Gupta Publications is a leading provider of high-quality publishing and knowledge dissemination solutions.
Gupta Publications is a leading innovative IT Service provider for electronic journals. Through our exceptional blend of people, process and industry-specific experience, we deliver elegant solutions to commercial challenges.
Ethical MattersAuthors involving in the usage of experimental animals and human subjects in their research article should seek approval from the appropriate Ethical committee in accordance with "Principles of Laboratory Animal Care". The Method section of the manuscript should include a statement to prove that the investigation was approved and that informed consent was obtained.
Role of Editors: The role of the editors is to evaluate the suitability of submitted manuscripts for the journal, including: (a) the quality of the manuscript, (b) whether it meets the Aims and Scope of the journal, and (c) the originality of the work. The editors will not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers or potential reviewers, or other members of the editorial board. Editors will ensure the prompt handling of the review process. Editors will evaluate the merit of manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, country of origin, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation.
Role of Reviewers: Peer review is essential to the journal in assisting in making editorial decisions and assisting authors in manuscript improvement. Reviewers should point out relevant publications not cited in the manuscript and point out any similarities with previously published works. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts with conflicts of interest, competitive, financial, or collaborative. If a potential reviewer feels unqualified to review the manuscript, that reviewer should notify the editors immediately and decline the review. Manuscripts received for review will be treated as confidential documents and not shown or discussed with other without authorization from the editors. Authors should expect to receive reviewer reports in a prompt manner, normally within three weeks. Reviewer misconduct (breach of confidentiality, delay of peer review, plagiarism, or conflicts of interest) will not be tolerated.
Role of Authors: Authors of original research (not previously published or under consideration for publication elsewhere) should be an accurate presentation of the work carried out, a discussion of the significance of the work in context with previous works, and should contain sufficient experimental detail to allow others to replicate the work. Appropriate citation of previously published works must always be included. Authors should disclose any financial or other conflicts of interest that may be construed as influencing the data or interpretation. All sources of financial support should be disclosed. Authorship should be limited to those persons who have made a significant contribution to the work in terms of conception, design, experimental implementation, and data analysis and interpretation. All persons making significant contributions should be included as co-authors. If an author discovers a significant error in the published work, the author is obligated to inform the journal editor in order to either correct or retract the paper.
Role of the Publisher: In cases of proven scientific misconduct, plagiarism, or fraudulent publication, the publisher, in collaboration with the editorial board, will take appropriate action to clarify the situation, publish an erratum, or retract the work in question.
Instructions to Reviewer
Criteria for Reviewing: Reviewers could judge any manuscript on the basis of following criteria:
- Format of the Article: Any major divergence from the standard manuscript format should be indicated.
- Technical Presentation: The research article should be technically presented instead of being presented as a story. Mere repetition of past work should not be accepted. You can look for conceptual advancement over previously published work. Any major omission of the previously published findings on the similar problem must be checked.
- Interpretation of Result: The discussion should hover around the result and should not include irrelevant and unachievable statement.
- Statistical Presentation: Proper statistics should be applied over the data wherever found necessary.
- Plagiarism of Data: Data showing any type of suspicion, duplication and manipulation must be brought to the notice of the author(s).
- Summary: Pin point the strength and weakness of the article considering potential importance of the work in the context of present and future.
- Conclusion: At the end reviewer(s) can recommend necessary corrections needed to accept the paper, if they are actually required, else recommend it for publication. If found unsuitable the paper should be declared as unacceptable for publication.
The journal employs the double-blind peer review process, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.
Every proposal submitted for publication is read at least by an editor, for an initial review. If the paper agrees with editorial policies and with a minimum quality level, is sent to two reviewers. The reviewers won't know the author's identity, as any identifying information will be stripped from the document before review.
Reviewers' comments to the editors are confidential and before passing on to the author will made anonymous. Based on the reviewers' comments, the Editorial Board makes a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript, and communicates to the authors the decision, along with referees' reports. Whether significant revisions are proposed, acceptance is dependent on whether the author can deal with those satisfactorily.
Errors in published papers may be identified requiring publication of a correction in the form of a corrigendum or erratum. Because articles can be read and cited as soon as they are published, any changes thereafter could potentially impact those who read and cited the earlier version. Publishing an erratum or corrigendum increases the likelihood readers will find out about the change and also explains the specifics of the change.
Corrigenda and Errata are published on a numbered page and will contain the original article's citation. Cases where these corrections are insufficient to address an error will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the Editor in Chief. Inadequacies arising from the normal course of new scientific research are not within the scope of this and will require no correction or withdrawal.
Infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like. Occasionally a retraction will be used to correct errors in submission or publication.The retraction of an article by its authors or the editor under the advice of members of the scholarly community has long been an occasional feature of the learned world. Standards for dealing with retractions have been developed by a number of library and scholarly bodies, and this best practice is adopted for article retraction
- A retraction note titled “Retraction: [article title]” signed by the authors and/or the editor is published in the paginated part of a subsequent issue of the journal and listed in the contents list.
- In the electronic version, a link is made to the original article.
- The online article is preceded by a screen containing the retraction note. It is to this screen that the link resolves; the reader can then proceed to the article itself.
- The original article is retained unchanged save for a watermark on the .pdf indicating on each page that it is “retracted.”
- The HTML version of the document is removed.
Editorial Expressions of Concern
Where substantial doubt arises as to the honesty or integrity of a submitted or published article it is the Editor in Chief's responsibility to ensure that the matter is adequately addressed, usually by the authors' sponsoring institution. It is not normally the Editor in Chief's responsibility to carry out the investigation or make a determination. The Editor in Chief should be promptly informed of the decision of the sponsoring institution and a retraction printed should it be determined that a fraudulent paper was published. Alternatively, the Editor in Chief may choose to publish an expression of concern over aspects of the conduct or integrity of the work.
Policies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal rights, and Informed Consent
IJMHR requires authors to declare all competing interests in relation to their work. All submitted manuscripts must include a ‘competing interests’ section at the end of the manuscript listing all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read “The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.” Editors may ask for further information relating to competing interests. Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests and will be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.
Competing interests may be financial or non-financial. A competing interest exists when the authors’ interpretation of data or presentation of information may be influenced by their personal or financial relationship with other people or organizations. Authors should disclose any financial competing interests but also any non-financial competing interests that may cause them embarrassment if they were to become public after the publication of the article.
Authors from commercial organizations that sponsor clinical trials, should declare these as competing interests on submission. They should also adhere to the Good Publication Practice guidelines for pharmaceutical companies, which are designed to ensure that publications are produced in a responsible and ethical manner. The guidelines also apply to any companies or individuals that work on industry-sponsored publications, such as freelance writers, contract research organizations and communications companies.
Human and Animal Rights
All research must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. If there is suspicion that work has not taken place within an appropriate ethical framework, Editors will follow may reject the manuscript, and/or contact the author(s)’ ethics committee. On rare occasions, if the Editor has serious concerns about the ethics of a study, the manuscript may be rejected on ethical grounds, even if approval from an ethics committee has been obtained.
Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee.
The submitted study has to be supported by the ethics/bioethics committee approval.
Authors reporting the use of a new procedure or tool in a clinical setting, for example as a technical advance or case report, must give a clear justification in the manuscript for why the new procedure or tool was deemed more appropriate than usual clinical practice to meet the patient’s clinical need. Such justification is not required if the new procedure is already approved for clinical use at the authors’ institution. Authors will be expected to have obtained ethics committee approval and informed patient consent for any experimental use of a novel procedure or tool where a clear clinical advantage based on clinical need was not apparent before treatment.
Including of details, images related to individual participants are not allowed.
Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee.
A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines (e.g. the revised Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 in the UK and Directive 2010/63/EU in Europe) and/or ethical approval (including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate) must be included in the manuscript. If a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, this should also be detailed in the manuscript (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption and the reasons for the exemption). The Editor will take into the account the animal welfare issues and reserves the right to reject a manuscript, especially if the research involves protocols that are inconsistent with commonly accepted norms of animal research. In rare cases, Editors may contact the ethics committee for further information.
Field studies and other non-experimental research on animals must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines, and where available should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing compliance with relevant guidelines and/or appropriate permissions or licences must be included in the manuscript. We recommend that authors comply with the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora and the IUCN Policy Statement on Research Involving Species at Risk of Extinction.
For studies reporting livestock trials with production, health and food-safety outcomes, authors are encouraged to adhere to State Consumer Protection Service of Ukraine or appropriate National/International Establishments.
Our open access policy increases the visibility of the journals’ content, reaching far more readers than paid-for journals. They are therefore the ideal place to advertise your products, services or conferences.
In addition to print advertising we also offer a number of digital options including; banners on journal websites and email alerts, advertisements in journal apps and dedicated email campaigns carrying your message to our database.
Advertising with Gupta Publications journals will deliver your message to your target audience at a low cost of investment per view for both print and digital opportunities.
Journal allows the author to hold the copyright and retain publishing rights without restrictions.
PlagiarismA note on plagiarism (please read before submission): There is a zero-tolerance policy towards plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) in our journal. Manuscripts are screened for plagiarism before, during, and after publication, and if found they will be rejected at any stage of processing. In case that a paper is already published in our journal and appears in PubMed Central but plagiarism is still detected, it will be retracted from our journal and the authors' institutions and department heads will be notified to take actions.
Open AccessIn case of acceptance after peer review, you may choose to publish your article under Open Access terms. Open Access means that everyone around the world can read and download your article for free.