Granthaalayah is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality. We follow COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics.
Publication Ethics
COPE non-profit organisation provides a forum where journal editors and publishers can discuss publication ethics.
It also advises editors on handling cases of research and publication misconduct. In all instances, we closely follow COPE’s principles of publication ethics laid out in its core practices documents.
We believe in editorial independence and the freedom of our editors to make decisions drawing on your subject experience, knowledge of your journal, and academic ability. We will never interfere with the editorial decision-making process and defer to our editors as the subject experts.
There may be times an editorial decision has to be changed due to ethical or legal concerns. If that happens, we at Granthaalayah, and our editorial teams, will act with full transparency, objectivity and in accordance with the COPE guidelines.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
The role of the author
Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Research and publishing ethics
This highlights the criteria all manuscripts must meet and walks authors through the various ethics violations, including:
- Plagiarism, self-plagiarism (text recycling)
- Redundant publication (dual publication)
- Attribution
- Authorship issues
- Coercive citation
- Defamation/libel
- Fabricated data
- Unethical research and testing
- Conflicts of interest
Author policies
Our author policies contain information on everything from copyright and responsible sharing.
When an author submits a manuscript they sign a copyright form. This confirms that their submitted work is original and has not been published before.
If either of these apply, the author must flag them to you at the point of submission.
The role of the reviewer
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. 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. 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.
The guidelines emphasise the importance of respecting the confidentiality of any manuscript they review, and not using the data or ideas it contains. They also run through some key ethical points to consider, for example:
- Does the manuscript truly match their area of expertise? Are they the right person to understand and assess the paper?
- Can they deliver on time? Delaying publication could have an adverse effect on an author with time-sensitive findings to share – and on the reputation of the journal.
- Are there any conflicts of interest that would prevent them from accepting the review request?
- Is the report they’ve provided honest, fair and constructive?
- If a colleague has contributed to the review, does their name and affiliation appear on the report?
Reviewers aren’t responsible for identifying ethics issues in the papers they review. Having said that, their familiarity with the published literature in the field means they are often well placed to spot plagiarism, text recycling, or dual publication and can play a key role in bringing cases to light.
We have developed a set of reviewer guidelines to help them understand their role in the publishing process.
The role of the editor
Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Other ethics responsibilities include:
- Viewing each submission objectively and reporting possible conflicts of interest.
- Only publishing papers that genuinely add value to your discipline.
- Never encouraging authors to cite papers previously published by you, or your journal.
- Maintaining the anonymity of double-blind peer review. If at any point you think the reviewer has identified the author of a manuscript they are reviewing, you should ask them to step back from the process. The manuscript should then be sent to someone new for review.
- Fair and transparent investigation of any allegations of misconduct.
Tools and resources to help you in your role
Crossref Similarity Check Powered by iThenticate
We have access to the originality checking service Crossref Similarity Check. iThenticate, developed by Turnitin, is the leading provider of professional plagiarism detection and prevention technology used worldwide by scholarly publishers and research institutions to ensure the originality of written work before publication. iThenticate helps editors, authors and researchers prevent misconduct by comparing manuscripts against its database of over 60 billion web pages and 155 million content items, including 49 million works from 800 scholarly publisher participants of Crossref Similarity Check powered by iThenticate software.
Each manuscript will be check by Crossref Similarity Check and will be added in the review process for reference.
Handling an allegation of misconduct
If an ethics issue arises with work submitted to or published in your journal, what are the steps you should take?
As the editor and custodian of that journal, and the subject-matter expert, you will take the lead in any investigation. However, it’s important to notify your Publisher as soon as a problem is identified, or an allegation is made.
Your Publisher, Content Editor and our dedicated team are there to help you in any way they can.
Allegations against an author
It may be that an author has knowingly submitted a manuscript that breaks the ethics rules, e.g. plagiarises another paper or has already been published elsewhere. Sometimes, however, an author has simply made an honest mistake in their work. An allegation of ethical misconduct can have a severe impact on a researcher’s career so it’s always important to investigate it fully. There are several steps we recommend you follow:
- Notify your Publisher.
- Consult the relevant COPE guidelines and flowcharts.
- Ensure you give the author the opportunity to respond.
- Discuss your findings with your Publisher – depending on the severity of the case, you may need to involve the author’s institution, employer, or funder.
- Keep records of all written communication.
- Maintain confidentiality.
- Remain neutral – it’s important not to be influenced by third parties.
- Act with integrity and if the situation has arisen through a lack of knowledge on the author’s part, educate them.
- Be transparent about your decisions.
If the situation requires it, you may need to correct the literature. Our Article withdrawal policy and correction notices page runs through the options available to you.
Allegations against a reviewer or editor
There may be occasions when an author, or third party, feels there has been misconduct by the reviewer of the manuscript, or even you or a fellow editor.
If the allegation is about the quality of a review (e.g. it’s unhelpful or insulting), this can probably be solved with an apology and the decision not to invite that reviewer again. If it’s about reviewer bias, you could consider inviting another reviewer to give a second opinion.
If it’s something more serious, or involves you or your editorial team, the next step is to notify publisher, so our team can look into it further – this gives everyone the security of knowing that the allegation is being reviewed by someone outside the journal team.
