DUTIES OF EDITOR AND REVIEWER

IJRCS publishes peer-reviewed research work of various disciplines. This statement explains ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article for journal, i.e.: the author, the Executive Managing Editor, Associate Editor, Advisor, the reviewer and the publisher. This statement is based on internationally accepted Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

DUTIES OF EDITORS:

Decision on the Publication of Articles:
The Executive Editor of each Journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The Executive Editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and subjected to such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Executive Editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play:
Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit without regard to authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

Confidentiality:
The Executive Managing Editor, Associate Editors and any editorial staff 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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest:
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript (while handling it) in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS:
Reviewer should review and send the review comments in due time period. If the article is not in your area of interest then revert back to editor so that the other reviewers can be approached.

Contribution of Peer Review:
Peer review assists the Executive Editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions while editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness:
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality:
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 Executive Editor.

Standards of Objectivity:
Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources:
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Executive Editor attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Confidentiality:
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Conflict of Interest:
Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors or institutions connected to the papers.

Editors and reviewers can contact to the Executive Editor through – editorijrcs@gmail.com