Suggested Guideline for Research Journal Editors

Suggested Guideline for Research Journal Editors

The OARS guideline for Research Journal Editor is intended to provide a set of tools for streamlined research editorial process to which all OARS associates are expected to strictly follow. These suggested guidelines are more helpful and were refined based on feedback received from Journal Editors. It serves as a hand tool for solving a comprehensive set of complicated moral problems in publishing a research journal. We take suitable actions against associates who are not strictly following it, we also realize that the editors may not be able to obey all the proposals (hence they are kept optional), but we are sure that our proposals will definitely enhance basic features of journal policy which will boost regular reviews, judgments and decisions.

Association with authors

Research Journal should reflect detailed procedure for making an appeal by Researchers to reviewer/editor’s decision.

  • Editorial Board has to be empowered to accept papers on its weighted basis only which are unpublished, original and having clarity and validity.
  • Editorial Board should not change their decisions once the submission is accepted unless there is a major setback in the accepted norms.
  • Submissions once accepted by previous editors should not be rejected by existing editors unless same is found totally unacceptable in the defined norms.
  • Editors are supposed to justify important deviation [if any] from the published peer review procedure
  • There should be defined method in journal enabling authors to plea against the decisions of editor's
  • Publication of guidelines [with regular updating] by editors indicating all “Dos” & “Don’t Dos”
  • Editors should release guidelines showing benchmarks for enlistment of prospective authors.

Expectations from editors

Concerned editors are answerable for whatever is published in their Research Journals. This means the Journal editors

  • Should try continuously to put efforts for improving quality of their journal
  • Should have rigid and foolproof quality control measures for the journal they launch
  • Should try his level best to fulfill the requirements of its readers
  • Are expected to be an expert in communicating their views without fear
  • Should be able to sustain the reliability of the journal records
  • Should use the latest software and tools to manage journal and technically sound to meet requirements in this ever-changing world
  • Should not compromise intellectual property and moral standards merely for materialistic gains
  • Are expected to act vigorously after getting feedback/realizing their mistakes by using proper tools viz. Corrections, clarifications, disclaimers & apologies whenever required.

Ideal expectations from editors

  • To make sure that all published journals/papers are properly reviewed and approved by expert reviewers.
  • To categorize visibly non-peer reviewed section of the journal.
  • To ensure foolproof system for detecting and correcting errors, applying technical tools, guidelines and checklist for enabling to release perfect journal.
  • Should use professional and reliable tools to detect plagiarism at the early stage
  • To be able to implement crystal clear policy to expose the original source of non-research papers/general articles/review articles.
  • To work out such a foolproof device which rewards genuine researcher/editors and reprimand the guest author and award ghost authors.
  • To pledge to readers for promising impartial assessment of the papers submitted by the editorial board.

Association with Authors

Research Journal should reflect detailed procedure for making an appeal by Researchers to reviewer/editor’s decision. 

  • Editorial Board has to be empowered to accept papers on its weighted basis only which are unpublished, original and having clarity and validity.
  • Editorial Board should not change their decisions once the submission is accepted unless there is a major setback in the accepted norms.
  • Submissions once accepted by previous editors should not be rejected by existing editors unless same is found totally unacceptable in the defined norms
  • Editors are supposed to justify important deviation [if any] from the published peer review procedure
  • There should be defined method in journal enabling authors to plea against the decisions of editors.
  • Publication of guidelines [with regular updating] by editors indicating all “Dos” & “Don’t Dos”
  • Editors should release guidelines showing benchmarks for enlistment of prospective authors.

Best practice for editors would include

IDEAL  GUIDELINE  FOR EDITORS
  • Editors should respond to authors’ queries with suggestions of appropriate links
  • Editors are expected to issue publication oferratum if any errors are discovered after publication.
  • Editors should make sure that only suitable and talented reviewers who are expert in their field and free from any ineligibility are selected
  • Editors should honor author’s justified decision for not assigning work to a particular reviewer

The editor should refer OARS guidelines whenever disputes regarding plagiarism arise

  • To find out solution with the help of the OARS manual whenever a disagreement between author and editors arises.
  • To make concerned people aware of modus operandi how the delinquency is to be tackled.
  • To make readers aware of the dates when the paper was submitted, acceptedand published

Guidelines for editors

Association with reviewers
  • Reviewers should be given all the directions by editors including assurance of tackling confidentially all the submitted article. The directions should be validated/authenticated periodically
  • Reviewers should be motivated to unearth anticipated conflicting research topics/subjects at the initial stage.
  • Editors should have an effective secured system for maintaining secrecy/confidentialities of names of authors and reviewers unless they have adopted a transparent system