Publication ethics in ARCC Journals refer to the ethical standards, policies, and guidelines set to ensure the integrity, quality, and validity of published research in science. These ethical standards aim to promote honesty, transparency, and accountability among authors, editors, reviewers, publishers, and readers. 

These guidelines aim to promote the integrity, transparency, and reliability of scientific research, ensure that it is conducted ethically and with appropriate rigor, and prevent any misconduct or ethical violations. 

Each section is expanded upon with specific information, examples, and instructions relevant to ARCC journal and the field of academic research. Here is a detailed description of the key aspects of publication ethics in ARCC Journal:

1. Author Responsibilities/Authorship 

2. Plagiarism and Originality

3. Peer-review Policy and Process 

4. Editorial Policies / Role of Editors 

5. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewer 

6. Transparency

7. Data Manipulation/Quality/Security

8. The Conflict of Interest

9. The Scientific Misconduct

10. Informed Consent

11. Retractions and Corrections

12. The Duplicate Submission Policy

13. Open access

14. Copyright & Licensing

15. Article Processing Charges (APC) 

16. The Redundant Publication Policy

17. Sanctions

18. Support

Authorship criteria: Authors should only be listed on a manuscript if they have made a significant contribution to the research and the writing of the manuscript. All authors should agree to the final version of the manuscript and its submission for publication.

Order of authorship: The order of authorship should reflect the level of contribution made by each author. The first author should be the person who made the most significant contribution to the research and writing of the manuscript.

Authorship disputes: Any disputes regarding authorship should be resolved including situations where authors disagree about the order of authorship or the extent of their contributions 

Authorship should be based on substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. All authors should be involved in drafting or revising the manuscript and should have approved the final version. Contributors who do not meet these criteria should be acknowledged.

ARCC Journals is committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in publishing. Plagiarism, in any form, is a serious violation of academic integrity and will not be tolerated. This policy outlines the procedures and actions taken to prevent, detect, and address plagiarism in manuscripts submitted to ARCC Journals.

Definition of Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the unethical practice of using another author’s work, ideas, or words without proper acknowledgment. It includes, but is not limited to:

• Direct Plagiarism: Copying text verbatim from another source without citation.
• Self-Plagiarism: Republishing one’s own previously published work without significant modifications or citation.
• Mosaic Plagiarism: Paraphrasing another author’s work without proper citation.
• Fabrication & Falsification: Making up or altering research data or findings.
• Image/Graph Manipulation: Modifying visual content in a misleading way without disclosure.

Plagiarism Detection Using Turnitin

To ensure originality, all submitted manuscripts undergo a Turnitin Similarity Check before the peer-review process. The following guidelines are used:

• Similarity Score Below 10% – Considered acceptable, minor revisions may be suggested if necessary.
• Similarity Score 10-20% – Requires revision with proper citation and paraphrasing. The author will be asked to correct the overlap before further processing.
• Similarity Score Above 20% – The manuscript will be rejected or returned for significant revision. The author must provide a revised version with clear changes and a justification letter.
• Similarity Above 40% – Immediate rejection due to high plagiarism. The author may be blacklisted from future submissions.

Consequences of Plagiarism

Depending on the severity of plagiarism, the following actions will be taken:

• Minor Overlaps (10-20%) – Authors will be asked to revise and resubmit.
• Moderate Plagiarism (20-40%) – The manuscript will be returned for major revisions or rejected.
• Severe Plagiarism (>40%) – Immediate rejection and blacklisting. A formal notice will be sent to the author’s institution.
• Plagiarism After Publication – If plagiarism is detected post-publication, the article will be retracted, and a notice will be published in the journal. The author may face a publication ban for future submissions.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must ensure that:

• The manuscript is their original work and has not been published or submitted elsewhere.
• Proper citations and references are included for all sources.
• Permission is obtained for any third-party content (figures, tables, or text excerpts).
• Self-plagiarism is minimized by avoiding excessive reuse of previous works.

Responsibilities of Reviewers & Editors

• Editors and peer reviewers must carefully scrutinize manuscripts for signs of plagiarism.
• If plagiarism is suspected, the manuscript will be referred for a detailed review and cross-checked using Turnitin reports.
• If necessary, external plagiarism-checking tools may be used to validate the findings.

Appeals & Retraction Policy

Authors who believe their manuscript was unfairly rejected due to plagiarism concerns may appeal by providing:

• A detailed explanation addressing the plagiarism concerns.
• A revised manuscript with proper citations.

If a published article is found to contain plagiarism, ARCC Journals will issue a retraction notice and notify relevant institutions and databases.

Ethical Compliance Statement

Authors, reviewers, and editors must comply with ARCC Journals’ ethical publishing policies. Any violation of this policy may result in disciplinary actions, including permanent ban from submission and reporting to institutional authorities.

The peer review process has several benefits. Firstly, it ensures that research published in reputable journals is of high quality and free from errors or biases. Secondly, it helps to maintain the integrity of the scientific process by ensuring that research is rigorously evaluated by independent experts in the field. Finally, it helps to advance knowledge in the field by providing a platform for the dissemination of new and innovative research findings.

The peer review process is an essential aspect of publishing research articles in ARCC journals. It helps to ensure that research published in these journals is of high quality, accurate, and free from errors or biases. The process is conducted by independent experts in the field who have the necessary expertise to evaluate the scientific merit of the article. While the process can be time-consuming, it is an important step in advancing knowledge in the field and maintaining the integrity of the scientific process.

At ARCC’s website it’s clearly stated that it is a peer-reviewed journal. The peer-review process and its associated policies are clearly explained on the ARCC website. 

ARCC journals give importance to the role of editors as it is the only method of ensuring the quality of the journal by making fruitful relations with authors, and reviewers and adhering here to high-value responsibilities towards Editorial Board Members.

Editors play a critical role in maintaining publication ethics. They should be aware of the latest guidelines, ensure that the journal policies are followed, and make unbiased editorial decisions.

Editors in ARCC Journals play a vital role in ensuring that the published research is of high quality, relevant to the field, and adheres to ethical standards. They are responsible for managing the entire publication process, from the initial submission of manuscripts to the final publication of research articles

At Agricultural Research Communication Centre (ARCC) double-blind peer-review process has been followed for the last 50 years to maintain the quality of the journals and our reviewers ensure this by devoting quality time and valuable feedback to each manuscript submitted. 

The role of reviewers is an important one in many different fields, including academia, publishing, and product development. Reviewers are typically experts in their respective fields who are tasked with evaluating and providing feedback on the work of others. In ARCC Journals, peer review is a critical part of the publication process. Reviewers play a key role in this process by evaluating manuscripts submitted for publication and providing feedback to authors and editors.

The role of reviewers is a critical one in many different fields. Reviewers play a key role in maintaining high standards of quality, providing feedback to authors and developers, upholding ethical standards, and ensuring that deadlines are met.

Transparency is another imperative part of the publication process but is often neglected.

The authors, peer reviewers, and the editor-in-chief together make the task of publishing the journal a smooth process. The disclosure of the research from the peer reviews and actions taken by the editor on those reports ease conflicts properly.

This proper analysis of the report lets the author and the editor publish a systematic and effective report on a scientific subject.

1. Disclosure: Authors should disclose any potential conflicts of interest, funding sources, and affiliations that could influence the interpretation of their findings. 

2. Reproducibility:  Authors should make their data and methods available to others to enable replication and verification of their findings. They should also provide detailed descriptions of their methods and procedures in their manuscripts.

3. Confidentiality and privacy: ARCC Journals ensure that authors and reviewers are aware of the confidentiality and privacy policies of the journal, and that any personal or sensitive information is protected.

4. Transparency in funding: Authors should disclose the sources of funding for their research, including any financial or other conflicts of interest that may influence their work.

5. Transparency in peer review process: ARCC Journals provide transparency in their peer review process by making it clear to authors, reviewers, and readers about the process followed, criteria for review, and information about the reviewers.

Data Manipulation, fabrication, or falsification, are the terms that signify how the content of the research work is manipulated. It is done in the text, images, and/or other relevant documents, and is unethical by all means.

To do this in graphics, a part of the image is cropped and altered to infringe the copyright. Then an attempt is made to duplicate the visual information with a unique identity.

Researchers should avoid manipulating or fabricating data to support their findings, and ARCC journals have procedures in place for detecting and addressing any instances of data manipulation or fabrication.

Authors should provide accurate and complete data and methods to enable others to replicate their findings. Research data should be stored and made available for inspection if necessary.

At ARCC journals, we do not approve of any such attempt and demand the information of change in pictures or text at the time of submission by the author.

Our experienced reviewers and editors decipher whether the authors committed any fraud by observing the statistics, P values, tables, odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, etc. Fabrication and falsification are extremely serious offenses in the domain of research.

This policy outlines the principles and guidelines that ARCC Journals follows regarding the collection, processing, storage, and usage of data. Data manipulation refers to any action taken on data, including but not limited to, data entry, analysis, modification, sharing, or deletion. This policy aims to ensure that data is managed in a responsible, ethical, and secure manner, and to protect the privacy and confidentiality of personal and sensitive data.

Data Ownership and Responsibility: All data collected, processed, or stored by ARCC Journals is considered the property of the organization. ARCC Journals is responsible for ensuring that all data is collected and used in compliance with the law and best practices. Authors, reviewers, and editors have a duty to protect the data entrusted to them and must not disclose it to unauthorized parties.

Data Privacy and Confidentiality: ARCC Journals is committed to protecting the privacy and confidentiality of personal and sensitive data. Authors, reviewers, and editors must ensure that personal and sensitive data is not disclosed to unauthorized parties, and that it is used only for legitimate purposes. ARCC Journals obtain explicit consent from data subjects before collecting, processing, or storing their personal and sensitive data.

Data Quality: ARCC Journals is committed to ensuring that data is accurate, complete, and up-to-date. Authors, reviewers, and editors must ensure that the data they submit, review, or edit is accurate and complete, and must take steps to correct any errors or inconsistencies. ARCC Journals establish quality control measures to ensure that the data collected meets the standards of scientific and scholarly research.

Data Retention and Disposal: ARCC Journals retain data only for as long as necessary to fulfill its legitimate purposes or legal obligations. ARCC Journals established policies and procedures for the secure disposal of data, including data deletion or destruction. Authors, reviewers, and editors must comply with these policies and procedures.

Data Access and Usage: Access to data must be restricted to authorized personnel only, and data must be used only for legitimate purposes. Authors, reviewers, and editors must comply with access controls and data usage restrictions. ARCC Journals established policies and procedures for granting and revoking data access, and monitor data usage to detect and prevent unauthorized access or misuse.

Data Security: ARCC Journals implements appropriate technical and organizational measures to protect data from unauthorized access, theft, or loss. Authors, reviewers, and editors must comply with data security policies and procedures. ARCC Journals have security controls, such as firewalls, antivirus software, and intrusion detection systems, to protect data from security breaches. In case of data breaches, ARCC Journals have a plan in place to respond promptly and effectively to minimize the impact.

Data Governance: ARCC Journals creates policies and procedures for managing data effectively across the organization. ARCC Journals set up a data governance team responsible for data management, including data classification, data storage, and data archiving. ARCC Journals ensure that data governance policies are enforced, and that data quality is measured and audited regularly.

Consequences of Violation: ARCC Journals takes violations of this policy seriously and may take disciplinary action against authors, reviewers, or editors who violate this policy. Violations may result in the rejection of the manuscript, legal action, or other consequences.

All authors, reviewers, and editors must comply with this policy to ensure that data is managed in a responsible, ethical, and secure manner. ARCC Journals set up policies and procedures to enforce this policy, and must regularly review and update them to reflect changes in data processing, storage, and usage practices, as well as changes in legal and regulatory requirements.

If editors and/or reviewers suspect any form of misconduct, they have the right to ask authors to reveal the raw datasheets to confirm or eliminate the submission.

Also, editors may ask for the datasheets post-publication if significant doubt arises. Therefore, all data from the study should be protected for a long period of time.

There can be several conflicts of interest that can, unfortunately, harm the quality of the journal. These can be personal, professional, or financial. ARCC journal declares any conflict of interest before the publishing process thereby eliminating them in the first place.

Editors and reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest and should avoid situations that could create conflicts of interest. Authors should also declare any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the interpretation of their findings.

ARCC Journals have procedures in place for resolving conflicts between authors, reviewers, and editors. This includes addressing any allegations of misconduct or ethical violations and taking appropriate action.

Conflict of interest do not always stop the article from being published or prevent reviewer from being involved in the review process. Conflict of interest is a feature that is not visible to the reader or editor but may influence/affect his/her judgment. However, they must be declared and clearly mentioned all possible conflicts.

At our publishing company, we take conflicts of interest very seriously. We believe that maintaining transparency and avoiding conflicts of interest is crucial in maintaining the integrity of our publications and ensuring that our readers can trust the information we provide.

To that end, we have established the following policies regarding conflicts of interest:

1. Disclosure: All authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest related to the publication of their work. This includes any financial or personal relationships that could potentially bias the content of the publication.

2. Evaluation: Our editors will evaluate any disclosed conflicts of interest and determine if they present a potential threat to the integrity of the publication. If a conflict of interest is identified, the editor will work with the author(s) to address the issue and determine the best course of action, which may include additional disclosure or recusal.

3. Review: Our peer review process includes a thorough evaluation of the potential for conflicts of interest. Reviewers are instructed to notify our editors of any concerns they have regarding potential conflicts of interest, and our editors will take appropriate action to address these concerns.

4. Editorial Independence: Our editors will not permit any outside influence to affect editorial decisions. This includes pressure from authors, sponsors, advertisers, or any other external party. We maintain the editorial independence necessary to make objective decisions about the content we publish.

5. Transparency: We will disclose any conflicts of interest associated with our publications to our readers. We believe that transparency is key to maintaining the trust of our readers and ensuring that our publications are viewed as credible and trustworthy sources of information.

We take conflicts of interest very seriously and will do everything in our power to avoid them. If a conflict of interest is identified, we will take immediate steps to address the issue and maintain the integrity of our publications.

Conflict of interest signifies situations where the unbiasedness of the findings may be compromised because the researcher is profiting in some way from the conclusions they observe.

Some examples of conflicts of interest:

• Research grants from funding agencies
• Honorarium for speaking at a symposium
• Monetary support for educational initiatives
• Employment
• Affiliations

 
Some non-financial factors that harm the research work and create biases in the same are:

• Recognition
• Career progress
• Support for colleagues and/or friends
• Support for a superior position

These factors when hidden can harm effective decision-making unhealthy interventions look safer and more useful than they are.

In summary, rather than considering authorship conflicts as rare events and dealing with them on a case-by-case basis, the ARCC editors and researchers should view them as predictable, preventable, and soluble.

ARCC Journals always try their best to provide effective conflict resolution services that can provide great help to research communities, especially their neediest members.

Researchers should follow ethical guidelines when conducting research, including obtaining informed consent from human subjects, using animals in research only when necessary and in accordance with ethical standards, and avoiding any misconduct or unethical behavior.

The identification process of and dealing with research misconduct issues: The editors at ARCC are fully committed to taking the required steps to identify and halt the publication of papers where there is research misconduct such as citation manipulation, plagiarism, and data falsification/fabrication. In no case shall ARCC or its editors support such malpractice, or allow it to take place.

A peer review reveals chances of misconduct and editors must inform peer reviewers about this possibility.

In case the peer reviewers raise issues of serious misconduct (falsification, data fabrication, plagiarism, or image manipulation), they mustn’t be taken lightly. This includes investigating any allegations of misconduct and taking appropriate action, such as retracting published articles or banning authors from future publication. However, the authors hold the right to respond to such blames and for investigations to be undertaken quickly and properly.

At our publishing company, we take scientific misconduct very seriously. We are committed to ensuring that the research we publish is conducted with integrity and adheres to the highest ethical standards. To that end, we have established the following policies regarding scientific misconduct:

1. Plagiarism: Plagiarism is strictly prohibited in all of our publications. All submissions are checked for plagiarism using advanced software, and any instances of plagiarism will result in the rejection or retraction of the publication.

2. Falsification of Data: Falsification of data is considered scientific misconduct and is strictly prohibited. All authors are expected to present accurate and truthful data in their submissions, and any instance of data falsification will result in the rejection or retraction of the publication.

3. Fabrication of Data: Fabrication of data is considered scientific misconduct and is strictly prohibited. All authors are expected to present data that has been collected through valid and reliable means, and any instance of data fabrication will result in the rejection or retraction of the publication.

4. Authorship: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the research. All authors must meet the criteria for authorship, and all contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgments section.

5. Conflicts of Interest: All authors must disclose any conflicts of interest related to the research they are submitting for publication. This includes any financial or personal relationships that could potentially bias the research.

6. Retraction: If scientific misconduct is discovered after publication, we will take immediate action to retract the publication. We will also notify relevant parties, including funding agencies, institutions, and other publishers, of the misconduct.

ARCC Journals do not investigate the allegations themselves, but editors are responsible to alert appropriate departments such as funders, employers, regulatory authorities, etc., and prompting them to look into the matter. ARCC Journals may report research misconduct to appropriate authorities, including academic institutions and funding agencies.

We will do everything in our power to ensure that the research we publish is conducted with integrity and adheres to the highest ethical standards. If scientific misconduct is discovered, we will take immediate action to address the issue and maintain the integrity of our publications.

One of the most important areas of ethical consideration is the obtaining of informed consent from subjects participating in research. This issue, of course, is one in which ethical committees have a vital interest.

Researchers should obtain informed consent from human subjects before collecting any data. This includes explaining the purpose of the study, the procedures involved, and any potential risks or benefits of participation.

1. Respect for participants and subjects: Researchers should respect the dignity, privacy, and welfare of the animal and human subjects and should obtain informed consent before collecting data. They should also ensure that the research is conducted in accordance with ethical guidelines and does not harm human or animal subjects.

2. Ethical approval: Researchers should obtain ethical approval from relevant ethical review boards or committees before conducting research involving human or animal subjects. ARCC Journals may also require authors to provide evidence of ethical approval.

3. Animal welfare: Researchers should follow ethical guidelines when using animals in research, including minimizing any potential harm or distress to the animals and obtaining ethical approval from relevant committees.

4. Exemption: We recognize that there may be instances where obtaining informed consent is not possible or practical, such as in cases of retrospective data analysis. In such cases, authors must provide justification for the exemption and demonstrate that alternative measures have been taken to protect the rights and privacy of study participants.

5. Review: We require that all submissions involving human subjects be reviewed by an institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee prior to submission. This ensures that the study has been conducted ethically and that informed consent has been obtained appropriately.

Studies on volunteers require ethics committee approval and informed consent, which should be documented in the paper, they have a right to privacy that should not be violated without informed consent.

The informed consent form must be written in language easily understood by the subjects, it must minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence, and the subject must be given sufficient time to consider participation. However, informed consent is not merely a form that is signed, but is a process in which the subject has an understanding of the research and its risks, and it is tightly described in ethical codes and regulations for human subject research.

Animal & Human Rights Policy

All papers submitted to ARCC Journals should declare agreement with the following statement of human and animal rights. Authors are requested for doing experiments with the involvement of animals and human subjects by the following facts:

• Field research and other non-experimental research on animals must follow international guidelines and should have been approved.

• In Material and Methods, it should be mentioned that authors have identified the related institutional and licensing committee and have taken approval from the committee for their experiments and all experiments should be conducted in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

• Experiments and research that involve human subjects must be confirmed and consent should be obtained from all the participants.

We take informed consent very seriously and will do everything in our power to ensure that research involving human and animal subjects is conducted ethically and in accordance with the highest ethical standards. If informed consent has not been obtained appropriately, we will reject the submission or require that the authors make revisions to ensure that informed consent has been obtained properly.

At our research journal, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of accuracy and integrity in the research we publish. We understand that errors, omissions, or other issues may arise that require correction or retraction of published material. To that end, we have established the following policies regarding correction and retraction:

Correction

We will publish corrections to errors or omissions in published material as soon as possible. Authors or readers who identify errors or omissions in published material should notify us immediately. We will investigate the issue and publish a correction or erratum as appropriate.

If, after reading the guidelines, authors believe a correction or retraction is necessary for the complete published article, it is the responsibility of authors to notify us as soon as possible, especially if it affects the interpretation of data or reliability of information presented and that too with the consent of all the authors presented in the article.

Letter of changes or corrections after publication will be linked with the original article which is accessible to readers. Changes may be attached in the form of a Corrigendum, Correction, Retraction, and in rare circumstances a Removal.

The correction procedure depends on the processing and publication stage of the article, following are some circumstances:

Reprints/Galley Proof

In the maximum number of times, all the errors and corrections were carried out at the time of re-prints and sent to the author for final corrections before publication. It was clearly mentioned in the email which includes the final reprints PDF file of the manuscript that no further changes will be done after generating the DOI of the article.

Our Editors work hard to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. For this reason, mostly no changes will be done in case of minor corrections like typographical errors or other minor issues that do not substantively impact the article’s scientific integrity, understanding, or indexing.

Online First publication (publication-in-progress)

Sometimes author requested to make necessary changes after the online publication of the article. This may be done after consideration and approval by the Editors and that should be according to guidelines.

In the Online first article, if there are major errors or corrections or it is informed by the author after the DOI generation and online publication of the article, then it may be modified and the article DOI will be updated with the latest version before print publication.

A correction notice will be published online and linked to the article.

The author has to provide a detailed statement and proof for any correction at this time of publication stage with the consent of all the other authors of the article. 

Retractions

A Retraction notice will be issued where a major mistake invalidates the conclusions or affect the interpretation of data in the manuscript. The retraction appeal should have been received before the specified commenting deadline.

Appeals are considered by the ARCC Journal’s editorial team and may be discussed with the journal’s Editor(s)-in-Chief, Editor, Editorial Board Members, and/or with the article’s external reviewer.

Decisions on retraction and Expression of Concern appeals are final. We will not consider further rounds of appeal.

The decision to issue a retraction for an article will be made in accordance with journal guidelines and it may be done in the following circumstances:

• If the Editor found that there is research misconduct or publication misconduct has taken place.
• Fabrication of data
• If the research or findings have previously been published in some other publication without permission or justification.
• Where there is fraudulent authorship.
• In case research constitutes plagiarism more than the allowed percentage.
• If the Editor found evidence of unethical research.
• The integrity of research may also be compromised by an inappropriate methodology that could lead to retraction.

An investigation will be held by the editorial staff in collaboration with the reviewer and editors. Authors and institutions may request a retraction of their articles if their reasons meet the criteria for retraction.

We will be transparent about any corrections or retractions that we publish. We will clearly identify the corrections or retractions in the publication and explain the reasons for the correction or retraction. After the decision to retract has been taken an article will add a footnote or watermark to the published article. It may also issue a retraction statement separately. It will be available in the online issue of that journal. The PDF may be removed or replaced with an updated version watermarked with “Retracted.”

Retracted articles cannot be published elsewhere because it is retracted for a major reason and is not appropriate for inclusion in the scientific literature anywhere.

Depending on how long an item has been published, it may have been included in indexing databases or crawled by search engines. Some indexing and abstracting services will require submitting a request to make any changes to the metadata and it may take time to take effect.

We will notify the authors of any corrections or retractions and work with them to address the issue. We will also notify readers of the publication of any corrections or retractions.

We maintain a record of all corrections and retractions and make this information available to the public.

Article Processing Charges (APCs) will not be refunded in case of retraction.

Removal of an Article

In exceptional circumstances, the situation for removal of the article arises. It only occurs if the problem or errors are very serious in nature and cannot be addressed by a Correction, Withdrawal, or Retraction notice.  The article may be removed in rare circumstances such as:

• If the content of the article contains serious errors or there is a risk if followed for further process.
• If the manuscript is subject to a court order or against legal authority.
• If the manuscript is defamatory or breaches other legal rights.
• If text contains a risk to the personal privacy of someone or to a third party’s legal rights.
• In case of duplicate publication in which the same content duplicates previously published content.

In case of an article is removed from ARCC Journals while the title, author list, and article metadata remain available, a removal notice will be issued in its place.

Article Withdrawal

We gave options to the author for making a request to withdraw the article after submission or during the review process only if the author gave valid reasons and provide valid proof or statement for withdrawing the article. Requests are considered by the ARCC Journal’s editorial team, and may be discussed with the journal’s, Editor, Editorial Board Members, and/or with an article’s external reviewer.

The most article is withdrawn due to multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, or the like).

Request for withdrawing the article after acceptance or after generating DOI will not be considered as per the guidelines of the journal.

APC will not be refunded in case of withdrawal after acceptance of the article.

Article replacement (Publication of Previously Retracted Work)

Sometimes authors are able to resolve all the issues for retraction decisions and wish to pursue republication in the journal, they should contact the journal editorial committee and inquire about guidelines or requirements for submissions of previously retracted work. Unresolved concerns of potential misconduct will not be considered for republication.

A revised version of the retracted manuscript will be peer-reviewed again before consideration and a new DOI will be generated.

The prior version of the article is archived; this archive may be directly accessible to readers. Previous electronic versions will prominently note that there are more recent versions of the article.

The original article, retraction statement, and updated version of the article will be available as related content on journal web pages.

Extra APC may be charged for resubmission and republication through a peer-review process.

Post-publication corrections and updates: ARCC Journals provide mechanisms for correcting errors or updating information in published articles. This includes issuing errata or providing updated information in subsequent publications.

Duplicate submission is another misconduct in the scientific journals’ domain. In this malpractice, the authors increase the frequency of the research paper by using the same text, images, and manuscripts but with different titles. 

As a result, thousands of research are rejected by editors and/or reviewers every year. To avoid this, the ARCC journals accept unique articles.

Why is Duplicate Submission a problem?

• It violates copyright, and copyright lies not with authors but with the journal. The authors can’t republish the paper.
• It distorts empirical evidence as researchers studying the subject commit the error of counting the same set of research twice.
• It is also a form of ‘Self-Plagiarism’ as it is using material from other work without permission and/or attribution.
• It is a waste of editorial and reviews resources.
• It stops the authors to publish their work by illegally acquiring journal space.
• It signifies poor scholarship and also that study doesn’t contribute much to literature.

Do’s and Don’ts for Authors 

• Do not copy content even from your previously published papers.
• Do not release reports about unpublished papers anywhere (companies, agencies, etc.) without the permission of the journal.
• When quoting parts from your previously published works, do not use more than a few sentences. Also, make sure to put the text in quotation marks and mention the source.
• When writing more than one manuscript using a single dataset, make sure that:
• Every manuscript addresses important queries.
• The manuscripts are cross-checked.
• The journal editors get prior information in a cover letter from your end.
• If you have published related work, provide details (including its copies with the manuscript) of that to the journal editor before submission. This process will help in full transparency and will also let the editor make the correct decision.

We believe that submitting the same work to multiple publishers simultaneously is not only unethical but also a waste of resources and can compromise the integrity of the scientific record. To that end, we have established the following policies regarding duplicate submissions:

1. Exclusive Submission: We require that all submissions be exclusive to our company and that authors do not submit the same work to other publishers simultaneously. If a submission has been previously published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere, the authors must disclose this information during the submission process.

2. Relevance: We require that authors submit only original work that has not been previously published or accepted for publication elsewhere. We do not accept submissions that contain duplicate or overlapping content, including manuscripts that have been split into multiple parts.

3. Review: We use advanced software to detect duplicate submissions and overlapping content. If duplicate submissions are identified, we will reject the submission and notify the authors. If overlapping content is identified, we will work with the authors to revise the submission appropriately.

4. Retraction: If a duplicate publication is discovered after publication, we will take immediate action to retract the publication. We will also notify relevant parties, including funding agencies, institutions, and other publishers, of the duplicate publication.

At our research journal, we believe that open access to research is crucial in advancing scientific knowledge and promoting innovation. We are committed to providing unrestricted access to the research we publish and have established various policies regarding open access. 

We are committed to open access to research and will continue to work towards making research more accessible to everyone.

Authors should ensure that they have the right to use any copyrighted material included in their manuscript, and they should obtain permission and provide appropriate attribution for any such material. Journals should also respect the intellectual property rights of authors and provide guidance on copyright issues.

It allows the creator of a work to decide if and in what conditions, their work may be used, published, and distributed by anyone. In short, it determines how others can use, publish, and sell articles.

Having a complete understanding of copyright options as the creator has become more important than ever, especially with the trend of open-access publishing.

At our research journal, we believe that open access to research is crucial in advancing scientific knowledge and promoting innovation. 

We are committed to open access to research and believe that our APC policies are fair and transparent. We will continue to work towards making research more accessible to everyone while maintaining the quality and integrity of our publications.

The ARCC journals according to its Redundant Publication Policy define it as the practice of duplicating or attempting to publish a work multiple times.

At ARCC, everyone believes that this practice is a wastage of time and energy despite having highly talented and experienced people at various levels of the organization. 

The knowledge and vision of the peer reviewers are wasted by publishing the same material again and again. Sometimes the author does it on purpose to inflate scientific merits leading to the ignorance of valuable journals owing to the lack of time.

The Effect on Meta-Analysis

Medical guidelines are mainly based on reviews that monitor literature on a specific topic and make an objective assessment. When several studies are published on treatment, the techniques of meta-analysis may be used to combine the results.

If a single study is used in meta-analysis multiple times, it will skew the findings just like counting patients twice in a study.

The Effect on Journal Resources

Finding appropriate peer-reviewers for submission is the biggest challenge for any editor. Peer reviewers are generally not paid but are glad to take time from their work to review the work of others knowing that when they finalize their work, this courtesy will be handed over to them.

This selfless behavior is the foundation of scholarly publication making the time of reviewers of utmost importance.

The Effect on Academic Rewards

Academic productivity is measured by the number of articles a researcher finalizes. To get a degree, funding, or appointment for promotion, researchers need a specific amount of publications. The thought behind this system is that every publication signifies a unique piece of research.

So if the researchers publish the same study multiple times, it will be deemed as an unfair and false practice to enhance a record.

How should journals respond to redundant publications?

The most appropriate response to redundant publication is described clearly in the ARCC flowchart.

In instances of clear and significant redundancy, ARCC recommends that the second version should be shunned. This approach sends a message to the readers and authors that no such behaviour will be tolerated.

Clear cases in which authors publish the same or seemingly the same articles more than once are relatively simple to handle, however, cases of overlap may pose some problems for editors.

If ARCC editor or editorial committee found any breaches in the publication ethics policies of ARCC journals, the below sanctions may be applied to the authors, reviewers, editors, etc.:

• Author may not be allowed for further submission in any of the ARCC Journals.
• User may be blocked to access the content of the website.
• Reviewer or editor may be removed from the panel.
• Rejection of the manuscript in between in process.

ARCC welcome your suggestions, feedback and queries. You may contact us for any clarification and additional information if required. We are always committed to improve our services, user experience and support to the research communities.

ARCC Journals strive to continuously improve their editorial processes and policies to ensure that they are aligned with current best practices in publication ethics and scientific research.