Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information, including patients' names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that a patient who is identifiable be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should identify Individuals who provide writing assistance and disclose the funding source for this assistance.
Identifying details should be omitted if they are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning and editors should so note.
While reporting scientific project involving human subjects or experimental animals authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) or regulations for laboratory animals. The statement has to be mentioned in "Materials and Methods" section, right after the presentation of the study groups. We believe animal experimentation should be avoided whenever possible in favor of alternative research strategies.
All manuscripts for articles, original research reports, editorials, reviews, that are submitted to the journal must be accompanied by a conflict of interest disclosure statement or a declaration by the authors that they do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) states in its Guidelines on Good Publication Practice (2003) that:
âConflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments on what is published. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.â
JCDR believe that, to make the best decision on how to deal with an article, Journal should know about any competing interests that authors may have, before an article can be reviewed and accepted for publication.
- Author must be truthful and must declare if the article has been published in some other language during the time of submission.
- Author must disclose if some part of work has already been published or under consideration elsewhere.
- If the research submitted is the thesis or PhD work, author should reveal the name of the âPrimary researcherâ and the âSupervisorâ.
1. Re-traction of the publication:
The publication of the article shall always be subject to the right of the journal to re-tract and removed the article from its website / portal if it is found at any time that :
- The subject matter has been infringing the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR, including copyright) respecting same, similar or identical subject matter belonging to the third party whether published or not.
- The subject matter has been published earlier by any means or in any form whatsoever
- The subject matter and its publication tantamount to ethical misconduct.
- The subject matter and its publication tantamount to ethical misconduct.â¢ The publication of the subject matter is against public policy and against the provisions of any law of the land in force in the time being.
2. Procedure governing re-traction:
- On receiving a complaint or information from any source whatsoever, whenever it came to the notice that the subject matter published in the journal is similar or identical respecting same subject matter, which is authored by some other person, entity or institution prior to the date on which the author has submitted the subject article for publication in our journal, an explanation shall be called affording reasonable opportunity and to respond in writing to the issue raised respecting the subject matter.
- The author shall on receiving the notice to explain, submit his/her explanation within in the period stipulated in the notice.
- On receiving the explanation the editor may within his/her discretion, and if deemed necessary and expedient, refer the issue in dispute to any expert of the field with request to give his/her report containing opinion on the merits of the subject matter.
- Based upon the complaint, explanation of the author, report/opinion of the expert and considering any other material relevant, the editor of the journal shall, after due application of mind, pass a final speaking order rejecting either the complaint or allowing the complaint backed by reasons. In the event it is decided by the reader to allow the complaint he/she shall issue a show cause notice to the author calling upon him/her as to why the publication may not retracted and removed from the website the journal.
- The author shall within clear 10 days of the receipt of the afore-stated notice, may if so desire submit his/her explanation, following which a reader shall pass an order in terms with the reference of the show cause notice. In the event the editor of the journal passed an order directing removal of the article, the author shall not be entitled for any refund of the charges earlier remitted by him at the time of provisional acceptance of the publication.
- Decision of the Chief Editor and senior editors will be final.
- In the event, the author is not satisfied and aggrieved by the final order of removal of article from the website of the publication, the author may request the editor within 14 days of the receipt of the removal of the article from the publication to refer the issue in dispute to the arbitrator. The publisher, within a further period of 15 days on receipt of such request shall refer issue in dispute to the arbitrator.
Confidentiality of data relating to individual patients and visitors to the Web site, including their identity, is respected by this Web site. The Web site owners undertake to either honour or exceed the legal requirements of medical or health information privacy as applicable. (Governed by the laws of India)
Only active and current members of the Editorial team have access to this data at any given time. All emails sent to the Journal are kept on the journal mail box for 7 days, there after archived as offline content on our harddrive. There they are stored indefinitely. Only the chief editor, Editorial secretary and the Editor for Review has access to these. We do not forward the content or email IDs of any correspondence to third party outside of journal activities. Info given by people to us on e-mails will be used by us only, these statistics will not be used by third party or other companies.
Author should not submit/present the same (or substantially overlapping) data in more than one publication without adequate cross-referencing/justification, particularly when this is done in such a way that reviewers/readers are unlikely to realise that most or all the findings have been published before (As per COPE guidelines). Submission of a manuscript concomitantly to more than one journal is unethical and unacceptable. The authors and editors of the journal must concur to the secondary publication, which may reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
If the research is published in some other language previously, author must declare the same at the time of submission of the manuscript or prior permission from the editor must be taken.
Authors should make it certain that they have acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been significance in determining the nature of the reported work. Authors should take permission from the researcher before using the questionnaire in a questionnaire study to avoid any conflict post-publication. Also, in case If you are including material that has been previously published (illustrations or tables or images), you are required to obtain permission from the original publisher to reproduce that material to avoid any conflict.
The authors must guarantee that they submitted entirely original work and if they have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or referenced.
Journal is strongly committed to prevent plagiarism in its published work. Over the years following experience and our own research work the following work follow is followed within the Editorial.
Initially after submission all articles are screened with professional software to check for plagiarism. These are then classified into very high, moderately high, average and low. Those which are found very high are rechecked using another proprietary software and if results are found consistently high are rejected directly. Same is done with moderately high results however in this case the article is also screened by senior editor. Average and low are processed further. And at the time of final acceptance or while asking for last set of minor revisions the article is manually checked using Google search engine. (http://europeanscienceediting.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/ESENov16_origart.pdf)
Prior to publication if the time lapse between last Google check and actual publication is more than 5 weeks the article abstract and title of rechecked for plagiarism. This is done in order to prevent a duplicate publication which has been hitherto missed. It has been learned with experience by the editors that using two strategies and two different timelines is likely to give better chance to prevent plagiarism.
Editorial manually checks issues of plagiarism looking into which part of the article is plagiarized and how much impact it will have on originality of the work. Despite these rigorous methods in place some slip can still happen. Editors welcome these to be brought to our notice post-publication by writing email to email@example.com.
Peer-review - The peer-review process is double blinded, i.e., the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are.
How reviewers are indentified and evaluated - The double blinded, peer review process is followed. The experienced researchers and authors of high quality articles submitted to JCDR, are sent request mails for reviewing articles. Author suggested reviewers are also approached. Besides, database searches are done to mark significant research articles and case reports and those authors are mailed and manuscripts sent, if affirmative. In cases where review reports are not obtained within the stipulated time, after trying three sets of honorary reviewers, a paid peer review is obtained. This is resorted to avoid frustration in author for delaying decisions. Reviewers are graded from 1 to 10 based on promptness, completeness and how useful the comments were in taking final decision on articles. Dedicated positions are there in house for identifying peer reviewers, searching them by matching the title of articles, promptness of review and grading the reports.
A due acknowledgment for the researchers who have performed the peer-review process for one or more of the manuscripts in the past is made on the journal website. Without the significant contributions made by these researchers, the publication of the journal would not be possible.
In the case of a first decision of major revisions, authors should respond to the reviewers` comments as a separate file in point by point format, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript (as revised file) to the journal by the given time, else the article will stand rejected with status as rejected no author reply.
Some authors request withdrawal of manuscript after submission. If the withdrawal is done within the time span when the article is with Editor, and for a genuine reason like problems discovered in data etc, author is allowed to withdraw the manuscript without any penalty. If the author withdraws manuscript any time after the manuscript has been sent to peer review till the final decision, then unless there are compelling reasons, the request is not entertained without a penalty. This penalty may be in form of payment to journal for its time and resources spent.
To ensure authorship for the submitted manuscripts, the contributors should meet the following three conditions:
- Conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data has been done by the author
- Either drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content has been done by the author
- The final approval of the version to be published has been given by the author. Each contributor should have participated sufficiently in the work to be allowed to take public responsibility for suitable portions of the content.
Naming Order for Contributors
The order of naming the contributors should be based on the relative contribution of the contributor towards the study and the writing of the manuscript. Once submitted, the order cannot be changed without the written consent of all the contributors.
No addition of author(s) will be entertained post submission. Exception to this will be made only with proper justification supported by institution/university head.
Number of Contributors
In the event of a study carried out in a single institute, the number of contributors should not exceed eight. For case-reports, images, letters to the editor, and review articles, the number of contributors should not exceed five. There should be a written justification if the number of contributors exceeds five. If the JCDR feels necessary it may ask for description of the contribution of authors towards the manuscript.
One or more author should take responsibility for the integrity of the work from the inception to the publishing of the article. This author will be designated as the guarantor.