1. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY EDITOR IN CASE OF DOUBTFUL DUPLICATE PUBLICATION

^{AS SOON AS PEER REVIEWER SUSPECTS DUPLICATION, HE REPORTS TO THE EDITOR AND IN TURN EDITOR CONVEYS THANKS AND REQUESTS THE PEER REVIEWER TO TRACE THE WRITTEN PROOF. 
THE EDITOR ALSO ASCERTAINS DUPLICATION QUANTITATIVELY AND QUALITATIVELY WITH THE CATEGORY OF DUPLICATION WHETHER IT IS}

• Major (intolerable) : When major portion of the text / paper is duplicated without giving cross reference of original   publication just by changing only the names/places etc.

• The editor gives written letter/email to the concerned author [s] seeking their undertaking w.r.t. their text/paper is genuine and unpublished
• Either author replies (after consulting with other authors) and admit his/their mistake
• In case of honest error, either concerned author [s] admits honest error or he expresses his unawareness of the journal’s rules or he admits that he is novice author. In all the cases the editor insists concerned author [s] to give cross reference of original publication
• If he simply keeps silence and If the duplication is great extent then it becomes un-acceptable and the same is rejected by editor
• When the author keeps silence, the editor contacts “Head of Department of Authors Institution” with a written letter and obtains acknowledgement and follows-up with him with an interval of every 2-4 months

• Minor(acceptable with correction) : When the editor is convinced that it is the case of minor error,

•  He contacts concerning author [s] and expresses his unhappiness
•  He 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 him to provide cross reference for the data translated/duplicated

 

2. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN BY EDITOR IN CASE OF DUPLICATION NOTICED AFTER PUBLICATION

NORMALLY IT IS NOTICED BY READERS AND THEY POINTS OUT TO CONCERNED EDITOR. EDITOR THANKFULLY ACCEPTS THEIR COMPLAINT AND ALSO SUGGESTS READERS TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE [IF POSSIBLE] TO EXPEDITE SUITABLE ACTION. EDITOR VERIFIES THE SAME AND ASCERTAINS THE QUANTUM OF DUPLICATION AND CLASSIFIES THE RESEARCH TEXT/PAPER IN THREE CATEGORIES.

•   Major - intolerable
•   Minor [acceptable with correction]
•   or it is minute [negligible]

•  Major (intolerable) :  When major portion of the text / paper is duplicated without giving cross reference of original publication by changing only the names/places etc.

Authors Responds

• • • •    Either author replies (after consulting with other authors) and admit his/their mistake
      •    In case of honest error, concerned author[s] either admits honest error or he expresses his unawareness of journal’s rules or he admits that he is novice author. In all the cases editor insists concerned author[s] to    give cross reference of original publication.

Authors don't Respond

•    He simply keeps silence. If the duplication is great extent then it becomes inacceptable and editor rejects the same
•    When the author keeps silence, the editor contacts “Head of Department of Authors Institution” with written letter, obtains acknowledgement, and follows-up with him with interval of every 2-4 months

•  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

 

3. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF DOUBTFUL PLAGIARISM FOUND IN MANUSCRIPT

 Editor simultaneously checks the quantum of copying/plagiarism and he classifies into four groups.

•   Major plagiarism
•   Minor Plagiarism
•   Copying from author’s own work
•   Negligible Plagiarism

•  Major plagiarism :  when the text/paper is entirely or major portion copied without giving an original author ' name, the editor takes the following actions  

• Approaches concerned author with a written letter enclosing therewith ownership statement along with documentary proof of plagiarism
• Either the concerned author replies or keeps silence
• If author replies, either he tries to misguide editor or accepts mistake
• If the author gives misguiding answer, the editor writes to all authors stating rejection and also warns for rectifying their misbehavior
• If author admits his honest error or unaware of journal rules or he confirms that he is a beginner/novice researcher, editor requests him to revise the submission giving proper cross reference of original publication & also warns for not repeating
• Informs authors’ seniors or researcher’s guild with the written complaint with guilty author [s] name
• If the author keeps silence, editor contacts all concerned authors and informs reality
• If again there is no response from any of the authors, editors approaches supreme authority of the author's institution and gives complaint letter in writing mentioning facts and guilty author [s] name
• If still no action taken by institution, editor follows-up with Head of Department at regular interval to black list the guilty author[s]
• In all cases, editor informs authors and concerned peer reviewer with the actions taken

• Minor Plagiarism : it applies when only idioms or slogans are copied. Although it is not considered as serious offence, editor contacts author and expresses his displeasure and for maintaining journal’s reputation, he insists author to either re-write idioms/slogans or mention original writer/author/publication’s name

• • • • Copying from author’s own work :Just contact author to give proper self-reference
      • Negligible Plagiarism : editor okays and informs peer reviewer to go ahead

 

4. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF DOUBTFUL PLAGIARISM FOUND IN PUBLISHED TEXT/PAPER

Whenever a reader observes that plagiarism has taken place in a published text/paper he points out to concerned editor. Editor thankfully accepts his complaint and also suggests readers to provide documentary evidence [if he has not submitted] to expedite suitable action. Editor verifies the same, ascertains the quantum of duplication, and classifies the research text/paper in two categories.

•  (A) Major – contains massive plagiarized data, (B) Minor – i.e. copying idioms/slogans etc.
•  (A) Major – contains massive plagiarized data :

•   The editor contacts concerned author with written letter enclosing therewith signed ownership statement with original proof of plagiarism
•  In turn, author either gives reply with misleading statement/accepts mistake or keeps silence
•   In both the cases, editor contacts other concerned authors
•   if author gives unacceptable reply, editor contacts all the authors and ascertains their future course of action 
•   if author convincing reply/accepts honest error/expresses unawareness of journal rules/represents him as beginner researchers
•   Editor informs all the concerned authors calls for explanation and warns for correcting behavior
•   Editor gives retraction notice to all concerned along with other journal/publisher involved in plagiarized book
•   Whether author replies or keeps silence, editor informs senior authority of authors as well as head of the department of authors guild
•   If authors’ guild do not take corrective actions, the editor continuously follows-up with them at regular intervals
•   Editor simultaneously informs the action taken by him to concerned author
•   Editor also informs reader and other adversely effected authors due to plagiarism

• (A) Minor – i.e. copying idioms/slogans etc. :

• Editor approaches with grim face to concerned author and makes him aware of the journal’s reputation and insists to mention the original author’s/publisher’s name
• Editor informs reader and the original author/journal whose text/paper is plagiarized for taking suitable actions

 

5. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF DOUBTFUL FABRICATED DATA FOUND IN MANUSCRIPT

During review, peer reviewer detects that the data contained in research text/paper is manipulated/fabricated, he immediately informs editor and in turn, editor conveys thanks and insists him to provide written proof for enabling him to take suitable actions. The editor also requests second peer reviewer to scrutinize whether the allegation is correct or not. After being convinced, editor contacts the author and asks him to give explanation although he does not allege directly

• In turn, author either replace or he keeps silence
• If the author keeps silence, editor contacts all the remaining authors
• Author replies either by giving a reasonable reply or misleading/accepting fault
• If the author gives suitable reasonable and acceptable reply then editor apologizes to author and informs peer reviewer to go ahead
• If the author gives misleading reply/accepts fault, the editor informs all the concerned authors to take up the matter with authors’ institution/guild for detailed scrutiny/review
• Editor approaches authors’ guild with a request to interrogate into the matter. He takes the same action if the authors do not respond primarily
• Author’s guild cross-examines the case and concludes either author is innocent or author is found guilty
• If the author found innocent, the editor apologizes the author and gives feedback to peer reviewer to go ahead
• If the author found guilty, the editor rejects the text/paper and informs reviewer the final decision

 

6. ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF DOUBTFUL FABRICATED DATA FOUND IN PUBLISHED ARTICLE

   When a published article reaches to readers, readers go through the same. In case, reader [s] detects/doubts data shown in published article is manipulated/fabricated, he immediately contacts editor. He shares his viewpoint and graciously welcomes the same. He also assures him to take suitable corrective actions. He then contacts another peer reviewer for ascertaining his opinion.
After getting a second opinion from peer reviewer, editor approaches author to express his concern with a request to submit original workings of data calculation.

In turn, either 1) Author responds or 2) keeps silence

• • • •   If author responds either [A] author gives misleading reply [B] author gives an acceptable and logical reply
      •   If the author gives misleading reply, keep informed all the concerned authors and editor threatens regarding the disciplinary future action plan
      •   Editor contacts authors’ guild and requests for detailed scrutiny
      •   In the inquiry, If an author is found responsible then editor publishes retraction/disclaimer/withdrawal
      •   In the inquiry, If an author is found innocent, editor begs apology
      •   If authors’ guild not responding or gives negative reply then editor publishes letter of expression concern and updates reader[s] about    conclusion

B. If the author gives an acceptable and logical reply, beg apology from the author and then editor publishes corrigendum in case honest error and also informs concerned reader[s]

 

7.  ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF ADDING OWNERSHIP i.e. HOW TO PROCEED WHEN AUTHOR REQUESTS FOR INCLUDING ANOTHER AUTHOR’S NAME PRIOR TO PUBLISHING AN ARTICLE

• • • • When an author approaches journal editor for addition of ownership, Editor has to ascertain the exact reason. In case, the editor is successfully convinced. He has to insist for obtaining written approval from all the authors concerned.
      • Now there are two probabilities
      •  All the concerned authors agree for inclusion of additional author and gives written approval
      •  After getting written approval, an editor has to complete the journal’s existing formalities with the help of new author

      Finally, editor updates ownership list i.e. Authors’ full list with details & completes publication formalities.

      •  All or any of concerned authors does not agree for inclusion of additional author. In this case, an editor has to withhold publishing work till the dispute among the authors is sorted out

 

8.  ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF ELIMINATING OWNERSHIP i.e. HOW TO PROCEED WHEN AUTHOR REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION OF ANOTHER AUTHOR’S NAME PRIOR TO PUBLISHING AN ARTICLE

• • • • When an author approaches journal editor for REMOVAL of ownership, the editor has to ascertain the exact reason. In case, the editor is successfully convinced. He has to insist for obtaining written approval from all the authors concerned.
      • Now there are two probabilities
      • All the concerned authors agrees for DELETION of an EXISTING author and gives written approval
      •   After getting written approval, editor has to rectify journal’s existing list and show deleted author’s name in acknowledgement [if desired by all the authors]

 

  Finally, editor updates ownership list i.e. Authors’ full list with details & completes publication formalities.

  All or any of concerned authors does not agree for EXCLUSION of an EXISTING author. In this case, an editor has to withhold publishing work until the dispute among the authors is sorted out.

 

9.  ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF ADDING OWNERSHIP AFTER PUBLISHING OF AN ARTICLE i.e. HOW TO PROCEED WHEN AUTHOR REQUESTS FOR ADDITION OF ANOTHER AUTHOR’S NAME AFTER PUBLISHING AN ARTICLE

• • • • When an author approaches journal editor for addition of EXTRA ownership, Editor has to ascertain the exact reason. In case, the editor is successfully convinced, He has to insist for obtaining written approval from all the concerned authors ADDING EXTRA ownership
      • Now there are two possibilities.
      •  All the concerned authors agree for inclusion of additional author and gives written approval
      •  After getting written approval, an editor has to complete the journal’s existing formalities with the help of new author
      •  Finally, editor updates ownership list i.e. Authors’ full list with details & publishes corrected [revised] list
      •  All or any of concerned authors does not agree for inclusion of additional author. In this case, an editor has to express his inability for doing the needful until and unless all the authors are agreeable

 

10.   ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF ELIMINATING OWNERSHIP AFTER PUBLICATION i.e. HOW TO PROCEED WHEN AUTHOR REQUESTS FOR EXCLUSION OF ANOTHER AUTHOR’S NAME AFTER PUBLISHING AN ARTICLE

When an author approaches journal editor for REMOVAL of ownership, the editor has to ascertain the exact reason. In case, the editor is successfully convinced. He has to insist for obtaining written approval from all the authors concerned.

Now, If

• • • •    All the existing authors gives reasonable and justified convincing answer for exclusion, then editor publishes suitable correction and matter is concluded
      •    All or any author raises alarm indicating data manipulation, then editor refers illustration to the stated data manipulation
      •    There may be differences of opinion among the authors regarding the explanation. In this case, the editor gives an opportunity to all the authors to clarify and if he is convinced, he may promise to publish both the replies with correct and logical reason but it should not be offensive.

The next process is classified in following two sub-groups.

• • • •   If all authors give suitable reply, the editor publishes all the letters. In case, reply is not received from all the authors, he publishes a minority view letter
      •   Authors either keep silent or replies in discourteous language

In both the cases, an editor publishes correction indicating removal of an author’s name ONLY AFTER getting approval from all the authors.

11.   ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN IN CASE OF DOUBTFUL GUEST/GHOST/GIFT AUTHOR DETECTED*

(Actions may vary from journal to journal which are based on their internal process)

• • • • First of editor is supposed to evaluate Ownership Statement [submitted by authors while submitting text] in the receipt department of a journal and send the copy of the same to all the concerned authors for verification with a request to specify the contribution quantum of each concerned author.
      • After getting back the authors’ list from all the authors, he has to reconcile all statements
      • The list may not show somebody’s name but there may be contribution i.e. GHOST AUTHOR
      • The editor is to insist for inclusion of missing author
      • Get written approval from all the remaining authors with reference to journal’s policy
      • & Editor has to treat the matter seriously and also involve their Institution’s H.O.D.
      • The list may show a name of author included without any contribution i.e. GUEST/GIFT AUTHOR.
      • In this case, editor should insist for eliminating the name of GUEST/GIFT AUTHOR and can agree to show name of such authors in ‘Acknowledgement Portion’ if required he can refer publication policy journal. An editor has to treat the matter seriously and should involve their Institution’s HOD.
      • The list is perfectly found alright and if so, editor proceeds for normal procedure for review and publication
      • The list is misleading and creates suspense: In this case, the editor can find out [with the help of Google] whether anybody is having any objection/ownership of relevant research and take suitable actions accordingly

 

12.   ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN WHEN DOUBTFUL HIDDEN CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN A MANUSCRIPT

While reviewing, as soon as peer reviewer comes to know that there is hidden conflict of interest in a manuscript, He immediately informs editor. In turn, Editor expresses gratitude and entrusts him with in-depth inquiry. Editor approaches author and expresses his pain.

I. In turn, either author/owner shares the facts and factual

• • • In turn, either author/owner shares the facts and factual
    • Editor gets delighted but makes author understand the significance of omission
    • He rectifies competing interest statement as per law
    • He completes all the remaining formalities regarding review and publication
    • He also gives feedback to peer reviewer with updated status

    OR

    • • If the author / owner disagrees, the editor refers journal’s policy and insists for submitting letters in writing regarding conflict of interest

 

13.  ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN WHEN DOUBTFUL HIDDEN CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN A PUBLISHED ARTICLE

• • • • While reading, as soon as the reader comes to know that there is hidden conflict of interest in a published article/text/paper,
      • He immediately informs editor
      • Editor expresses thankfulness and entrusts him with detailed probe
      • Editor approaches author and expresses his sorrow
      • In turn, either author/owner shares the reality
      • Editor conveys thanks but makes author understand the significance of omission
      • He rectifies competing interest statement as per law
      • He completes all the remaining formalities regarding review and publication
      • He also gives feedback to the concerned reader with updated status

OR

• • • • If the author / owner disagrees, the editor refers journal’s policy and insists for submitting letters in writing regarding conflict of interest

 

14.  ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN WHEN DOUBTFUL MORAL PROBLEM IN A MANUSCRIPT

Generally, moral problem is detected by peer reviewer [barring to some cases when editor himself finds such problems] and reports to the editor. In turn, the editor requests him to get the manuscript scrutinized with words of thanks. After receiving scrutiny report from peer reviewer, editor contacts the author and insists for explanation.

Resultantly there can be two options from the author

• • • • Author gives reasonably logical reply: in this case, editor expresses regret and informs peer reviewer about conclusion and requests for re-starting review process
      • Author gives an unacceptable or vague reply or Keeps silence: in both the cases,
      • The editor gives notice to the author for keeping the review process pending till suitable reply received from author
      • The editor also sends copies of the above notice to senior authority of concerned author or his research institution’s head of department
      • If editor gets judicious reply, he concludes the matter & informs peer reviewer about conclusion with a request to re-start review process
      • If the editor does not get any reply or gets an inadequate answer, he follow-ups with authors’ guild regularly with an interval of 2-4 months till he gets final verdict Meanwhile, he instructs peer reviewer to keep reviewing work pending

 

15.   ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN WHEN REVIEWER STEALS ANY AUTHOR’S DATA i.e. MISREPRESENTATION

• • • • Either to opt for open review where peer reviewer’s name is disclosed
      • In this case, the editor tries to get maximum possible evidences to find out the real culprit, and gets the same checked through competent person. There will be two probabilities
      • Result not clear: In this case, the editor requests author to submit more proofs and then the process starts as follows
      • The result is clear and reviewer has found the culprit: In this case, editor issues a letter indicating all the facts and gives him a chance to explain/give clarification. Here also there are two options
      • Either peer reviewer replies with logical answer and in such case, the editor gives feedback to the author
      • Or he keeps silence or gives misleading answer. If an editor is convinced, he forgives reviewer and gives feedback to the author. If not convinced, editor contacts reviewers’ guild with a request to have probe
      • If the reviewer, found the culprit, then he is fired [i.e. Services are terminated]
      • If the reviewers’ guild does not respond, then editor contacts them regularly with an interval of 2-4 months till the matter is concluded
      • In all the case, the editor keeps concerned author updated with the latest status.
      • Or to opt for secret review: in such cases, there are two methods
      • All the steps indicated above are taken
      • Author complains to editor by specifying somebody’s name who was not at all responsible for review work. In this case following steps are taken
      • Editor tries to find out the relation between the actual reviewer and the person whose name is referred by the author
      • Editor approaches concerned reviewer and asks his explanation and analyses the process i.e. identifies the persons who all were involved during the review process and updates author
      • In both the cases, declaring the reviewer’s name is optional for an editor, which depends upon the supreme authority of the journal’s policy/approval

 

16.   ACTIONS BEING TAKEN BY “O.A.R.S.” WHEN GRIEVANCES RECEIVED AGAINST MEMBER JOURNALS

All grievances are received and handled by our “GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL FORUM” by scrutinizing in details.In depth reports are made by senior executives of “Grievances Redressal Forum “ as per illustrations Of OARS which includes the following steps

• • • • First of all, senior executive gets convinced that grievance reported is against OARS member only
      • The grievance is within the purview of OARS illustrations
      • The grievance is dated after the date of inception of OARS
      • The system followed for submitting grievance is followed as per OARS illustrations
      • The grievance contains all necessary details
      • After checking all the above parameters, the senior executive forwards the formal complaint to journal. He also contacts OARS Council Member. In this meeting they conclude the matter as follow
      • All of them agrees that journal has really committed a fault
      • They all may not agree to accept journal’s fault in this case they insist for other documentary evidence and inquiry
      • The matter is then forwarded to OARS Sub Group members [which is consist of senior executives of “Grievances Redressal Forum “, OARS executive, two other OARS Council Members
      • The OARS Sub Group members investigate and makes a statement
      • Such report is forwarded to OARS Chair Person for final approval [except faulty journal]
      • Approved report is forwarded to editor for correcting mistakes and a copy of the same is also marked
      • to OARS Council Member & also to accuser (i.e. The person who complained)