Category Archives: Editorial Policies

Correction and retraction policy

Posted on by

All Imperium Research Institute journals have the same policy regarding corrections and retractions. We differentiate between addenda, errata, corrigenda, and retractions.

Addenda:
Suppose authors from the original publication should have included significant information. In that case, the original article can be amended through an addendum reporting these previously omitted results. The addendum will be published in the journal’s current issue, with page numbers added. A hyperlink to the addendum will also be added to the original publication.

Errata:
An erratum will be used if a significant error has been introduced during the production of the journal article, including errors of omission, such as the failure to make factual proof corrections requested by authors within the deadline provided by the journal and within journal policy. A significant error is considered to affect the scholarly record, the scientific integrity of the article, the author’s reputation, or the journal’s. All errata are linked to the version of the article that they correct.

Corrigenda:
A corrigendum is a notification of a significant error made by the article’s authors. The editors approve all corrigenda of the journal. All corrigenda are linked to the version of the article that they correct.

Retractions:
An editor will issue a retraction upon several conditions: severe plagiarism, multiple publications, data fabrication, unreliable or faulty findings, and other harmful practices. In this case, a retraction notice will be published. This notice will include the title and authors of the article, the reason for the retraction, and who is retracting the article. It will be published online with a link to the online version of the article. It will be published in the next print issue and included in the table of contents. Before publishing the notice of retraction, the authors should send a signed statement to the editorial office.

Conflicts of interest

Posted on by

A scientific journal must adhere to the best publishing practices and principles of publication ethics (COPE). Therefore, all processes related to the review and publication of articles should be as clear and transparent as possible.

Various individuals, including the editorial board, journal staff, authors, editors, and reviewers, interact at different stages of writing, processing, peer review, editing, and publishing articles. Conflicts of interest may arise during these interactions due to financial, ideological, religious, intellectual, or academic differences.

Authors
Authors play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of their research. They are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest when submitting their manuscript, ensuring that all relationships, facts, actions, and influences that may affect their research are transparently revealed.

Reviewers
Before reviewing a manuscript, reviewers should acquaint themselves with the journal’s peer review process. Some circumstances may affect the transparency of the article assessment. In that case, the reviewer should refuse to review the manuscript. Reviewers should also not use the article for their purposes.

Editorial Board Members, Editors, Journal Staff
Editorial board members, editors, and journal staff are prohibited from using information obtained when working with manuscripts for private gain. They should act in the journal’s interests, making decisions based on the work’s reliability and importance for the reader. Additionally, founders and managing editors are restricted from publishing their work in the journals they manage.

 

Conflict of Interests Statement
If a conflict of interest exists before article publication, a conflict of interest statement should be published in the article, and related documents may be requested and published for the reader’s complete information.

Research misconduct policies

Posted on by

We are committed to upholding the principles set by COPE to prevent any misconduct. We strongly emphasize ensuring the originality of papers and avoiding plagiarism. Please review the Plagiarism Statement.

Authorship of contributions:
All authors must be listed and declared in the Cover letter form submitted with a paper. To be considered an author, an individual must have contributed significantly to the research or project, which must be confirmed in the final work. Those with an insignificant contribution may be acknowledged as a “contributor” in the paper’s acknowledgment section.

Duplicate submission:
Manuscripts must be unique and not submitted to any other journal without the reviewer’s approval. Submitting the same document to multiple journals or submitting several documents based on the same research is not allowed. This includes literal, substantial, or paraphrased copying, and any violation will result in immediate rejection and possible sanctions.

Citation manipulation:
Any submission found with citations intended to artificially increase the number of citations to a specific author’s work or articles published in a particular journal will be immediately rejected, and authors may face sanctions.

Data falsification:
Falsified or fabricated experimental data, including manipulated images, will be immediately rejected and may result in sanctions against the authors.

Sanctions:
Sanctions for policy violations may include immediate rejection of the manuscript, rejection of all future submissions to any journal published by Imperium Research Institute, publication embargo against all authors of the manuscript for a specific period, and the prohibition against any of the authors from serving on the Editorial Board of any journal published by Imperium Research Institute.

Plagiarism statement

Posted on by

All manuscripts that are being sent for an external peer review, are screened for originality. By submitting their manuscripts to the journal authors are agreeing to any necessary originality checks the manuscript may have to undergo during the publication process.

Software
All the manuscripts will be subjected to pre-screening of plagiarism check by using Turnitin Software. The screening process will be conducted by Editor once the manuscript is received.

Plagiarism is using another author’s work without permission or acknowledgment. It can take different forms, from copying word for word to rewriting. When defining plagiarism, the following types are considered:

Literal copying involves copying the work word for word, in whole or in part, without permission or acknowledging the source. It is a clear form of plagiarism and can be easily detected by plagiarism detection software.

Substantial copying: This refers to replicating a substantial portion of the work without permission or confirmation of the source. It is important to consider the quantity and quality of the copied content when determining what is “substantial.” Quality is measured by the relative value of the copied text compared to the entire text. If the essence of the work is copied, even if it is not a large part, it is still considered plagiarism.

Paraphrasing: This type of copying involves using the original work without replicating it word for word. Paraphrasing is often the most challenging type of plagiarism to detect, adding a layer of complexity to the issue.

Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable and will result in immediate rejection of the paper, along with possible sanctions against the authors. These consequences underscore the seriousness of the issue and the need for academic integrity.

Peer Review

Posted on by

What is peer review?
Peer review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity, and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in their journal.

Peer review plays a significant role in the publication of scholarly journals through assessment of validity, quality and originality of submitted manuscripts. There are three types of peer review: “open”, “single blind” and “double blind”.  The Imperium research institute supports the double blind peer review.

Submitted papers are evaluated by anonymous referees for contribution, originality, relevance, and presentation. Papers will be sent for anonymous review by at least two reviewers who will either be members of the Editorial Board or others of similar standing in the field. In order to shorten the review process and respond quickly to authors, the Editors may triage a submission and come to a decision without sending the paper for external review.

The Editor shall inform you of the results of the review as soon as possible, hopefully in 8 weeks. The Editors’ decision is final and no correspondence can be entered into concerning manuscripts considered unsuitable for publication in this journal. All correspondence, including notification of the Editors’ decision and requests for revisions, will be sent by email.

Peer Review Process
Manuscripts will undergo a very stringent double-blind peer-review process, where both the identities of authors and reviewers remain undisclosed in order to guarantee the highest quality of the journal. All manuscripts (except for Editorials, Commentaries, and Book Reviews) will be sent out for review and at least two review reports per manuscript will be collected.

How does it work?
When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it is assessed to see if it meets the criteria for submission. If it does, the editorial team will select potential peer reviewers within the field of research to peer-review the manuscript and make recommendations.

Peer Review Speed
Step 1: Submission
Step 2: Initial Review Editor (1-2 Weeks)
Step 3: Peer review (2-4 Weeks)
Step 4: Decision After Peer Review (1 Week) | Rejected, Major Revision, Minor Revision |
Step 5: Revision (2 – 4 Weeks)
Step 6: Final Decision (2 Week) | Letter of Acceptance (LoA |
Step 7: Production (Layout and Proofread, 1-2 Weeks)
Step 8: Online

Decision
After being reviewed, there will be four kinds of editor decision based on reviewers’ recommendation:
Accept Submission: The submission will be accepted without revisions.
Revisions Required: The submission will be accepted after minor changes have been made.
Resubmit for Review: The submission needs to be re-worked, but with significant changes, may be accepted. It will require a second round of review, however.
Decline Submission: The submission will not be published in the journal.

Guidelines for editors and reviewers

Posted on by

Guidelines for editors and reviewers

The Editorial Board consists of international experts in their fields. All members of the Board occupy the positions in educational and research institutions. The roles of the Editorial Board members are the following:

  • provide expertise in definite research field;
  • judge the submitted manuscripts and involve in the process independent reviewers;
  • advise on journal policy and scope and participate in the journal development;
  • propose subject definition and conference choice for special issues. Also, editorial members may be guest editors of special issue;
  • promote the journal at conferences, seminars, workshops, and relevant public events;
  • attract new potential authors.

Guest editors play a vital role in ensuring the quality of special content publications, such as Special Issues. Guest editors overlook the process, from proposal to publication.

The Editorial Board is reviewed every two years, which means exclusion of inactive members and addition of the new ones.

We appreciate applications from the editorial candidates. To submit an application, please send an e-mail to a Managing Editor of the selected journal and attach a file with your CV (containing the current place of work, occupation, education, the scope of your scientific interest, types of activity, list of publications, list of the journals in which you occupy the positions of an editor or a reviewer, e-mail for contact and a link to personal page at you university).

Duties of editors

We strongly recommend that Editors get acquainted with and follow COPE Core practices.

The editors of the journal are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal will be published. The editor may confer with the members of the Editorial Board in making this decision.

Fair play. The editors evaluate manuscripts without regard to the nature of the authors or the host institution including race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality. The editors, members of the Editorial Boards, and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone except the authors of the paper, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the publisher, for appropriate reasons.

Disclosure. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper should not be used in the own research of the editors or the members of the Editorial Board without the express written consent of the author.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Imperium Research Institute clearly understands the importance of an effective peer review process when authors choose to submit their manuscripts to one of our journals. We try hard to establish and sustain peer-review integrity on every journal and a vital part of this means ensuring that reviewers have the appropriate resources to carry out their work as efficiently and effectively as possible. The reviewing process varies from journal to journal, but this guide serves as an overview of what’s involved when becoming a reviewer with Imperium Research Institute.

We strongly recommend that our reviewers are familiar with and follow COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Potential reviewers should provide personal and professional information that is accurate and a fair representation of their expertise, including verifiable and accurate contact information.

During the peer review process, Referee Report preparation, and after reviewing we expect from our reviewers following:

1. Confidentiality

  • In order to maintain the integrity of the review process, the reviewers shouldn’t discuss the reviewed manuscript with anyone without specific permission from the Editor.
  • The reviewers are welcome to solicit input from one or two colleagues in performing the review, but this should only be done with explicit permission from the Editor. In addition, colleagues’ (with names and affiliations) involvement should be mentioned in the Comments to Editors section of the Referee Report.
  • The reviewers shouldn’t copy, disseminate, or share information, concerning the manuscript for any purpose (including advancement of their own research).
  • If any clarifications from the author/authors are needed, they should be included into the Comments section of the Referee Report.

2. Standards of objectivity

Reviewers should be objective while conducting reviews. All the comments and recommendations should be supported with relevant arguments.

3. Timeliness

  • It is necessary to respond to an invitation to peer review within a reasonable time-frame.
  • If the reviewers feel qualified to assess a particular manuscript, they should agree to review only in case of possibility to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame.
  • The reviews should be completed by the deadline indicated in invitation. If any difficulties arise that may prevent from submitting the Referee Report in time, the reviewers are obliged to contact the Handling Editor immediately.

4. Competing interests

  • It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender and/or other characteristics of the authors, origin of a manuscript or by commercial considerations.
  • We kindly ask our reviewers to reveal any potential competing interest that may bias the review of the submitted manuscript (including any financial interest in the publication or non-publication of the manuscript; a recent or ongoing collaboration with the authors; a history of dispute with the authors).
  • If the reviewer is currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or has been recent (e.g., within the past 3 years) mentors, close collaborators or joint grant holders, the invitation of the manuscript reviewing should be rejected.
  • The reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no real intention of submitting a Referee Report.
  • The reviewers are not precluded from reviewing the manuscript because of previously reviewing a version of it for another journal. However, this should be noted in the Comments to Editors section.