap with published or submitted content, this should be acknowledged and cited.
6. Authors should obtain permission to reproduce any content from third-party sources (text and images). Unfortunately, the Press is unable to publish third-party content for which permission has not been obtained (excluding content covered by fair dealing).
7. The source of funding for a research project should be listed on all funded research papers. Other sources of support (including funding for Open Access article processing charges) should also be clearly identified in the manuscript, typically in an acknowledgement.
8. Authors should declare any potential conflicts of interest relating to a specific article.
9. Authors should inform the editor or publisher if there is a significant error in their published piece, and work with the editor to publish an erratum, addendum or retraction where necessary.
10. Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions.

1. After publication 4 times of publication charges.
2. After submission request within 48 hours 2 times of publication charges

Few of the authors request withdrawal of manuscript from the publication process after submission or after publication. In some instances the request for withdrawal is made when the manuscript is only a few days away from publication in the journal. This may cause the time waste by the editors, reviewers and the editorial staff.

All authors include corresponding and co authors should confirm the number of authors, authorship, approval and integrity of the manuscript before submission. In case of any differences of opinion, address the concerns of all the authors before submitting the manuscript for publication.

Authors should follow the publication ethics details are included in our Publication ethics.

Manuscript is appropriately withdrawn from any previous publisher (if submitted). It is unacceptable to withdraw a manuscript from a journal because it is being accepted by another journal. Before submitting the manuscript authors should carefully check the facts and data presented in the manuscripts are accurate and error-free. All authors need agree for publishing the articles on the specific journal before submission.

Manuscript withdrawal charges

The author is allowed to withdraw the manuscript without paying any withdrawal penalty, if the author(s) requests a withdrawal of manuscript, within 48 hours of submission. If the author(s) requests a withdrawal of manuscript, after the peer review process or in the production stage (Early Release or Ahead of publishing) or published online; then authors need to make a withdrawal penalty. IJHMR Journal Editorial Office will provide the corresponding author a formal letter of Manuscript Withdrawal. Withdrawal of manuscripts is only allowed after withdrawal penalty has been fully paid to the IJHMR Editorial Office. As per the policy, we declare that the withdrawal charges are applicable in case of withdrawal.

1. IJHMR follows peer review publication that maintains high standardized review process of the articles that it receives. IJHMR depends on reviews by knowledgeable and research experts in order to maintain the accuracy and high quality of its content. Maintain confidentiality of the submitted Article/Paper
2. Being a reviewer of IJHMR , you need to take the responsibility of maintaining confidentiality of ideas that have been presented in the papers which you review. Focus your evaluation on merits and demerits of the paper and physiological significance of the findings in your confidential remarks to the Editor. Never reveal the assigned paper’s results or videos/images or any of the supplementary material to non-reviewers.
3. The identity of the reviewers should never be revealed out to the authors at any time either during the process of review or after its publication.
4. Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially, the article you have been asked to review may as well not be uncovered to a third gathering. In you wish to inspire a notion from partners or people noticing the article you may as well let the editor know beforehand. Most editors welcome supplemental remarks, yet whoever else is included will likewise need to keep the review process confidential. In spite of the fact that journal practices change, most journal do not share the identity of the reviewer with the author. To help us secure your identity, please don’t disclose your name inside the content of your review.
5. Be mindful when you submit your review that any suggestions you make will contribute to the last choice made by the editor.
6. Relying on the journal, you can be asked to assess the article on various criteria. Certain journal provides detailed guidance others don’t, however ordinarily you might be wanting to assess the article as per the taking over.
7. Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it augment the ordinance of information? Does the article stick to the journal’s standards? Is the research an important one? To verify its creativity and propriety for the journal, it may be accommodating to think about the exploration regarding what percentile it is in? Is it accurate to say that it is in the top 25% of papers in this field? You may wish to do a quick literary works seek utilizing devices for example Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. Depending on if the research has been secured a while ago, pass on references of those works to the editor.
8. Is the article decidedly laid out? It is safe to say that all are the key elements present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions? Think about every component in turn.
9. Title: Does it clearly describe the article?
10. Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?
11. Where graphical abstracts works or alternately highlights are incorporated, please check the content and if conceivable make prescriptions for enhancements.
12. Introduction: Does it describe what the author had a specific end goal, which was to realize precisely, and obviously state the situation being explored? Normally, the introduction may as well compress relevant research to provide context, and illustrate what different authors findings, if any, are being challenged or amplified. It might as well describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es) and the general experimental design or technique.
13. Method: Does the author precisely explain how the information was gathered? Is the outline suitable for addressing the question posed? Is there sufficient qualified data display for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? Provided that the methods are new, is it true that they are illustrated in detail? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what sort of information was recorded. Has the writer been precise in describing measurements?
14. Results: This is where the author(s) might as well illustrate in expressions what he/she/they revealed in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will recognize if the suitable analysis has been done. Are the statistics right? In the event that you are not agreeable with statistics, please prompt the editor when you submit your report. Understanding of outcomes may as well not be incorporated in this section.
15. Conclusion/Discussion: Are the cases in this segment backed by the outcomes, do they appear sensible? Have the authors has shown how the results identify with wants and to earlier research? Does the conclusion clearly explains how the research showed it impact in moving the scientific knowledge forward?
16. Language: Provided that an article is inadequately composed because of grammatical errors, while it might make it more challenging to grasp the science, you don’t have to correct the English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor, however. At last, when considering the entire article, do the figures and tables advise the reader, are they a vital part of the story? Do the figures depict the information correctly?
17. Earlier Research: Provided that the article expands past research does it refer that work suitably? Are there any significant works that have been violated? Are the references correct?

Ethical Issues:

1. The reviewer should give an honest and exact analysis of the research. The main role of the reviewers is to analyze the merits and the demerits and to provide necessary suggestions in order to increase the quality of the work.
2. The reviewer of paper should not review the manuscript that is co-authored by himself, or a member of his/her institution or to someone to whom he is related.
3. After receiving the paper for any further assistance or clarifications you need to contact only the editor and the confidentiality of the paper has to be maintained. You must never ask anyone to review a portion of paper without editor’s permission and also must never contact the author of the paper directly.
4. If the conduct of the reviewer seems to be mischievous then the manuscript will be assigned to second reviewer.
5. The reviewer should accept the manuscripts which fall into his/her area of expertise. Anyhow the editors will assign it to concerned reviewers yet sometimes a mistake may happen. This is because in order to maintain high standards of the review process.
6. The reviewer can also inform the editor regarding suspected duplicate publication, plagiarism, or any ethical concerns about the use of animals or humans in the research that has be done by author.

1. Reviewers should assist in improving the quality of a submitted article by reviewing the manuscript with care, consideration and objectivity, in a timely manner.
2. Reviewers should inform the journal editor of any published or submitted content that is similar to the material under review, or any suspected plagiarism.
3. Reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest relating to a specific article or author.
4. Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of any information or material supplied during the review process.
5. Providing a detailed, constructive, and unbiased evaluation in a timely manner on the scientific content of the work.
6. Indicating whether the writing is relevant, concise & clear and evaluating the originality and scientific accuracy.
7. Maintaining the confidentiality of the complete review process.
8. Notifying the journal editor about any financial or personal conflict of interest and declining to review the manuscript when a possibility of such a conflict exists.
9. Notifying the journal editor of any ethical concerns in their evaluation of submitted manuscripts; such as any violation of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or any considerable similarity between the previously published article and any reviewed manuscript.

(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.)

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. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Ijhmr shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

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.

Acknowledgement 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.

Disclosure and Conflict 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.