Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement Guidelines for Research Publications

Rabindranath Tagore University Bhopal has a vision & focus on promoting research-driven skill-based education and developing a research culture among students, scholars, and faculty in Rabindranath Tagore University and also other institutions. To convert this focus into practice, many initiatives have been taken. The university follows a code of ethics for publication in research articles, thesis, projects as well as other scholarly documents. University adopts plagiarism report generated by

Turnitin software, which is available to research scholars, faculty and other students conveniently. One such important initiatives is to publish in-house Journals. Following two journals are being published biannually:-

Anusandhan - A six monthly journal on Science, Technology and Management (March & September every year starting from March 2012)

Shodhaytan – A six monthly bilingual (Hindi & English) in house journal on non technical disciplines (June & December year starting from June 2014) Along with these Journals and research thesis, University is fairly involved in publications through publishing house of Rabindranath Tagore Limited, a sister concern.

Objectives of Publication    

• To create a potent platform to publish quality research work, innovations, ideas experiments and reviews/analysis in the field of science, technology, engineering and management
• To promote research driven advancement of knowledge and building research driven culture in Rabindranath Tagore University and other institutes and in turn improve quality of education in general and quality of research in particular.
• To provide opportunity and space to research scholars, budding professionals, students, scientists, industry people and faculty to hone their writing and research talent.
• To enrich and enhance knowledge base, to improve research process and to develop analytical approach researchers and ensure quality articles in the journal.
• To build up research resources and facilities in the university.
• To encourage researchers to do meaningful research with social cause for making it inclusive in broad sense for the society.

DR. CV RAMAN CENTRE FOR SCIENCE COMMUNICATION

The core ideology of this centre is to carry out interdisciplinary research, leading to development in the field of environmental science, and imparting the knowledge pertaining to the field in a suitable manner, in order to create an educational space for students to seek out assistance and training. The centre also takes up issues associated with water, health, energy and food production and carries out significant development practices and thereby makes a scope for positive change. 

• Publication of Thesis, Research papers, Articles, Brief Communication, Communication Arising; Technical Reports, Analysis, Experiment Results, Resources, Reviews, Perspective, Progress Articles and Insight Articles covering all the disciplines
• Establishing high quality peer review services and guidance to improve quality of research and research writings.
• To bring new researchers, experienced scientists and industry people on one plate form for meaningful exchange.
• To cover research from lab to land and institute to society.
  
  

Publication Policy

• The journal will be published twice in a year i.e. last week of March and last week of September.
• Publication will follow a check sequence as per following deadlines
  

  DEADLINE
  ASPECTS	MARCH ISSUE	SEPTEMBER ISSUE
  Last date For Reciept Papers	UP TO 1 JANUARY	UP TO 1 JULY
  Acknowledgment and Suggestions to Authors after Peer Review	30 JANUARY	30 JULY
  Information for Acceptance to Author	20 FEBRUARY	20 AUGUST
  Publication	MARCH LAST WEEK	SEPTEMBER LAST WEEK

• The journal shall contain scholarly research and review articles on Science Technology and Management subjects.
• The publications primary target authors are Researchers, Faculty Members, Students, Scientists and Industry/Corporate Members
• The journal will be published in Print as well as in e-version (online).
• The articles will be subjected to plagiarism check before peer review. If plagiarism is more than 25 percent it will be out right rejected.
• The remarks of Reviewers will be examined in confidence by Editorial Board. The decision of Editorial Board will be binding & final.
• The full text of all the articles will be available online and can be accessed.
• Subscription rate for print version is Rs. 500/- per year which includes postal charges also for both issues.
• Articles of original research work will only be published.
• Format for publication will be as per the format and guidelines provided to authors.
• Expenses on printing and maintenance of website will be borne by the Rabindranath Tagore University Bhopal.
• Two thousand copies of the journal will be printed. Reprinting will be on demand.
• The journal is being published not for any profit making but to promote meaningful research.
• URL for the journal will be a sub domain in the Rabindranath Tagore University Bhopal Website www.rntu.ac.in

Peer Review Policies

1. Generation Information

• (a)Research Papers, Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Communications Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Resources, Reviews, Perspectives, Progress articles and Insight articles will be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.
• (b) If other contributed articles present technical information, may be peer-reviewed at the discretion of the editors.
• c) About the peer-review process, we encourage reviewers to contact us through email.

2. Criteria for Publication

Anusandhan journal receives many more submissions than they can publish. Therefore, we ask peer-reviewers to keep in mind that every paper that is accepted means that another good paper must be rejected. To be published in a Anusandhan journal, a paper should meet following general criteria:

• (a) Research work of quality and unpublished nature.
• (b) Provides strong evidence for its conclusions.
• (c) Novel, Innovative and Meaningful and important to specific field.
• (d) Ideally, interesting to researchers in other related disciplines.
• (e) In general paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field. There should be a discernible reason why the work deserves publication.

3. The Review Process 

All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. The article is subjected to plagiarism check with software available and rejected if plagiarism is beyond 25%. Editor may decide to get article reviewed by more than one levier. Only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. The editors can make a decision based on the reviewers' advice, from among several possibilities.

• (a) Accept, with or without editorial revisions
• (b) Invite the authors to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
• (c) Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission
• (d) Reject outright, typically on grounds of specialist interest, lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.
  
  

4. Post Review- Re-review Process

Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each reviewer and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration.

We may return to reviewers for further advice, particularly in cases where they disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that reviewers should be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that reviewers are usually reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors. When reviewers agree to assess a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions. However, editors will not send a resubmitted paper back to the reviewers if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticisms.

We take reviewers' criticisms seriously; in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one reviewer alone opposes publication, we may consult the other reviewers as to whether s/he is applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional reviewers to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so.

5. Selection of Peer Reviewers
Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience. We check with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review.

6. Access to the Literature by Peer Reviewers

If a reviewer does not have access to any published paper that is necessary for evaluation of a submitted manuscript, the journal will supply the reviewer with a copy.

7. Review Report

The primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision but the review should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the major weaknesses of their manuscript, so that authors can understand needs to be done to improve the manuscript. Confidential comments to the editor are welcome; The ideal review should answer the following questions:

• (a) Who will be interested in reading the paper, and why?
• (b) Are the claims novel? If not, which published papers compromise novelty?
• (c) How much would further work improve it, and how difficult would this be?
• (d) If the manuscript is unacceptable, is it promising for resubmission?

8. Timing

Anusandhan is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask reviewers to respond promptly within the number of days agreed.

9. Anonymity 
We do not release referees' identities to authors or to other reviewers unless a referee voluntarily signs their comments to the authors. Our preference is for referees to remain anonymous throughout the review process and beyond.

10. Peer –Review Publication Policies

All contributions submitted to Anusandhan Journal that are selected for peer review are sent to at least one, but usually two or more, independent reviewers, selected by the editors. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request that the journal excludes one or two individuals or laboratories. The journal sympathetically considers such requests and usually honours them, but the editor's decision on the choice of referees is final.

Editors, authors and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. We cannot, however, guarantee to maintain this confidentiality in the face of a successful legal action to disclose identity.