Editorial Policy

Overview

This policy describes guidelines in the publication process of our journals. PPD adopts and strive to adhere to the following standards and requirements:

COPE - Committee on Publication Ethics

STM - International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers

WAME – World Association of Medical Editors

Responsibilities of Editor

Editors are responsible for decision-making tasks related to the acceptance or rejection of the manuscripts. The role involves but not limited to initiating the evaluation or returning the manuscript, preparing initial screening report, assessing reviewers' reports, authors' responses and reviewers' feedbacks on authors' responses, preparing final screening report, issuing acceptance letter and correspond the process till publication. Whereas, Assistant Editors are not authorized to directly lead an editorial process for a manuscript. However, they are assigned with each Editors to assist in listing experts at the relevant field and propose a potential reviewer panel, communicating and following up with authors and reviewers, monitoring the time frame and alike tasks to facilitate the editorial processes.

Editor Guidelines

  1. Actively look for the views of associate editors, authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal's content.
  1. Sustain initiatives to educate researchers and young scholars about publication policies and ethics.
  1. Editorial board members are encouraged to give their suggestions for organizational progress.
  1. Editors will look after any confidential data regarding the task. If the author has used information of certain individuals, specifically in any of his medical or scientific records, the editorial team must look for written consent from the individual, for the record to qualify for publishing.
  1. The validity of the scientific facts stated must be checked and the criticism of the manuscript should be left open for all to decide.
  1. The editorial board members must assure that published content is original. The reliability of the author's work is a must, so there must be proper citation and the original source of the content should be named.
  1. The final decision regarding modification, acceptance, or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the editor.

Author Guidelines

To be considered for publication, manuscripts must fit within the Aim and Scope of the journal.

To ensure that only accurate and substantive articles are included, all manuscripts undergo a peer review process and editorial approval prior to acceptance. By submitting a paper to PPD the author(s) warrant that the manuscript is their own, original work and that it has neither been published previously nor is it being considered elsewhere for publication. It will also be assumed that the sources of any ideas and/or words in the manuscript that are not their own have been properly attributed through appropriate citations and the author(s) has obtained all necessary permissions to include in the paper such items as: quotations, figures, tables, results of government-sponsored research, etc.

Authorship

To be considered for publication, manuscripts must fit within the Aim and Scope of the journal.

To ensure that only accurate and substantive articles are included, all manuscripts undergo a peer review process and editorial approval prior to acceptance. By submitting a paper to PPD the author(s) warrant that the manuscript is their own, original work and that it has neither been published previously nor is it being considered elsewhere for publication. It will also be assumed that the sources of any ideas and/or words in the manuscript that are not their own have been properly attributed through appropriate citations and the author(s) has obtained all necessary permissions to include in the paper such items as: quotations, figures, tables, results of government-sponsored research, etc.

  1. An author is an individual who has made substantial contributions to the development of a manuscript. Authorship should be based on the following criteria:
  1. Made a significant contribution to the conception or design of the work; or the study design, execution, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data for the work reported.
  1. Have drafted or written, revised or critically reviewed the article for important intellectual content.
  1. Have agreed on the final approval of the article to be published.
  1. Reviewed and agreed on all versions of the article before submission, during revision, the final version accepted for publication, and any significant changes introduced at the proofing stage.
  1. Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
  1. Corresponding Author (CA): Only one author is assigned as Corresponding Author, who is primary contact for communication between the Journal and all co-authors, before and after publication.
  1. The Corresponding Author is responsible for the following requirements:
  1. Ensuring that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the article, and that all listed co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and agreed to its publication.
  1. Should be available to respond to editorial queries in a timely way, and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and to co-operate with any requests from the Journal about the paper.
  1. Providing transparency on re-use of material, include it in the manuscript in a cover letter to the Editor.
  1. Making sure disclosures, declarations and transparency on data statements from all authors are included in the manuscript as appropriate (see above).

Acknowledgement

The Journal advises the CA to ensure that all individuals who participated in the development of a manuscript but do not qualify as an author be acknowledged. Organizations that provided support in terms of funding and/or other resources should also be acknowledged.

It is the collective responsibility of the authors to ensure that all named authors meet all four criteria. Those who do not meet all four criteria and whose contributions are indirect or marginal (e.g., colleagues or supervisors who have reviewed drafts of the work or provided proofreading assistance, and heads of research institutes/centers/labs) should be named in an “Acknowledgments” section at the end of the article, immediately preceding the Reference List.

 

Submission of Manuscript

Authors should read the “Instruction for Authors” on the journal’s page before making a submission. Manuscript should be prepared according to the style and specifications of the journal’s policy.

Authors listed on the manuscript should have met the requirements for Authorship specified above. Where possible, specify the contribution of each of the authors.

All authors should approve the final version of the manuscript prior to submission. Once a manuscript is submitted, it is therefore assumed that all authors have read and given their approval for the submission of the manuscript.

Contact information of all authors should be stated on the manuscript. Surname/Other names, affiliation, emails, and phone/fax numbers.

Declaration of Conflicts of Interest should be stated in the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

“Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests”

Authors should disclose all financial/relevant interest that may have influenced the development of the manuscript.

Corresponding Author, on behalf of all authors, should clearly state conflict of interest, if there are any, in the manuscript.

Reviewers should disclose any conflict of interest and if necessary, decline the review of any manuscript they perceive to have a conflict of interest. Editors should also decline from considering any manuscript that may have conflict of interest. Such manuscripts will be re-assigned to other editors.

Confidentiality

A submitted manuscript is a confidential material. Authors should treat all communication with the Journal as confidential which includes correspondence with direct representatives from the Journal such as Editors-in-Chief and Associate Editors. An author should not normally publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in multiple journals or publication venues. Such redundant publication is generally considered to constitute unethical publishing behavior, and if discovered PPD shall follow the appropriate COPE flowcharts wherever necessary.

Misconduct

Misconduct constitutes violation of this editorial policy, journal policies, publication ethics. Any other activities that threaten/compromise the integrity of the research/publication process are potential misconduct. The fabrication of results and the making of fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and may be cause for rejection or retraction of a manuscript or published article.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is unacknowledged copying or an attempt to misattribute original authorship, whether of ideas or text. As defined by the ORI (Office of Research Integrity), plagiarism can include, “theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work”. Plagiarism can be said to have clearly occurred when large chunks of text have been cut-and-pasted without appropriate and unambiguous attribution. Such manuscripts would not be considered for publication in Scientific Reports. Aside from wholesale verbatim re-use of text, due care must be taken to ensure appropriate attribution and citation when paraphrasing and summarising the work of others. 'Text recycling' or re-use of parts of text from an author’s previous research publication is a form of self-plagiarism. Here, too, due caution must be exercised. When re-using text, whether from the author's own publication or that of others, appropriate attribution and citation is necessary to avoid creating a misleading perception of unique contribution for the reader.   

Duplicate publication occurs when an author re-uses substantial parts of his or her own published work without providing the appropriate references. This can range from getting an identical paper published in multiple journals, to 'salami-slicing', where authors add small amounts of new data to a previous paper.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Peer-Review and Editorial Procedure

All manuscripts sent for publication in our journals are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts (this includes research and review articles). The Editor-in-Chief of the journal will perform an initial check of the manuscript’s suitability upon receipt. The Editorial Office will then organize the peer-review process performed by independent experts and collect at least two review reports per manuscript. We ask our authors for adequate revisions (with a second round of peer-review if necessary) before a final decision is made. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief. Accepted articles are copy-edited and English-edited.

Roles and responsibilities of reviewers:

  1. After receiving the invitation, they are expected to submit their reviews within two weeks. Reviewers of PPD work on a voluntary basis so they are free to decline invitations and can suggest any of their colleagues, so that respective editor may invite that person to review.
  1. Articles are assigned based on the research interests of the reviewer. If the manuscript is beyond their expertise, they should not accept the manuscript review assignment and report it to the editorial office.
  1. Reviewers should recuse themselves from the assignment if it becomes apparent to them at any stage that they may have a potential conflict of interest in performing the review (e.g., one resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the manuscript).
  1. Reviewers should have a look at the assigned manuscript, whether the paper fits within the stated scope of the journal or not. Reviewers should not be biased or partial while reviewing the manuscript.
  1. They should evaluate the manuscript within the provided timeline in order to facilitate timely completion of the review process.
  1. They are encouraged to express their views clearly, explaining and justifying all recommendations made. They should always attempt to provide detailed and constructive feedback to assist the author(s) in improving their work, even if the manuscript is, in their opinion, not publishable.
  1. Privileged information or ideas obtained by reviewers through the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
  1. When conducting their reviews, reviewers are asked to do so as objectively as possible, refraining from engaging in personal criticism of the author(s). Criticism should be presented dispassionately and offensive remarks are not acceptable.
  1. They should identify any published work that has not been cited by the author(s).
  1. They should report any major resemblances between a manuscript under consideration and other published articles or papers to the Editor’s office.