All submitted research articles are assessed by our Review board and Editorial board members utilizing two fold dazzle associate evaluation process so as to avoid plagiarism.(irijsh) set quality standards for the acceptance of appropriate and most effective research articles. It expects from authors that they will check their compositions for written falsification test and determine they are submitting just extraordinary content for publication.

Researchers should conduct their research from research proposal to publication in line with best practices and codes of conduct of relevant professional bodies and/or national and international regulatory bodies. In rare cases it is possible that ethical issues or misconduct could be encountered in your journal when research is submitted for publication.

The ethics statement for journal is based on those by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org

Publication Ethics as Editors' Responsibilities

This journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record. As a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) the journal will follow the COPE guidelines on how to deal with potential acts of misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant even if it is discovered years after publication.

1. The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions.
2. 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.
3. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
4. An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should reuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
8. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.
9. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations. Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.
10. The manuscript should not be submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration.
11. The submitted work should be original and should not have been published elsewhere in any form or language (partially or in full), unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work. (Please provide transparency on the re-use of material to avoid the concerns about text-recycling ('self-plagiarism').
12. A single study should not be split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time (i.e. 'salami-slicing/publishing').
13. Concurrent or secondary publication is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. Examples include: translations or a manuscript that is intended for a different group of readers.
14. Results should be presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation (including image based manipulation). Authors should adhere to discipline-specific rules for acquiring, selecting and processing data.
15. No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the author's own ('plagiarism'). Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given (this includes material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarized and/or paraphrased), quotation marks (to indicate words taken from another source) are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions secured for material that is copyrighted.

Journal may use software to screen for plagiarism.

16. Authors should make sure they have permissions for the use of software, questionnaires/(web) surveys and scales in their studies (if appropriate).
17. Authors should avoid untrue statements about an entity (who can be an individual person or a company) or descriptions of their behavior or actions that could potentially be seen as personal attacks or allegations about that person.
18. Research that may be misapplied to pose a threat to public health or national security should be clearly identified in the manuscript (e.g. dual use of research). Examples include creation of harmful consequences of biological agents or toxins, disruption of immunity of vaccines, unusual hazards in the use of chemicals, weaponization of research/technology (amongst others).
19. Authors are strongly advised to ensure the author group, the Corresponding Author, and the order of authors are all correct at submission. Adding and/or deleting authors during the revision stages is generally not permitted, but in some cases may be warranted. Reasons for changes in authorship should be explained in detail. Please note that changes to authorship cannot be made after acceptance of a manuscript.

Publication Ethics as Article Reviewers

1. Reviewers should assist in improving the quality of a submitted article by reviewing the manuscript with care, consideration and objectivity, in a timely manner.
2. Reviewers should inform the journal editor of any published or submitted content that is similar to the material under review, or any suspected plagiarism.
3. Reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest relating to a specific article or author.
4. Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of any information or material supplied during the review process.
5. Providing a detailed, constructive, and unbiased evaluation in a timely manner on the scientific content of the work.
6. Indicating whether the writing is relevant, concise & clear and evaluating the originality and scientific accuracy.
7. Maintaining the confidentiality of the complete review process.
8. Notifying the journal editor about any financial or personal conflict of interest and declining to review the manuscript when a possibility of such a conflict exists.
9. Notifying the journal editor of any ethical concerns in their evaluation of submitted manuscripts; such as any violation of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or any considerable similarity between the previously published article and any reviewed manuscript.

(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.)

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. We shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author 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 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 of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not 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.

Publication Ethics As Journal Authors

1. Authors should declare that all work in their submitted piece is original, and cite content from other sources appropriately to avoid plagiarism.
2. Authors must ensure their contribution does not contain any libellous matter or infringe any copyright or other intellectual property rights or any other rights of any third party.
3. The listing of authors should accurately reflect who carried out the research and wrote the article, and the order of authorship should be jointly determined by all of the co-authors.
4. All authors should be aware of the submission of their paper to the journal and agree to the main author signing an IPR form on their behalf.
5. Authors should ensure that their manuscript as submitted is not under consideration (or accepted for publication) elsewhere. Where sections of the manuscript overlap with published or submitted content, this should be acknowledged and cited.
6. Authors should obtain permission to reproduce any content from third-party sources (text and images).Unfortunately, the Press is unable to publish third-party content for which permission has not been obtained (excluding content covered by fair dealing).
7. The source of funding for a research project should be listed on all funded research papers. Other sources of support (including funding for Open Access article processing charges) should also be clearly identified in the manuscript, typically in an acknowledgement.
8. Authors should declare any potential conflicts of interest relating to a specific article.
9. Authors should inform the editor or publisher if there is a significant error in their published piece, and work with the editor to publish an erratum, addendum or retraction where necessary.
10. Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions.