Submission Preparation ChecklistAs part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
More than 4 author's submission are not allowed. (It will Rejected)
- The submission file is in Microsoft Word, with all Author's Name and their affiliation details
- Manuscript without author details.
Mauscript with author details.
(Name and Affiliation of all authors)
- Add all authors name and their affiliation correctly when you register your account. Otherwise system will consider the data that you enter on the time of registration of the online portal.
- A cover letter that must have 2 Refferee Suggestion (1 International & 1 Local)
- IJMRES recommend double-spaced; 12-point font and Time New Roman and all figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
- For the refrencing and formating IJMRES follow APA style .
- The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
International Journal of Management and Emerging Sciences (IJMRES) was started in 2011 and it is edited by Superior University. IJMRES publishes four issues per year (March, June, September, and December) with understanding that these paeprs are not being considered for publishing elsewhere. From the beginning, the aim of the Journal is to foster academic research by publishing original research articles that meet the highest analytical standards and provide new insights that contribute and spread the business management knowledge. IJMRES is an international peer-reviewed open access journal. The articles published are related with any specialities in the fields of the Business, Economics, and emerging areas (Marketing, Finance, Business Management and HR, Education Leadership, Production Management, Islamic Finance, Accounting, Banking, Economics, Management Information Systems, Transport & Logistics Management, operations management, organization theory, strategic management, etc.). The target audience is constituted by academics and researchers belonging to any university and by professionals and executives from the business world.
Contact details for submission
Submission are accepted throughout the year with an average review time of 3-5 months. All submissions in Microsoft Word format (.doc, .docx) should be sent electronically via email to editor.ijmres.@superior.edu.pk. All submission are subject to double-blind peer review and should follow the IJMRES format.
IJMRES strictly follows guidelines and instructions given by Higher Education Commission (HEC) Pakistan recognized/accredited and funded journals to charge any type of publishing fee. In this lieu, IJMRES does not charge any fee or submission/review charges from authors for the submission and publication. IJMRES focuses only on high quality peered reviewed publication in its field.
You can use this list to carry out a final check of your submission before you send it to the journal for review. Please check the relevant section in this Guide for Authors for more details.
Ensure that the following items are present
One author has been designated as the corresponding author with contact details:
• E-mail address
• Full postal address
All necessary files have been attached:
• Include keywords and JEL classification codes
• All figures (include relevant captions)
• All tables (including titles, description, footnotes)
• Ensure all figure and table citations in the text match the files provided
Supplemental files (where applicable)
• Manuscript has been ‘spell checked’ and ‘grammar checked’
• All references mentioned in the Reference List are cited in the text, and vice versa
• Permission has been obtained for use of copyrighted material from other sources (including the Internet)
• Relevant declarations of interest have been made
• Journal policies detailed in this guide have been reviewed
• Referee suggestions and contact details provided, based on journal requirements
Ethics in publishing
Please see our information pages on Ethics in publishing and Ethical guidelines for publication.
Declaration of interest
All authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. Examples of potential competing interests include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Authors must disclose any interests in two places: 1. A summary declaration of interest statement in the title page file (if double-blind) or the manuscript file (if single-blind). If there are no interests to declare then please state this: ‘Declarations of interest: none’. This summary statement will be ultimately published if the article is accepted. 2. Detailed disclosures as part of a separate Declaration of Interest form, which forms part of the journal’s official records. It is important for potential interests to be declared in both places and that the information matches.
Submission declaration and verification
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract, a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, it will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, including electronically without the written consent of the copyright-holder. To verify originality, your article may be checked by the originality detection service as per HEC Pakistan plagiarism policy.
Use of inclusive language
Inclusive language acknowledges diversity, conveys respect to all people, is sensitive to differences, and promotes equal opportunities. Articles should make no assumptions about the beliefs or commitments of any reader, should contain nothing which might imply that one individual is superior to another on the grounds of race, sex, culture or any other characteristic, and should use inclusive language throughout. Authors should ensure that writing is free from bias, for instance by using ‘he or she’, ‘his/her’ instead of ‘he’ or ‘his’, and by making use of job titles that are free of stereotyping (e.g. ‘chairperson’ instead of ‘chairman’ and ‘flight attendant’ instead of ‘stewardess’).
Each author is required to declare his or her individual contribution to the article: all authors must have materially participated in the research and/or article preparation, so roles for all authors should be described. The statement that all authors have approved the final article should be true and included in the disclosure.
Changes to authorship
Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Any addition, deletion or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list should be made only before the manuscript has been accepted and only if approved by the journal Editor. To request such a change, the Editor must receive the following from the corresponding author: (a) the reason for the change in author list and (b) written confirmation (e-mail, letter) from all authors that they agree with the addition, removal or rearrangement. In the case of addition or removal of authors, this includes confirmation from the author being added or removed. Only in exceptional circumstances will the Editor consider the addition, deletion or rearrangement of authors after the manuscript has been accepted. While the Editor considers the request, publication of the manuscript will be suspended. If the manuscript has already been published in an online issue, any requests approved by the Editor will result in a corrigendum.
Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be asked to complete a ‘Journal Publishing Agreement’. An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author confirming receipt of the manuscript together with a ‘Journal Publishing Agreement’ form or a link to the online version of this agreement.
As an author you (or your employer or institution) have certain rights to reuse your work.
Role of the funding source
You are requested to identify who provided financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article and to briefly describe the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. If the funding source(s) had no such involvement, then this should be stated.
Please visit our Ethics and Malpractices page for more information.
Our online submission form page guides you step-wise through the process of entering your article details and uploading your files. All correspondence, including notification of the Editor’s decision and requests for revision, is sent by e-mail.
Submit your article
Please submit your article by sending email at email@example.com
Please submit the names and institutional e-mail addresses of several potential referees. Note that the editor retains the sole right to decide whether or not the suggested reviewers are used.
This journal uses double-blind review, which means the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. To facilitate this, please include the following separately:
Title page (with author details): This should include the title, authors’ names, affiliations, acknowledgements and any Declaration of Interest statement, and a complete address for the corresponding author including an e-mail address.
Blinded manuscript (no author details): The main body of the paper (including the references, figures, tables and any acknowledgements) should not include any identifying information, such as the authors’ names or affiliations.
Use of word processing software
It is important that the file be saved in the native format of the word processor used. The text should be in single-column format. Keep the layout of the text as simple as possible. Most formatting codes will be removed and replaced on processing the article. In particular, do not use the word processor’s options to justify text or to hyphenate words. However, do use bold face, italics, subscripts, superscripts etc. When preparing tables, if you are using a table grid, use only one grid for each individual table and not a grid for each row. If no grid is used, use tabs, not spaces, to align columns. The electronic text should be prepared in a way very similar to that of conventional manuscripts. Note that source files of figures, tables and text graphics will be required whether or not you embed your figures in the text. To avoid unnecessary errors, you are strongly advised to use the ‘spell-check’ and ‘grammar-check’ functions of your word processor.
Subdivision – numbered sections
Divide your article into clearly defined and numbered sections. Subsections should be numbered 1.1 (then 1.1.1, 1.1.2, …), 1.2, etc. (the abstract is not included in section numbering). Use this numbering also for internal cross-referencing: do not just refer to ‘the text’. Any subsection may be given a brief heading. Each heading should appear on its own separate line.
State the objectives of the work and provide an adequate background, avoiding a detailed literature survey or a summary of the results.
Material and methods
Provide sufficient details to allow the work to be reproduced by an independent researcher. Methods that are already published should be summarized and indicated by a reference. If quoting directly from a previously published method, use quotation marks and also cite the source. Any modifications to existing methods should also be described.
A Theory section should extend, not repeat, the background to the article already dealt with in the Introduction and lay the foundation for further work. In contrast, a Calculation section represents a practical development from a theoretical basis.
Results should be clear and concise.
This should explore the significance of the results of the work, not repeat them. A combined Results and Discussion section is often appropriate. Avoid extensive citations and discussion of published literature.
The main conclusions of the study may be presented in a short Conclusions section, which may stand alone or form a subsection of a Discussion or Results and Discussion section.
Essential title page information
- Concise and informative. Titles are often used in information-retrieval systems. Avoid abbreviations and formulae where possible.
- Author names and affiliations.Please clearly indicate the given name(s) and family name(s) of each author and check that all names are accurately spelled. You can add your name between parentheses in your own script behind the English transliteration. Present the authors’ affiliation addresses (where the actual work was done) below the names. Indicate all affiliations with a lower-case superscript letter immediately after the author’s name and in front of the appropriate address. Provide the full postal address of each affiliation, including the country name and, if available, the e-mail address of each author.
- Corresponding author.Clearly indicate who will handle correspondence at all stages of refereeing and publication, also post-publication. This responsibility includes answering any future queries about Methodology and Materials. Ensure that the e-mail address is given and that contact details are kept up to date by the corresponding author.
- Present/permanent address.If an author has moved since the work described in the article was done, or was visiting at the time, a ‘Present address’ (or ‘Permanent address’) may be indicated as a footnote to that author’s name. The address at which the author actually did the work must be retained as the main, affiliation address. Superscript Arabic numerals are used for such footnotes.
A concise and factual abstract is required. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. For this reason, References should be avoided, but if essential, then cite the author(s) and year(s). Also, non-standard or uncommon abbreviations should be avoided, but if essential they must be defined at their first mention in the abstract itself.
Immediately after the abstract, provide a maximum of 5 keywords, using British spelling and avoiding general and plural terms and multiple concepts (avoid, for example, ‘and’, ‘of’). Be sparing with abbreviations: only abbreviations firmly established in the field may be eligible. These keywords will be used for indexing purposes.
Please provide up to 5 standard JEL codes. The available codes may be accessed at JEL.
Define abbreviations that are not standard in this field in a footnote to be placed on the first page of the article. Such abbreviations that are unavoidable in the abstract must be defined at their first mention there, as well as in the footnote. Ensure consistency of abbreviations throughout the article.
Collate acknowledgements in a separate section at the end of the article before the references and do not, therefore, include them on the title page, as a footnote to the title or otherwise. List here those individuals who provided help during the research (e.g., providing language help, writing assistance or proof-reading the article, etc.).
Formatting of funding sources
List funding sources in this standard way to facilitate compliance to funder’s requirements:
Funding: This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health [grant numbers xxxx, yyyy]; the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA [grant number zzzz]; and the United States Institutes of Peace [grant number aaaa].
It is not necessary to include detailed descriptions on the program or type of grants and awards. When funding is from a block grant or other resources available to a university, college, or other research institution, submit the name of the institute or organization that provided the funding.
If no funding has been provided for the research, please include the following sentence:
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Follow internationally accepted rules and conventions: use the international system of units (SI). If other units are mentioned, please give their equivalent in SI.
• Make sure you use uniform lettering and sizing of your original artwork.
• Embed the used fonts if the application provides that option.
• Aim to use the following fonts in your illustrations: Arial, Courier, Times New Roman, Symbol, or use fonts that look similar.
• Number the illustrations according to their sequence in the text.
• Use a logical naming convention for your artwork files.
• Provide captions to illustrations separately.
• Size the illustrations close to the desired dimensions of the published version.
• Submit each illustration as a separate file.
• Ensure that color images are accessible to all, including those with impaired color vision.
If your electronic artwork is created in a Microsoft Office application (Word, PowerPoint, Excel) then please supply ‘as is’ in the native document format. Regardless of the application used other than Microsoft Office, when your electronic artwork is finalized, please ‘Save as’ or convert the images to one of the following formats (note the resolution requirements for line drawings, halftones, and line/halftone combinations given below):
- EPS (or PDF): Vector drawings, embed all used fonts.
- TIFF (or JPEG): Color or grayscale photographs (halftones), keep to a minimum of 300 dpi.
- TIFF (or JPEG): Bitmapped (pure black & white pixels) line drawings, keep to a minimum of 1000 dpi.
- TIFF (or JPEG): Combinations bitmapped line/half-tone (color or grayscale), keep to a minimum of 500 dpi.
Please do not:
- Supply files that are optimized for screen use (e.g., GIF, BMP, PICT, WPG); these typically have a low number of pixels and limited set of colors;
- Supply files that are too low in resolution;
- Submit graphics that are disproportionately large for the content.
Please make sure that artwork files are in an acceptable format (TIFF (or JPEG), EPS (or PDF) or MS Office files) and with the correct resolution. If, together with your accepted article, you submit usable color figures then journal will ensure, at no additional charge, that these figures will appear in color online.
Ensure that each illustration has a caption. Supply captions separately, not attached to the figure. A caption should comprise a brief title (not on the figure itself) and a description of the illustration. Keep text in the illustrations themselves to a minimum but explain all symbols and abbreviations used.
Text graphics may be embedded in the text at the appropriate position. See further under Electronic artwork.
Please submit tables as editable text and not as images. Tables can be placed either next to the relevant text in the article, or on separate page(s) at the end. Number tables consecutively in accordance with their appearance in the text and place any table notes below the table body. Be sparing in the use of tables and ensure that the data presented in them do not duplicate results described elsewhere in the article. Please avoid using vertical rules and shading in table cells.
Citation in text
Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list (and vice versa). Any references cited in the abstract must be given in full. Unpublished results and personal communications are not recommended in the reference list, but may be mentioned in the text. If these references are included in the reference list they should follow the standard reference style of the journal and should include a substitution of the publication date with either ‘Unpublished results’ or ‘Personal communication’. Citation of a reference as ‘in press’ implies that the item has been accepted for publication.
Increased discoverability of research and high quality peer review are ensured by online links to the sources cited. In order to allow us to create links to abstracting and indexing services, such as Scopus, CrossRef and PubMed, please ensure that data provided in the references are correct. Please note that incorrect surnames, journal/book titles, publication year and pagination may prevent link creation. When copying references, please be careful as they may already contain errors. Use of the DOI is highly encouraged. A DOI is guaranteed never to change, so you can use it as a permanent link to any electronic article. An example of a citation using DOI for an article not yet in an issue is: VanDecar J.C., Russo R.M., James D.E., Ambeh W.B., Franke M. (2003). Aseismic continuation of the Lesser Antilles slab beneath northeastern Venezuela. Journal of Geophysical Research, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JB000884. Please note the format of such citations should be in the same style as all other references in the paper.
As a minimum, the full URL should be given and the date when the reference was last accessed. Any further information, if known (DOI, author names, dates, reference to a source publication, etc.), should also be given. Web references can be listed separately (e.g., after the reference list) under a different heading if desired, or can be included in the reference list.
This journal encourages you to cite underlying or relevant datasets in your manuscript by citing them in your text and including a data reference in your Reference List. Data references should include the following elements: author name(s), dataset title, data repository, version (where available), year, and global persistent identifier. Add [dataset] immediately before the reference so we can properly identify it as a data reference. The [dataset] identifier will not appear in your published article.
Reference to arXiv
As with unpublished results and personal communications, references to arXiv documents are not recommended in the reference list. Please make every effort to obtain the full reference of the published version of an arXiv document. If a reference to an arXiv document must be included in the references list it should follow the standard reference style of the journal and should include a substitution of the volume and page numbers with ‘arXiv:YYMM.NNNN’ or ‘arXiv:arch-ive/YYMMNNN’ for articles submitted to arXiv before April 2007.
References in a special issue
Please ensure that the words ‘this issue’ are added to any references in the list (and any citations in the text) to other articles in the same Special Issue.
Text: Citations in the text should follow the referencing style used by the American Psychological Association. You are referred to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Sixth Edition, ISBN 978-1-4338-0561-5, copies of which may be ordered online or APA Order Dept., P.O.B. 2710, Hyattsville, MD 20784, USA or APA, 3 Henrietta Street, London, WC3E 8LU, UK.
List: references should be arranged first alphabetically and then further sorted chronologically if necessary. More than one reference from the same author(s) in the same year must be identified by the letters ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, etc., placed after the year of publication.
Reference to a journal publication:
Van der Geer, J., Hanraads, J. A. J., & Lupton, R. A. (2010). The art of writing a scientific article. Journal of Scientific Communications, 163, 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.Sc.2010.00372.
Reference to a journal publication with an article number:
Van der Geer, J., Hanraads, J. A. J., & Lupton, R. A. (2018). The art of writing a scientific article. Heliyon, 19, e00205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e00205.
Reference to a book:
Strunk, W., Jr., & White, E. B. (2000). The elements of style. (4th ed.). New York: Longman, (Chapter 4).
Reference to a chapter in an edited book:
Mettam, G. R., & Adams, L. B. (2009). How to prepare an electronic version of your article. In B. S. Jones, & R. Z. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to the electronic age (pp. 281–304). New York: E-Publishing Inc.
Reference to a website:
Cancer Research UK. Cancer statistics reports for the UK. (2003). http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/aboutcancer/statistics/cancerstatsreport/ Accessed 13 March 2003.
Reference to a dataset:
[dataset] Oguro, M., Imahiro, S., Saito, S., Nakashizuka, T. (2015). Mortality data for Japanese oak wilt disease and surrounding forest compositions. Mendeley Data, v1. https://doi.org/10.17632/xwj98nb39r.1.
Reference to a conference paper or poster presentation:
Engle, E.K., Cash, T.F., & Jarry, J.L. (2009, November). The Body Image Behaviours Inventory-3: Development and validation of the Body Image Compulsive Actions and Body Image Avoidance Scales. Poster session presentation at the meeting of the Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Therapies, New York, NY.
Journal abbreviations source
Journal names should be abbreviated according to the List of Title Word Abbreviations.
Supplementary material such as applications, images and sound clips, can be published with your article to enhance it. Submitted supplementary items are published exactly as they are received (Excel or PowerPoint files will appear as such online). Please submit your material together with the article and supply a concise, descriptive caption for each supplementary file. If you wish to make changes to supplementary material during any stage of the process, please make sure to provide an updated file. Do not annotate any corrections on a previous version. Please switch off the ‘Track Changes’ option in Microsoft Office files as these will appear in the published version.
This journal encourages and enables you to share data that supports your research publication where appropriate, and enables you to interlink the data with your published articles. Research data refers to the results of observations or experimentation that validate research findings. To facilitate reproducibility and data reuse, this journal also encourages you to share your software, code, models, algorithms, protocols, methods and other useful materials related to the project. Below are a number of ways in which you can associate data with your article or make a statement about the availability of your data when submitting your manuscript. If you are sharing data in one of these ways, you are encouraged to cite the data in your manuscript and reference list. Please refer to the “References” section for more information about data citation.
One set of page proofs (as PDF files) will be sent by e-mail to the corresponding author (if we do not have an e-mail address then paper proofs will be sent by post) or a link will be provided in the e-mail so that authors can download the files themselves. To ensure a fast publication process of the article, we kindly ask authors to provide us with their proof corrections within two days. IJMRES now provides authors with PDF proofs which can be annotated; for this you will need to download the free Adobe Reader, version 9 (or higher). Instructions on how to annotate PDF files will accompany the proofs (also given online). The exact system requirements are given at the Adobe site.
If you do not wish to use the PDF annotations function, you may list the corrections (including replies to the Query Form) and return them to journal in an e-mail. Please list your corrections quoting line number. If, for any reason, this is not possible, then mark the corrections and any other comments (including replies to the Query Form) on a printout of your proof and scan the pages and return via e-mail. Please use this proof only for checking the typesetting, editing, completeness and correctness of the text, tables and figures. Significant changes to the article as accepted for publication will only be considered at this stage with permission from the Editor. We will do everything possible to get your article published quickly and accurately. It is important to ensure that all corrections are sent back to us in one communication: please check carefully before replying, as inclusion of any subsequent corrections cannot be guaranteed. Proofreading is solely your responsibility.
Author(s) can directly ask any query related to their work by sending email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Ethics and Malpractices
It is the joint obligation of authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers to adhere to the ethical guidelines in letters and spirit to maintain the credibility and integrity of scientific records for our next generation. Ethical virtues are very precious, timeless and inevitable to ensure the right choices in ethical dilemmas thus leading to transparency and establishing/maintaining the professional standards. Keeping in view the importance of publication ethics, the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC) has provided Ethical Guidelines for Journals and instructed its all recognized/accredited journals to adopt these guidelines with true essence. These guidelines describe in detail the responsibility of authors, reviewers and editors related to HEC recognized/accredited and funded journals.
As International Journal of Management and Emerging Sciences (SJME) is an HEC recognized/accredited journal and also fully funded by HEC, that’s why it is obligatory for all stakeholders involved in the publishing of SJMEto uphold the highest standards of ethics and take measures to identify, address and prevent the malpractices. Authors, editors, and reviewers of SJME are responsible to follow and enforce these ethical guidelines:
Ethical Guidelines for Authors (issued by HEC)
- It is the author(s) responsibility to ensure that the research report and data contain adequate detail and references to the sources of information to allow others to reproduce the results.
- The fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statement constitutes unethical behavior and will be unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism
- It is the author(s) responsibility to ascertain that s/he has submitted an entirely original work, giving due credit, under proper citations, to the works and/or words of others where they are used.
- Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is not acceptable.
- Material quoted verbatim from the author(s) previously published work or other sources must be placed in quotation marks.
- As per HEC policy, in case the manuscript has been found to have a similarity index of more than 19% it will either be rejected or left at the discretion of the editor for purposes of conditional acceptance.
- Authors are required to provide an undertaking/declaration stating that the manuscript under consideration contains solely their original work that is not under consideration for publishing in any other journal in any form.
- Authors can submit a manuscript previously published in abstracted form, e.g. in the proceedings of an annual meeting, or a periodical with limited circulation and availability e.g. reports by government agencies or university departments.
- The manuscript that is co-authored must be accompanied by an undertaking explicitly stating that each Author has contributed substantially towards the preparation of the manuscript to claim the right to authorship.
- It is the responsibility of the corresponding author that s/he has ensured that all those who have substantially contributed in the manuscripts have been included in the author list and they have agreed to the order of authorship.
Multiple, Redundant and Current Publication
- Authors should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one journal or publication except it is a re-submission of a rejected or withdrawn manuscript.
- Authors can re-publish previously conducted research that has been substantially altered or corrected using more meticulous analysis or by adding more data.
- The authors and editor must agree to the secondary publication, which must cite the primary references and reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document.
- Concurrent submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgment of Sources
- A paper must always contain a proper acknowledgment of the work of others, including clear indications of the sources of all information quoted or offered, except that what is common knowledge.
- Author(s) must also acknowledge the contributions of people, organizations and institutes who assisted the process of research, including those who provided technical help, writing assistance or financial funding (in acknowledgment).
- It is the duty of the author(s) to conduct a literature review and properly cite the original publications that describe closely related work.
Authorship of the Work
- Authorship of the work may only be credited to those who have made a noteworthy contribution in conceptualization, design, conducting, data analysis and writing up of the manuscript.
- It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to include the name of only those co-authors who have made significant contributions to the work.
- The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Others who have participated in the certain substantive aspect of the research should be acknowledged for their contribution to an “Acknowledgement” section.
Privacy of Participants
- Authors must respect the privacy of the participant of research and must not use any information obtained from them without their informed consent.
- The authors should ensure that only information that improves the understanding of the study is shared.
- Authors must ensure that in instances where the identity of the participant needs to be revealed in the study, explicit and informed consent of the concerned party is obtained.
- In the event of the demise of a participant, consent must be obtained from the family of the deceased.
Data Access and Retention
- If a question arises about the accuracy or validity of the research work during the review process the author(s) should provide raw data to the editor.
- The author(s) should ensure that images included in an account of the research performed or in the data collection as part of the research are free from manipulation,
- The authors must provide an accurate description of how the images were generated and produced.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
- The potential and relevant competing financial, personal social or other interest of all author(s) that might be affected by publication of the results contained in the manuscript must be conveyed to the editor.
- Author(s) should disclose any potential conflict of interest at the earliest possible stage, including but not limited to employment, consultancies, honoraria, patent applications/registrations, grants or other funding.
- All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed alongside a brief overview of the role played if any by the responses during the various stages of research.
Authors may have to sign an agreement allowing the journal to reserve the right to circulate the article and all other derivative works such as translations.
Manuscript Acceptance and Rejection
- The review period can last between 1-2 months or longer and during this period author has reserved a right to contact the editor to ask about the status of the review.
- Once the review process has been completed, the author will be informed about the status of the manuscript which could either be an acceptance, rejection or revision. In the event of rejection, the Author reserves the right to publish the article elsewhere.
- In case of revisions, the author must provide an exposition of all corrections made in the manuscript and the revised manuscript will, then, go through the process of affirmation of revisions and be accepted or rejected accordingly.
- In case of dissatisfaction over the decision of rejection, the author can appeal the decision by contacting the editor.
Ethical Guidelines for Editors (issued by HEC)
Editor of a research journal should be responsible for:
- To establish and maintain the quality of the journal by publishing quality papers in his/her journal,
- Promotion of freedom of expression within the cultural, constitutional/legal framework,
- Providing integrity and credibility of the research contributions,
- Meeting the needs of authors and readers,
- Maintaining ethical standards of their journal,
- Providing corrigendum for any correction, clarification, and apologies where required.
Good practices for their job would include to:
- encourage new ideas and suggestions of authors, peer reviewers, members of editorial board and readers for improving quality of his/her journal,
- apply the process of blind peer review in true letter and spirit,
- promote innovative findings in the respective field and publishing them on priority,
- promote anti-plagiarism policy,
- educate contributors (authors) about ethical practices in research, and
- implement the journal’s policy without institutional pressure and revise the policy from time to time.
Formation of the Editorial Board
- The editor must ensure that the editorial board comprises of prominent scholars of the field who can adequately promote the journal,
- The editorial board shall be comprised of:
- Editorial Committee, who will be responsible for providing logistics, and
- Advisory Committee, who will be responsible for reviewing the submitted research papers. This committee should have at least 50% representation of scholars from abroad.
- May appoint editorial board members for a prescribed duration and add or revise the board if required,
- The editor should inform new board members about ethical guidelines and their expected role and update editorial board members about development, challenges and any changes made in the journal policy,
- The editorial board should maintain the quality of the journal because an assigned category by the HEC (e.g. X, Y, and Z categories) will depend on the quality of published papers in it. It is the professional duty of the board members to select credible research work, and
- To ensure smooth functioning of the journal, editors are responsible to conduct the editorial board meetings regularly (at least twice a year).
Fair play and Impartiality
- The criteria for the selection of research papers must be impartial and editor should select academically and scientifically sound papers,
- Editor should:
- Promptly respond to the author(s) of the papers submitted for publication, and
- Assign a specific number to an article submitted for processing, and pay impartial consideration to all research papers submitted for publication
- ensure to evaluate (get evaluated) the content of research papers impartially and on merit, and
- disregard the discriminating factors, e.g. gender, race, ethnicity, religious belief, cultural sentiments, political affiliation, seniority and/or institutional association of the author(s) while selecting articles for publication, and
- ensure impartiality of the review process by informing reviewer (s) that s/he needs to disclose any conflicts of interest regarding the submitted research paper.
- The editor must ensure the confidentiality of the author(s) and reviewers during the process of double-blind peer review,
- Information about a research paper should not be disclosed by the editor to anyone except the author(s), reviewer(s), and editorial board members,
- Upon deciding on a research paper, the editor may only disclose or announce the title of the study and name of the author(s) that has been accepted for publication. Any other information may only be disclosed with the prior approval of the author(s), and
- Confidentiality of the participants of the research should also be ensured by protecting personal information (e.g. identifiable personal details, images, and/or individual results), the editor should declare clear guidelines to the contributors (authors) regarding confidentiality of the individual participant.
- Before publication, the content of the manuscript should be kept confidential, both the editor and reviewer(s) will not share or use any part of the work.
Editing and Formatting Guidelines
- The editors should prepare clear guidelines about preparing and formatting of a paper and print these guidelines in each issue of the journal,
- The guidelines should cover information related to the content and format of a research paper,
- Any preferred manual of style (e.g. APA, Chicago Manual, MLA Style, etc) should be declared as a policy decision.
- Details about the review process should be declared,
- The editor should ensure that all published papers have gone through a double-blind peer review, and at least one of the reviewers is from outside the country,
- The editor should ensure that peer-review is masked in both directions and as such the identity of the author is removed from the manuscript before its review to protect the confidentially and privacy,
- The editor should provide sufficient guidelines to reviewers, including necessary information about the review process and provide them a reviewer comment form for recording his/her comments,
- The editor must ensure that the peer-review process is prompt, nondiscriminatory and highly professional,
- The editor should develop a system of confidentiality of research papers undergoing the review process,
- The editor is required to send reviewers comments to the author(s) promptly,
- The editor should ensure that the corrections suggested by the reviewers are incorporated by the author(s) in letter and spirit,
- Editor to critically evaluate peer review practices regularly and make the improvement, if, required,
- The editor should maintain a database of competent and qualified reviewers. For this purpose, s/he may use various sources other than personal contacts to identify new reviewers (e.g. referring by author(s), citations and references section in a book/journal), and
- The editor should refer to trouble cases (e.g. in case of one acceptance and one rejection or any conflict arisen after review) to the advisory committee to resolve the matter amicably.
Dealing with Misconduct
- The editor should encourage reviewers to comment on ethical issues and possible research and publication misconduct in case the submitted research paper has indulged in (e.g. inappropriate research design, incomplete detail on participants consent, data manipulation, presentation,
- The editor should encourage reviewers to comment on the validity of submitted research paper and identify subtle (simply copy-paste) and/or blatant (paraphrasing) type of plagiarism, if, practiced by the author(s),
- The editor should confirm plagiarism and It is advised that similarities at greater level may be taken
care of in the light of the HEC plagiarism policy.
- The editor should be prepared to publish a corrigendum, remove and retract a plagiarized article if it comes to his/her knowledge after its publication
- The editor must ensure that multiple papers as a principal investigator submitted by an author should not be published in the same issue,
- Only ONE co-authorship will be allowed for those authors who will also contribute a research paper as a principal investigator in the same issue,
- For the members of the editorial board (including the editor), it will only be limited to ONE paper per issue either to submit a research paper as a principal investigator or co-author, and
- The editor should adopt authorship or co-authorship policy that will lead to set an example in the scientific community and strictly discourage any misconduct (e.g. forcible inclusion of a name in the author list). Authorship should only be given to those individuals who have substantially contributed to the said article.
Conflict of Interest
- The editor should not edit a submitted paper for those author(s) and/or institution against which s/he has any conflicts of interest (e.g. resulting from competitive, collaborative and/or professional standing),
- The editor should also apply this guideline to their reviewers and editorial board members.
- To ensure unbiased review, the editor should declare a clear cut policy for his/her submission and a research paper submitted by an editorial board member, and
- The editor must publish a list of common interests (e.g. financial, academic and/or any other type) for all editorial board members and editorial staff. This list should be updated from time to time.
- To ensure unbiased review, the editor should declare a clear cut policy for his/her submission and a research paper submitted by an editorial board member.
- Suggested that “decision about the editors’ submitted article/s, one of the associate editors must decide and the information about reviewers should be kept confidential from the editor.
- The editor must not use any unpublished information/data from the submitted research paper without the permission of the author(s), and
- Any information received after the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal gains.
- Editor to only shortlist research papers which have relevancy with the scope of the journal based on his/her judgment but without any prejudice,
- After completion of the reviewing process, submission of a revised manuscript, and assessing the quality and validity, the editor has a right to accept or reject a research paper,
- Editors decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be purely based on merit, academic standards and professional demands of the journal,
- The editor must justify the reasons for rejecting a research paper to the author(s). This may include:
- Failure to fit in the scope of the journal (can be communicated after preliminary review)
- Insufficient depth of content
- Major errors related to design, analysis, write up and format
- Any misconduct or conflicting factors (e.g. plagiarism, copyright infringement, legal issues, fake data, authorship issues)
- Editors are required to timely communicate the editorial decision to the author(s),
- Editors should not reverse decisions in favor of or against the author(s) at his/her own.
Establishing a Procedure for Appeal
- The editor is responsible for establishing a proper mechanism for appeals launched against:
- the rejection of a research paper
- objections to publications causing harm to any party
- infringing ethical boundaries in any manner.
Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (issued by HEC)
Suitability and Promptness
- Peer reviewers should inform the editor if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review and s/he should inform the editor immediately after receiving a request,
- Peer reviewers should be responsible to act promptly and submit a review report on time,
- Peer reviewers should immediately inform the editor of any possible delays and suggest another date of submission a review report, and
- Peer reviewers should not unnecessarily delay the review process, either by prolonged delay in submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional data/information from the editor or author(s).
Standards of Objectivity
- Reviews should be objectively carried out with a consideration of high academic, scholarly and scientific standards,
- All judgments should be meticulously established and maintained to ensure the full comprehension of the reviewers’ comments by the editors and the author(s),
- Both reviewers and author(s) in rebuttal should avoid unsupported assertions,
- The reviewer may justifiably criticize a manuscript but it would be inappropriate and impressible to resort to personal criticism on the author(s), and
- Reviewers should ensure that their decision is purely based on the quality of the research paper and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual biases.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- A reviewer should not, for his/her research, use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript, without the approval of the editor,
- The data included in the research paper is required to be kept confidential and the reviewer shall not be allowed to use for his/her any personal study,
- The reviewer must declare any potentially conflicting interests (e.g. personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious). In this situation, s/he will require to follow journals policies on situations they consider to represent a conflict to reviewing,
- A reviewer should be honest to declare conflicts of interest, if, the research paper under reviews is the same to his/her presently conducted study,
- If the reviewer feels unqualified to separate his/her bias, s/he should immediately return the manuscript to the editor without review, and justify to him/her about this.
- Reviewers should keep the research paper as a confidential document and must not discuss its content in any platform except in cases where professional advice is being sought with the authorization of the editor, and
- Reviewers are professionally and ethically bound not to disclose the details of the research paper before its publication without the prior approval of the editor.
- If reviewer would suspect that the research paper is almost the same of someone else’s work, s/he will ethically inform the editor and provide its citation as a reference,
- If the reviewer would suspect the results in the research paper to be untrue/unrealistic/fake, s/he will share it with the editor,
- If there has been an indication for violating the ethical norms in the treatment of human beings (e.g. children, female, poor people, disabled, elderly, etc), then this should be identified to the editor, and
- If the research paper based on any previous research study or is a replica of an earlier work or the work is plagiarized e.g. the author has not acknowledged/referenced others’ work appropriately, then this should be brought in the editor’s knowledge.
For evaluating originality, peer reviewers should consider the following elements:
- Does the research paper add to the existing knowledge?
- Do research questions and/or hypotheses are appropriate to the objective of the research work?
If the layout and format of the paper are not per prescribed one, the reviewers should discuss it with the editor or should include this observation in his/her review report. On the other side, if the research paper is exceptionally well, the reviewer may overlook the formatting issues. Other times, reviewers may suggest restructuring the paper before publication. The following elements should be carefully evaluated:
- If there is a serious problem of language expression and the reviewer gets the impression that the research paper does not fulfill the linguistic requirements and readers would face difficulties to read and comprehend the paper. Such a situation would usually arise when the author’s native language is not English. The reviewer should record this deficiency in his/her report and suggest the editor make its proper editing.
- The data presented in the paper is original or reproduced from previously conducted or published work. The papers which reflect originality are more likely to be given preference for publication.
- The clarity of illustrations including photographs, models, charts, images, and figures is essential to note. If there is duplication that should be reported in the review report. Similarly, descriptions provided in the results section should correspond with the data presented in tables/figures, if not then it should be listed in the review report.
- Critically review the statistical analysis of the data. Also, check the rationale and appropriateness of the specific analysis.
- Reviewers should read the Methodology section in detail and make sure that the author(s) has demonstrated the understanding of the procedures being used and presented in the manuscript.
- The relationship between Data, findings, and Discussion requires evaluating thoroughly. Unnecessary conjecture or unfounded conclusions that are not based on the presented data are not acceptable.
- The organization of the research paper is appropriate or deviate from the standard or prescribed format?
- Does the author(s) follow the guidelines prescribed by the journal for the preparation and submission of the manuscript?
- Is the research paper free from typographical errors?
- The reviewer must explicitly write his/her observations in the section of comments because the author(s) will only see the comments reviewers have made,
- For writing a review report, the reviewers are requested to complete a prescribed form (s),
- It is helpful for both the editor and author(s) if the reviewer writes a summary in the first section of the review report. This summary should comprise of reviewers final decision and inferences drawn from the full review,
- Any personal comments on the author(s) should be avoided and final remarks must be written courteously and positively,
- Indicating any deficiencies is important. For the understanding of editor and author(s), the reviewers should highlight these deficiencies in some detail with specificity. This will also justify the comments made by the reviewer,
- When a reviewer decides the research paper, it will indicate as Reject, Accept without revision, or Need Revision and either of the decisions should have a justification of the same.
- The reviewers should indicate the revisions clearly and comprehensively, and show a willingness to confirm the revisions submitted by the author(s) if the editor wishes so, and
- The final decision about publishing a research paper (either accept or reject) will solely rest with the editor and it is not a reviewers’ job to take part in this decision. The editor will surely consider reviewers’ comments and have a right to send the paper for another opinion or send back to the author(s) for its revisions before making the final decision.
The above guidelines for authors, editors and reviewers are also available on the official website of Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (HEC).
Peer Review Policy
About Peer Review
The IJMRES is appreciative of its peer-reviewers, of whom there are many. It is only by collaboration with our reviewers that editor can ensure that the manuscripts IJMRES publish are among the most important in their disciplines of research. We appreciate the time that referees devote to assessing the manuscripts we send them, which helps ensure that IJMRES publish only material of the very highest quality. In particular, many submitted manuscripts contain large volumes of additional (supplementary) data and other material, which take time for referees to evaluate. We thank our referees for their continued commitment to our publication process and to help recognize this effort we provide each IJMRES referee with an official refereeing activity certificate. Peer review is commonly accepted as an essential part of scientific publication. But the ways peer review is put into practice vary across journals and disciplines.
The following types of contribution to IJMRES are peer-reviewed: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Matters Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Resources, Reviews, Perspectives and Insight articles. Correspondence and all forms of published correction may also be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editor. Other contributed articles are not usually peer-reviewed. Nevertheless, articles published in these sections, particularly if they present technical information, may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editor.
For any general questions and comments about the peer-review process, the journal or its editorial policies that are not addressed here, we encourage reviewers to contact us. Questions about a specific manuscript should be directed to the editor who is handling the manuscript. We ask peer-reviewers to submit their reports via editor’s email.
Criteria for publication
IJMRES receive many more submissions than they can publish. Therefore, we ask peer-reviewers to keep in mind that every paper that is accepted means that another good paper must be rejected. To be published in IJMRES, a paper should meet four general criteria:
- Provides strong evidence for its conclusions.
- Novel (we do not consider meeting report abstracts and preprints on community servers to compromise novelty).
- Of extreme importance to researchers in the specific field.
- Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines.
In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field. There should be a discernible reason why the work deserves the visibility of publication in IJMRES rather than the best of the specialist journals.
The review process
All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).
Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to two or three reviewers, but sometimes more if special advice is needed (for example on statistics or a particular technique). The editors then make a decision based on the reviewers’ advice, from among several possibilities:
- Accept, with or without editorial revisions
- Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
- Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission
- Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems
Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that the other reviewers of a particular paper may have different technical expertise and/or views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often more helpful to the editors than a direct recommendation one way or the other.
Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration.
We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors.
When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.
We take reviewers’ criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether s/he is applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue, for example a specialist technical point, on which we feel a need for further advice.
A reviewer must hold a PhD degree or advance professional qualification with extensive professional/academic experience, i.e. CPA, CFA, CMA, etc. Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a reviewer’s characteristics. For instance, we select referees who are quick, careful and provide reasoning for their views, whether robustly critical or forgiving. We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that these messages contain confidential information, which should be treated as such. IJMRES strive toward a diverse demographic representation within our reviewer database. We would therefore like to strongly encourage authors who suggest reviewers to provide a diverse list of their peers, in particular with respect to gender and geography.
Access to the literature
If a reviewer does not have access to any published paper that is necessary for evaluation of a submitted manuscript, the journal will supply the reviewer with a copy. Under these circumstances, the reviewer should send the publication reference of the paper required to the editor who sent them the paper to review. The editor will obtain the paper, paying any necessary fees, and send it to the reviewer.
Writing the review
The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision but the review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the major weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision and see in broad terms what needs to be done to improve the manuscript for publication elsewhere. Confidential comments to the editor are welcome, but they should not contradict the main points as stated in the comments for transmission to the authors.
We ask reviewers the following questions, to provide an assessment of the various aspects of a manuscript:
- Key results:Please summarise what you consider to be the outstanding features of the work.
- Validity:Does the manuscript have flaws which should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide details.
- Originality and significance:If the conclusions are not original, please provide relevant references. On a more subjective note, do you feel that the results presented are of immediate interest to many people in your own discipline, and/or to people from several disciplines?
- Data & methodology:Please comment on the validity of the approach, quality of the data and quality of presentation. Please note that we expect our reviewers to review all data, including any extended data and supplementary information. Is the reporting of data and methodology sufficiently detailed and transparent to enable reproducing the results?
- Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties:All error bars should be defined in the corresponding figure legends; please comment if that’s not the case. Please include in your report a specific comment on the appropriateness of any statistical tests, and the accuracy of the description of any error bars and probability values.
- Conclusions:Do you find that the conclusions and data interpretation are robust, valid and reliable?
- Suggested improvements: Please list additional experiments or data that could help strengthening the work in a revision.
- References:Does this manuscript reference previous literature appropriately? If not, what references should be included or excluded?
- Clarity and context:Is the abstract clear, accessible? Are abstract, introduction and conclusions appropriate?
- Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript, data, or analyses that you feel is outside the scope of your expertise, or that you were unable to assess fully.
- Please address any other specific question asked by the editor via email.
Reports do not necessarily need to follow this specific order but should document the referees’ thought process. All statements should be justified and argued in detail, naming facts and citing supporting references, commenting on all aspects that are relevant to the manuscript and that the referees feel qualified commenting on. Not all of the above aspects will necessarily apply to every paper, due to discipline-specific standards. When in doubt about discipline-specific refereeing standards, reviewer can contact the editor for guidance.
It is our policy to remain neutral with respect to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations, and the naming conventions used in maps and affiliation are left to the discretion of authors. Referees should not, therefore, request authors to make any changes to such unless it is critical to the clarity of the scientific content of a manuscript.
IJMRES is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.
We do not release referees’ identities to authors or to other reviewers unless a referee voluntarily signs their comments to the authors. Our preference is for referees to remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond. However, to increase the transparency of the reviewing process, reviewers may sign their reports, if they feel comfortable doing so. Before revealing their identities, referees should consider the following: (1) Referee reports, whether signed or not, are subsequently shared with the other reviewers if the manuscript were to be transferred and (2) Reviewers may be asked to comment on the criticisms of other reviewers and on further revisions of the manuscript and identified reviewers may find these discussions more challenging.
We ask reviewers not to identify themselves to authors while the manuscript is under consideration without the editor’s knowledge. If this is not practicable, we ask authors to inform the editor as soon as possible after a reviewer has revealed his or her identity to the author. We deplore any attempt by authors to confront reviewer or determine their identities. Our own policy is to neither confirm nor deny any speculation about reviewers’ identities.
Double blind peer review
IJMRES offer a double-blind peer review option where authors remain anonymous to the referees throughout the consideration process. The authors are responsible for anonymizing their manuscript accordingly; a checklist is provided to help with this process.
Transparent peer review
IJMRES uses a transparent peer review system, where we are publishing the reviewer comments to the authors and author rebuttal letters of revised versions of published research articles, as well as the editorial decision letters. Authors are provided the opportunity to opt into this scheme at the completion of the peer review process, before the paper is accepted.
Editing referees' reports
As a matter of policy, we do not suppress reviewers’ reports; any comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted, regardless of what we may think of the content. On rare occasions, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information about other matters. We ask reviewers to avoid statements that may cause needless offence; conversely, we strongly encourage reviewers to state plainly their opinion of a paper. Authors should recognize that criticisms are not necessarily unfair simply because they are expressed in robust language.
The peer-review system
It is editors’ experience that the peer-review process is an essential part of the publication process, which improves the manuscripts our journals publish. Not only does peer review provide an independent assessment of the importance and technical accuracy of the results described, but the feedback from referees conveyed to authors with the editors’ advice frequently results in manuscripts being refined so that their structure and logic is more readily apparent to readers. IJMRES is appreciative of its peer-reviewers, of whom there are many. It is only by collaboration with our reviewers that editors can ensure that the manuscripts we publish are among the most important in their disciplines of scientific research. We appreciate the time that reviewers devote to assessing the manuscripts we send them, which helps ensure that IJMRES publishes only material of the very highest quality. In particular, many submitted manuscripts contain large volumes of additional (supplementary) data and other material, which take time to evaluate. We thank our reviewers for their continued commitment to our publication process.
Reviewing peer review
The goals of peer review are both lofty and mundane. It is the responsibility of journal to administer an effective review system. Peer review is designed to select technically valid research of significant interest. Referees are expected to identify flaws, suggest improvements and assess novelty. If the manuscript is deemed important enough to be published in a high visibility journal, referees ensure that it is internally consistent, thereby ferreting out spurious conclusions or clumsy frauds. One problem with manuscript selection is the inherent tension between referees and authors. Referees wish for only the most solid science to be published, yet when they ‘switch hats’ to that of author, they desire quick publication of their novel ideas and approaches. Authors of papers that blow against the prevailing winds bear a far greater burden of proof than normally expected in publishing their challenge to the current paradigm. Veering too far in one direction or the other leads to complaints either that peer review isn’t stringent enough, or that it is stifling the freshest research. It is the job of the editors to try to avoid both extremes.
The editor do not expect peer review to ferret out cleverly concealed, deliberate deceptions. A peer reviewer can only evaluate what the authors chose to include in the manuscript. This contrasts with the expectation in the popular press that peer review is a process by which fraudulent data is detected before publication (although that sometimes happens). We are continually impressed with peer review’s positive impact on almost every paper we publish. Even papers that are misunderstood by reviewers are usually rewritten and improved before re-submission. Mistakes are made, but peer review, through conscientious effort on the part of referees, helps to protect the literature, promote good science and select the best. Until a truly viable alternative is provided, we wouldn’t have it any other way.
Peer-review publication policies
All contributions submitted to IJMRES that are selected for peer review are sent to at least one national, two or more international, independent reviewers, selected by the editor. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request that the journal excludes one or two individuals or laboratories. The journal sympathetically considers such requests and usually honours them, but the editor’s decision on the choice of referees is final.
Editors, authors and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. Unless otherwise declared as a part of open peer review, the peer review process is confidential and conducted anonymously; identities of reviewers are not released. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of manuscripts. If a reviewer wishes to seek advice from colleagues while assessing a manuscript, the reviewer must consult with the editor and should ensure that confidentiality is maintained and that the names of any such colleagues are provided to the journal with the final report. Regardless of whether a submitted manuscript is eventually published, correspondence with the journal, referees’ reports and other confidential material must not be published, disclosed or otherwise publicised without prior written consent. Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. We cannot, however, guarantee to maintain this confidentiality in the face of a successful legal action to disclose identity.
IJMRES reserves the right to contact funders, regulatory bodies, journals and the authors’ institutions in cases of suspected research or publishing misconduct.
Ethics and security
The editor may seek advice about submitted papers not only from technical reviewers but also on any aspect of a paper that raises concerns. These may include, for example, ethical issues or issues of data or materials access. Very occasionally, concerns may also relate to the implications to society of publishing a paper, including threats to security. In such circumstances, advice will usually be sought simultaneously with the technical peer-review process. As in all publishing decisions, the ultimate decision whether to publish is the responsibility of the editor of the journal concerned.
International Journal of Management and Emerging Sciences (IJMRES) evaluates submissions on the understanding that they are the original work of the authors. Reuse of text, data, figures, or images without appropriate acknowledgement or permission is considered plagiarism, as is the paraphrasing of text, concepts, and ideas. This includes copying sentences or paragraphs verbatim from someone else’s work, even if the original work is cited in the references. The ORI module “Avoiding Plagiarism, Self-Plagiarism, and Other Questionable Writing Practices: a Guide to Ethical Writing” can help authors identify questionable writing practices. All allegations of plagiarism are investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines detailed below:
- COPE guidelines on suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript
- COPE guidelines on suspected plagiarism in a published paper
- ICMJE Recommendations
In accordance with the guidelines of Higher Education Commission (HEC), IJMRES observes Zero Tolerance to plagiarism.
IJMRES uses either Turnitin or iThenticate for all research papers submitted to detect possible plagiarism. IJMRES is in process to be member of Crosscheck by CrossRef. iThenticate is a plagiarism screening service that confirms the originality of content prior to publication. We use this software to check submissions against millions of published research papers manuscript for potential plagiarism.
IJMRES, If similarity is more than 10% overall and more than 5% from single source, the paper is returned to the author(s) immediately. IJMRES follows HEC and COPE guidelines to make the determination whether (or to what extent) plagiarism exists. If plagiarism or other unethical practices are detected after publishing the paper, editorial board has the authority to correct or retract the paper as HEC’s plagiarism policy. All authors are responsible for their content individually and collectively. In case of serious plagiarism issues, editorial board may decide to consult the institutions of authors.
Self-plagiarism: verbatim or substantial copying of authors’ own published work (or under consideration for publication at some other outlet) effecting originality of current submission is also not acceptable in any way.
ArticlesSection default policy
IJREC Work Licensed Under 4.0
Online Research Publications by authors is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2022 IJMRES | Published by Superior University Lahore, Pakistan.
The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.