Guidelines

Guidelines

Handling Suspected Duplicate Publications

If a peer reviewer suspects duplication, they report it to the editor. The editor acknowledges the concern and requests documented proof. Based on the extent of duplication, the editor takes the following actions
Major (Intolerable) Duplication
  • If a significant portion of the text is copied without proper citation, the editor contacts the author(s) for clarification.
  • The author may admit the error, cite the original work, or remain silent.
  • If the author does not respond or the duplication is extensive, the manuscript is rejected.
  • If necessary, the editor escalates the issue to the author's institution and follows up periodically.
Minor (Acceptable with Corrections)
  • When duplication is minimal and likely accidental, the editor notifies the author(s).
  • The author is asked to either remove the duplicated content or provide proper citations.
Minute (Negligible) Duplication
  • The editor advises the author(s) to include appropriate references for any translated or duplicated content.
This structured approach ensures transparency and upholds publication integrity.

Handling Duplication After Publication

If duplication is reported, the editor reviews the concern and requests supporting evidence for verification. Based on the extent of duplication, the paper is classified as follows:
  • Major (Intolerable): A significant portion of the paper is duplicated without proper citation, often with minimal modifications (such as changes in names or locations).
  • Minor (Acceptable with Corrections): Some portions may contain similarities but can be rectified with proper citation and modifications.
  • Minute (Negligible): Minimal duplication that does not significantly impact the integrity of the research.

For major duplication, ethical actions such as retraction or formal notice will be taken accordingly.

Authors don't Respond
Minor (acceptable with correction): when the editor is convinced that it is the case of minor error,
  • he contacts concerned author[s] and expresses his unhappiness
  • insists them to either remove the contents which have been duplicated or
  • He requests authors to provide a cross reference of original publication.
Minute (negligible) : Editor contacts concerned author [s] and suggests to provide cross reference for the data translated/duplicated Finally, the editor conveys the conclusion/actions taken to concerned readers

Plagiarism Handling Process

Editors assess plagiarism cases and classify them into four categories

Major Plagiarism – Significant portions of the text are copied without proper attribution. Actions taken

  • Notify the author with evidence of plagiarism.
  • Inform the author's institution if there is no response.
  • Reject the manuscript and issue a warning if plagiarism is denied.
  • Request citation and revisions if unintentional.
  • Follow up with the institution if needed.
  • Minor Plagiarism – Copying idioms or phrases without citation. The editor instructs the author to either rewrite or provide proper credit
  • Self-Plagiarism – Authors copying from their own work must provide appropriate self-references.
  • Negligible Plagiarism – If minimal and insignificant, the editor allows the manuscript to proceed.

Reporting Suspected Plagiarism

If a reader suspects plagiarism in a published paper, they should inform the editor with any supporting evidence. The editor will review the claim, assess the level of duplication, and classify the case as either Major or Minor plagiarism.

Major Plagiarism (Extensive Copying)
  • The editor contacts the author with proof of plagiarism.
  • The author may respond with an explanation, deny the claim, or remain silent.
  • If the response is unsatisfactory, the editor informs all co-authors and seeks further clarification.
  • If the author acknowledges an honest mistake (e.g., lack of awareness of journal policies), a warning is issued.
  • A retraction notice is sent to all relevant parties, including other publishers involved.
  • The editor notifies the author’s institution or research body for corrective action.
  • Continuous follow-ups ensure accountability.
  • The editor informs affected readers and authors.
Minor Plagiarism (Phrases, Idioms, or Slogans)
  • The editor contacts the author, emphasizing journal integrity and the need to credit the original source.
  • Both the reader and the original author/publisher are informed for further action.Both the reader and the original author/publisher are informed for further action.

Handling Suspected Data Fabrication

If a peer reviewer suspects data manipulation or fabrication, they notify the editor with written proof. The editor then:
  • Seeks verification from a second peer reviewer.
  • If confirmed, contacts the author for an explanation without direct accusation.
Possible Author Responses
  • Provides a valid explanation → The editor apologizes and allows the review to continue.
  • Fails to respond → The editor contacts all co-authors.
  • Gives misleading information or admits fault → The editor involves the author’s institution or guild for further investigation.
Institution Review
  • If the author is found innocent → The editor apologizes and resumes the review.
  • If the author is found guilty → The paper is rejected, and the reviewer is informed of the final decision.

Addressing Suspected Data Manipulation

If a reader suspects data manipulation, they should inform the editor. The editor seeks a second opinion from a peer reviewer and then requests the author’s original data.
If the author responds

Misleading Reply

  • All concerned authors are informed.
  • A formal inquiry is conducted.
  • If found guilty, the article is retracted or corrected.
  • If proven innocent, an apology is issued.

Valid Reply

  • An apology is issued.
  • If it was an honest error, a corrigendum is published.

If the author doesn’t respond

  • The editor proceeds with an independent review and necessary corrective actions.

Adding a Co-Author Before Publication

If an author requests adding a co-author before publication, the editor must verify the reason and obtain written approval from all existing authors.

If all authors agree
  • Written approval is obtained.
  • The editor completes the necessary journal formalities and updates the author list.
If there is a disagreement:
  • The publication process is paused until the authors resolve the dispute.

Authorship Removal Request

If an author requests the removal of another author’s name before publication, the journal editor must:

  • Verify the Reason – Assess the request and obtain written consent from all involved authors.
  • Approval Scenario – If all authors agree, the editor updates the author list, revises records, and may acknowledge the removed author (if requested).
  • Dispute Scenario – If any author disagrees, the publication is put on hold until the dispute is resolved.

The final authorship list is updated once the issue is settled, ensuring transparency in publication.

Author Name Removal After Publication

If an author requests the removal of another author’s name, the journal editor must first determine the reason. If convinced, the editor must obtain written approval from all authors involved. The process follows these steps:
  • If all authors agree and provide a valid reason, the editor issues a correction.
  • If any author raises concerns about data manipulation, it will be referred for further review.
  • If authors have conflicting opinions, the editor allows all parties to present their arguments and, if necessary, publishes both perspectives.
Next Steps
  • If all authors respond, the editor publishes their statements.
  • If some remain silent or respond inappropriately, a minority view letter is published.

In all cases, a correction is issued only after securing approval from all authors.

Handling Suspected Guest, Ghost, or Gift Authors

(*Actions may vary by journal based on internal processes.)
  • After receiving responses, the editor reconciles the statements:
  • Ghost Author: If a contributor is missing, the editor insists on their inclusion and gets written approval from the other authors.
  • Guest/Gift Author: If an undeserving author is listed, the editor ensures their removal or moves their name to the Acknowledgment section per journal policies.
  • If inconsistencies remain, the editor consults the institution’s HOD and investigates further using available resources.
  • If the authorship list is clear, the submission proceeds to review and publication.

Actions to Take When a Hidden Conflict of Interest Is Suspected

If a peer reviewer detects a potential hidden conflict of interest in a manuscript, they must inform the editor immediately. The editor then investigates the matter and contacts the author to clarify the situation.

If the author acknowledges the conflict

  • The editor ensures the competing interest statement is corrected.
  • Necessary formalities for review and publication are completed.
  • The peer reviewer is updated on the resolution.

If the author disputes the conflict

  • The editor ensures the competing interest statement is corrected.
  • Necessary formalities for review and publication are completed.
  • The peer reviewer is updated on the resolution.

Handling Suspected Conflicts of Interest

(Processes may vary depending on the journal’s internal policies.)

  • If a reader suspects a hidden conflict of interest, they should inform the editor.
  • If the conflict is confirmed, necessary corrections are made as per legal and ethical standards.
  • The editor updates the concerned reader on the resolution.

If the author disputes the claim:

  • The editor enforces journal policies and requests a formal written statement regarding the conflict of interest.

Handling Moral Issues in a Manuscript

If a manuscript raises ethical concerns (often flagged by a reviewer), the editor contacts the author for clarification. Actions taken depend on the author’s response.
  • Logical and reasonable response – The editor acknowledges the explanation, informs the peer reviewer, and resumes the review.
  • Unacceptable, vague, or no response
  • The review process is paused until a satisfactory reply is received.
  • Notification is sent to the author's institution or relevant authority.
  • If a reasonable reply is provided, the review resumes.
  • If no response is received, follow-ups continue every 2–4 months while the review remains pending.

Handling Reviewer Misuse of an Author’s Data

Open Review (Reviewer’s Name Disclosed)

  • The editor investigates and gathers evidence.
  • If the reviewer is found guilty, they are given a chance to explain.
  • If justified, feedback is shared with the author; otherwise, the issue is escalated.
  • If misconduct is confirmed, the reviewer’s services are terminated.
  • The author is kept informed throughout the process.
  • If an unrelated person is reported, the editor verifies connections and updates the author.
  • Reviewer identity disclosure is subject to journal policy.
  • The journal takes necessary action to prevent future misuse.

Grievance Handling Process

All grievances are handled by our Grievances Redressal Forum, which follows a systematic approach

  • Verification that the grievance concerns an OARS member, falls within its scope, and follows proper submission procedures.
  • If valid, the complaint is forwarded to the journal and reviewed with an OARS Council Member.
  • If fault is acknowledged, corrective actions are taken. If disputed, further documentary evidence is required.
  • The case is escalated to the OARS Sub Group (including senior executives and council members) for investigation.
  • The Sub Group’s findings are sent to the OARS Chairperson for approval.
  • Once approved, corrections are made, and copies of the report are sent to the journal, the complainant, and relevant OARS members.