Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Guidelines
Journal of Fashion Technology & Textile Engineering follow single-blind peer review system that includes reviewers are aware of the identity of the authors, but authors are unaware of the identity of reviewers. There are minimum four reviewers for each article in each issue.
Every submitted manuscript processed for preliminary quality check control check by editorial office followed by external peer review process.
For publication, ethical standards ensure high-quality scientific publications, along with public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their ideas.
All articles published by Journal of Fashion Technology & Textile Engineering are dedicated for publishing only original manuscripts. The submitted manuscript in our journal is crosschecked by using authenticated software to detect similarities and overlapping texts in the documents.
Plagiarism usually involves the use of writings belonging to others. Also, the term can be applied to copying of part of own previously published study without appropriate citation. Such self-plagiarism is not tolerable in academic writing and authors are requested to mention previous work in an appropriate manner. As the work already published by an author becomes a property of scientific literature in actual sense and it cannot be duplicated. Therefore, documents that are plagiarized will incur plagiarism consents.
A publication that overlaps or relates substantially with any article that is already published or in press, is considered as duplicate or redundant publication. Duplicate or redundant submission is identical manuscript (or having the similar data) that is submitted to various journals at the same time. International copyright laws, ethical conduct, and cost effective use of resource ensures the originality of the submitted manuscript.
Manuscript submitted must be original and should not have published or submitted elsewhere while under consideration for publication. According to the APA code of ethics (APA Publication Manual, 2010) duplicate publication is a violation and will invite for prompt rejection of the submitted manuscript.
If the author is re-using a figure that is published or that has been copyrighted, then author must provide documentation from the previous publisher or the copy right holder permission for the figure to be re-published. In case, author was not aware of the violation code and if the material has been published, then a notice of duplicate material submission and the ethical violation will incur.
Any submitted document, which is found to contain citations whose basic objective is to increase the number of citations of a given author’s article published in a specific journal will incur citation manipulation consents.
Data Falsification or Fabrication
The submitted document that is identified to have fabrication or falsified the experimental results like as manipulation of images will also incur falsification or fabrication consents.
Incorrect Author Contribution
All listed or mentioned authors should have made a significant contribution towards the research work submitted and should be approving all its claims. It is necessary to list out the specific individual marking the significant contribution, which may include students or can be the laboratory technicians.
Conflicts of Interest
In order to maintain the transparency and help readers to form their own judgements of potential bias, authors should declare any competing financial interests in regards to the work being described or presented.
During submission, policy entails that every author should reveal if any, financial interests or collaborations, direct or indirect, which may raise the question of conflict or bias in the submitted work or in the conclusions, opinions given or implications, or any other sources of funding for related direct or indirect academic competition.
However, in case of manuscript acceptance, Conflict of Interest information should be mentioned in a published statement.
Permissions to reproduce previously published material
Permission is essential to reproduce material from the copyright holder. Articles cannot be directly published without these permissions.
Patient Consent forms
It is very essential to protect the patient’s right to privacy. Kindly, collect and preserve copies that mention patients or other themes of your experiments that clearly grant permission for the publication of photographs or any other material that may recognize them. Yet, if the consent form did not comprise this, it is requested to obtain it or remove the identifying material from the document. However, the obtained statement must be included in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript. If required the Editors may request a copy of any consent forms.
Duties of Editors
The Executive Editor or/and Editor-in-Chief of Journal name, is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published in current volume of the journal. He may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the nature of the authors or the host institution including race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.
When genuine errors in published work are pointed out by readers, authors, or members of editorial board, which do not render the work invalid, a correction (or erratum) will be published as soon as possible. The online version of the paper may be corrected with a date of correction and a link to the printed erratum. If the error renders the work or substantial parts of it invalid, the process of retraction can be initiated. In such case, the retraction communication with explanations as to the reason for retraction will be published as soon as possible. Consequently, the message about retraction will be indicated on article page and in pdf version of retracted article.
If serious concerns are raised by readers, reviewers, or others, about the conduct, validity, or reporting of academic work, editor will initially contact the authors and allow them to respond to the concerns. If that response is unsatisfactory, Journal name will take this to the institutional level.
Journal name will respond to all allegations or suspicions of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors. Cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication will be assessed by the journal. In other cases, Journal of Contemporary Medical Education may request an investigation by the institution or other appropriate bodies (after seeking an explanation from the authors first and if that explanation is unsatisfactory).
Retracted papers will be retained online, and they will be prominently marked as a retraction in all online versions, including the PDF, for the benefit of future readers.
Duties of Reviewers
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in 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.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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.
Editor will take reviewer misconduct seriously and pursue any allegation of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage. Allegations of serious reviewer misconduct, such as plagiarism, will be taken to the institutional level.
Duties of Authors
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Authors should ensure that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Ethics committee approval
All the manuscripts dealing with original human or animal data should include a statement on ethics approval at the commencement of the Methods section. Also, should contain the mentioned information: the name and the address of the responsible ethics committee, the protocol number, along with the date of approval that is attributed by the ethics committee mentioned.
The paragraph can declaim, for example:
"Ethical approval for this study was given by the Ethical Committee of University Name or Hospitals, of certain place, on specific date."
Furthermore, as detailed above for the studies carried on human participants, it is necessary to state evidently that you obtained the written informed consent from the participants involved. Kindly, refer the latest version of the declaration given by specific organization. Similarly, experiments that involve animals, you must provide the state of animal care and licensing guidelines under which the study is performed and reported. This should be provided in accordance with the ARRIVE statement (Animals in Research: Reporting in Vivo Experiments). In any case, if ethics clearance was not obligatory or if there was any deviation or change from the standard of ethical requests, it is required to state the specified reason.
Though, please note that the editors might ask you to provide evidence of ethical approval. Besides, If you have approval from a National Drug Agency (or similar) please state this and provide details, this can be particularly useful while discussing the use of unlicensed drugs.