The editors of the International Journal of Nephrology Sciences are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. In assessing the presented works, the editors should limit themselves exclusively to the intellectual content. The editors should not be partial by matters such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The editors can choose to disregard any material that breaks legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors must ensure the confidentiality of the submitted works until they are published or printed. Peer-reviewed articles support and illustrate the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.
1. Duties of the Editorial Board
The International Journal of Nephrology Sciences follows the guidelines based on COPE Best Practices.
a) Publication decisions
The editor of the International Journal of Nephrology Sciences is responsible for determining which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The corroboration of the study in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be maneuvered 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.
b) Fair play
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without paying attention to race, gender, sexual orientation, spiritual belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the generators.
The editor and any editorial staff must not reveal any data about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
d) Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be applied in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the writer. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be held confidential and not utilized for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. Should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other members of the editorial board instead to critique and look at) from considering manuscripts in which they cause conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or associations with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the written document. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If required, other appropriate action should be considered, such as the publishing of a retraction or expression of vexation.
e) Participation and cooperation in investigations
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethics complaints have been submitted concerning a submitted manuscript or printed paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the writer of the manuscript or report 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 publishing of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
2. Duties 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 others 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.
3. Duties of authors
a) Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should demonstrate an exact history of the work done as well as an objective discussion of its meaning. The fundamental data should be represented correctly in the composition. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to repeat the study.
Counterfeit or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
b) Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to furnish the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if possible, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
c) Originality and plagiarism
The writers should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many shapes, from the publishing of another's paper as the author's own composition, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without acknowledgment), to claiming results from research led by others. Piracy in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
d) Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
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 intolerable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
e) Acknowledgement of sources
Proper recognition of the work of others must always be made. Authors should cite publications that have been important in shaping the nature of the reported study. Information obtained privately, every bit in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the author. The data received in the form of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the expressed written permission of the author of the work involved in these servings.
f) Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be restricted to those who have attained a substantial contribution to the conception, invention, implementation, or interpretation of the reported work. All those who have produced 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. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final edition of the manuscript and have agreed to its entry for publishing.
g) Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Writers should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human cases. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
h) Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All roots of fiscal backing for the task should be given away.
i) 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 duty to quickly advise the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher finds out from a third party that a published study comprises a substantial mistake, it is the responsibility of the author to promptly retract or correct the composition or offer evidence to the editor of the rightness of the original composition.
4. Duties of Publisher
Sparkling Press, India as the publisher of the International Journal of Nephrology Sciences take its duties of custody over all phases of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other obligations. We are dedicated to making certain that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In summation, the Sparkling Press and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other diaries and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.