Author’s Guidelines
JUJRR is a peer reviewed journal. During the process of review our editor first review a paper with online software to know the % of plagiarism. If it is below approved norms then the approved manuscript undergoes for technical review with three random subject experts from the list of reviewers. Editor takes his decision after receiving reviewer comment from all three reviewers. The decision is based on the reviewer’s approval and editor’s own evaluation. Editor has complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article, editor also not having conflict of interest with respect to articles he reject/accept.It is necessary 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 and the publisher. Our ethic statements are based on Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE’s) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Peer Review Policy and Publication decisions The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor 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. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality 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. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown toor discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.
Contribution to Editorial Decisions Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Promptness Any selected referee who feels disqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible, should notify the editor and excuse him from the review process.
Standards of Objectivity Reviews should be conducted objectively. Author’s Personal criticism is inappropriate. Referees 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 an observation, derivation, or argument which had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper on which they have personal knowledge. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Disclosure and Conflict of InterestPrivileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
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. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Author Responsibilities
Reporting Standards Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Originality and PlagiarismThe authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Authorship of the Paper Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.