Malpractice statement

Authors' Duties

1. Authors must ensure that their papers are their unique work.
2. Authors must ensure that the paper has not recently been distributed somewhere else.
3. Authors must affirm that the original copy isn't presently being considered for distribution somewhere else.
4. Authors must take an interest in the evaluation process.
5. Authors are obliged to give withdrawals or adjustments of missteps.
6. All Authors referenced in the paper must have fundamentally added to the examination.
7. Authors must express that all information in the paper are genuine and credible.
8. Authors must tell the editors of any irreconcilable circumstances.
9. Authors must distinguish all sources utilized in the formation of their original copy.
10. Authors must report any mistakes they find in their published paper to the editors.    

Reviewers’ Duties

1. Reviewers should keep all data with respect to papers secret and treat them as advantaged data.
2. Reviews ought to be directed unbiasedly, with no close to home analysis of the author
3. Reviewers should express their perspectives obviously with supporting contentions
4. Reviewers ought to distinguish important published work that has not been refered to by the authors.
5. Reviewers ought to likewise intimate to the Chief editor consideration any generous closeness or cover between the paper viable and some other published paper of which they have individual information.
6. Reviewers ought not to review original copies in which they have irreconcilable situations coming about because of focused, shared, or different connections or associations with any of the creators, organizations, or establishments associated with the papers.

 Editors' Duties

1. Editors have total duty and position to dismiss/acknowledge an article.
2. Editors ought to consistently consider the necessities of the authors and the readers when endeavoring to improve the publication.
3. Editors should ensure the nature of the papers and the respectability of the scholastic record.
4. Editors ought to distribute errata pages or make adjustments when required.
5. Editors ought to have a reasonable image of an examination's financing sources.
6. Editors should base their choices exclusively one the papers' significance, creativity, lucidity and importance to distribution's extension.
7. Editors ought not switch their choices nor topple the ones of past editors without genuine explanation.
8. Editors should protect the obscurity of commentators.
9. Editors ought to guarantee that all examination material they distribute fits in with universally acknowledged moral rules.
10. Editors should possibly acknowledge a paper when sensibly certain.
11. Editors should act on the off chance that they presume wrongdoing, regardless of whether a paper is distributed or unpublished, and make every single sensible endeavor to continue getting goals to the issue.
12. Editors ought not to dismiss papers dependent on doubts; they ought to have confirmation of unfortunate behavior.
13. Editors ought not to permit any irreconcilable circumstances between staff, authors, analysts and board individuals.