Publication Ethics & Malpractice State
Quantum Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (QJSSH) is an online international journal with peer-review. The publication ethics & malpractice state (PEMS) clarifies ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the Editor, the Reviewers, the Authors and the publisher (Quantum Academic Publisher). This statement prepared based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines by Elsevier for Journal Editors.
The publication of an article in QJSSH is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society.
Quantum Academic Publisher as the publisher of QJSSH takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, QJSSH Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.
Duties of Editor
Editor of QJSSH evaluates submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (quality, originality, research validity, clarity) as well as its relevancy to the journal’s aim and scope, regardless of the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation.
Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. Editor has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
The editor 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, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage.
The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation and quality of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors 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.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author also assist the author in improving the paper and revised it based on the given comments.
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 Journal’s editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which 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.
Abstract of the submitted papers’ must be send to the selected Reviewers while inviting them to Review. This is to inform the Reviewers on the area of the research and the content of the submitted paper. Reviewers should be prompt with their reviews. Any selected Reviewer 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/herself from the review process. The initial given time to the Reviewers for their review is 3 to 4 weeks. This can be extended based on the Reviewers’ requirement due to Editor’s decision.
QJSSH follows a double-blind peer-review process, whereby authors do not know reviewers and vice versa. Peer review is fundamental to the scientific publication process and the dissemination of sound science.
The manuscript must be send to the Reviewers in anonymous status (without name or any sign of the Author’s identity). 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. The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the Executive Editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal critism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers will be asked to fill in the QJSSH Evaluation Form to give their complete comments on the paper for its originality, quality, and research validity. Moreover, reviewers required stating in their review report using "Manuscript Evaluation Form" if the article fulfils the criteria below which are based on QJSSH archiving policy on Review criteria:
- Theoretical/Conceptual Soundness: The article should make reference to previous research or theories in the reported study. The theory, if any, behind the research should be logically applied and thoroughly justified. It should correctly interpret and appropriately synthesize relevant prior research. And finally, are the hypotheses, if any, derived from the theory to be tested, clearly stated, and are they actually tested.
- Methodological Soundness:Qualitative or quantitative empirical studies reported on should have a systematic and coherent method of study. The article should include a clear account of the study's project background, objectives, subjects, methodology (methods should be the most recent, if not, the relevancy/ appropriateness should be questioned), data analysis, and conclusions. The reviewer should comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations. Are the appropriate analytical techniques applied to the data collected, and the results correctly interpreted? Are the conclusions and/or implications correctly derived from the research findings?
- Contribution: Does the article advance knowledge in/of the discipline? Are the findings and their implications noteworthy? Is the paper of interest to many people in the field or at least one segment of it (e.g., academics, practitioners, public policy makers, consumers etc.)? The article should also discuss the implications of the reported project, and/or report on any conclusions or products which may be of relevance to future research, development or practice.
- Communication: The article should be of an acceptable quality in terms of linguistic accuracy, clarity and coherence. Is the article clearly written and the major points easily grasped? Is the article laid out in a logical format? Data presentation/ tabulation: Any irrelevant tables/ figures should be checked. The reviewer should comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study. Apart from the criteria , reviewers are also requested to complete rating section of the Manuscript Evaluation Form by selecting appropriate rate in terms of ; Clarity of formal structure, Suitability of title to the contents, Abstract sufficiently informative, Originality/Novelty, Methodology sufficiently described, Methodology appropriate to study, Results / Conclusions supported by data analysis, Clarity in the presentation of findings, Scientific soundness, Bibliography adequate and relevant. Moreover, reviewers are asked for their detailed comments to the Author. The reviewer's comments should be constructive, professional and be sufficiently specific in order to help the author improve the article when revising it for publication or re-submission to QJSSH journal (in the event that it is rejected by QJSSH). If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the Editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so. Reviewers also give their recommendation on decision to the manuscript’s publication to the Editor.
Authorship of the Paper