Crossmark Policy Page

Doi : https://doi.org/10.24113/CrossmarkPolicyIJOHMN

Crossmark Policy

 Articles published through IJOHMN are permanent.  We provide DOI for each published article, which is permanently available on our journal website.  If an author wants to change or revise the article can send us the revised version of the document.  All the previous versions as well as the current version will be available for its readers for reference. IJOHMN also is a member of Crossref, which provides Crossmark scheme.  It is a multiple publisher initiative scheme, which has advanced a system to provide the current version of a research paper or an article.  By adopting this advanced system, IJOHMN promises its readers to provide the latest version of the research paper and apprise them of any changes made in the article.  A reader can get the current status of an article and also can have additional information about the particular document by clicking on the Crossmark logo.

 

Article Retraction: Infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent or fabricated use of data or the like or similar incidences, the article may be retracted. Occasionally, a retraction will be used to correct errors in submission or publication.

The original article is retained unchanged except for a watermark which is included on each page of the article PDF indicating that it has been “retracted”.

Notice of retraction will be served to the correspondent author with clear information of Title, Issue, and Volume including the link of the published article. 

Correction of Article

Human error is possible at any stage from making a research by author to peer-review to final publication stage.  Those possible mistakes can be corrected and article may be republished with the latest changes made.  Authors may send their corrected versions or editors may also make changes if any unavoidable error is found in the article.  All these amended articles and old versions can be accessed through Crossmark of which we are active members.

Guidelines for Withdrawal of Articles

IJOHMN has deep concerns to maintain the integrity and entirety of the research work for the entire educational fraternity very sincerely. The journal places great importance on the authority of research work after they have been published. Articles which have been published shall remain present, exact and unchanged as far as possible.

In an extremely limited number of cases, it may be necessary to remove a published article from our online platform. This will only happen if an article is clearly defamatory, or infringes others’ legal rights, or where the article is, or we have good reason to expect that it will be, the subject of a court order, or where the article, if acted upon, may pose a serious health risk. In such circumstances, while the metadata (i.e. title and author information) of the article will be retained, the text will be replaced with a screen indicating that the article has been removed for legal or other unavoidable reasons. 

Withdrawn means that the article content (HTML and PDF) is removed and replaced with an HTML page and PDF simply stating that the article has been withdrawn according to the journal’s policy.  

Article Replacement:

Authors of the original paper at times may wish to retract the flawed original and replace it with a corrected version. Under such circumstances, the above procedures for retraction will be followed with the difference that the article retraction notice will contain a link to the corrected re-published article together with a history of the document. 

Allegation of Misconduct and Conflict of Interest Policy:

If there is any allegation of misconduct or conflict of interest regardless of its nature like relationship personal or professional, economical or non-economical among authors, reviewers, editors, journals and publishers:

  • Concern or Issue can be raised or brought to the notice immediately in a written form to the publisher/editor at editor@ijohmn.com.
  • Concern or Issue will be taken seriously and required action will be taken against the complaint (if any).
  • Our team of intellectuals will review the case and its detail. An unbiased decision or action will be taken based on the final report.
  • Serious action will be taken like withdrawal or removal of the paper from publication (if published).
  • Unless there is any issue of plagiarism, misconduct or conflict of interest, the published paper will not be removed.
  • If you have any complaint or appeal to make about the journal, please address the mail to the editor and explain clearly the basis for an appeal. Submit an appeal letter to editor@ijohmn.com.

 Open Access Policy

In the digital and internet age, everybody looks for the material which is widely available without any restriction or any kind of financial charges. Open Access is a policy, which provides the full rights to the users to access and use the research work free of cost. The journal follows the same policy and provides complete access to its published material.  Users are allowed to read, copy, download, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without taking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access. Authors, researchers, and scholars are permitted to scroll through our published research work database and use them for scholarly purposes as a reference. 

Copyright at IJOHMN

IJOHMN follows the Open Journal Access policy. Authors will retain the copyright of the original work and grant the rights of publication to the publisher with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY License that allows others to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation.

Authors are permitted to post their work in institutional repositories, social media and/or other platforms. 

Peer Review Policy

 The practise of peer review is to ensure that only a good research paper is published. All manuscripts are following the procedure outlined below:

Initial Screening

IJOHMN follows the policy of screening papers before sending them for full peer review. In the initial screening, the manuscript is reviewed for plagiarism, poor grammar, outside the aim and scope of the journal. If any paper fails to meet the general requirements, paper can get rejected. This screening process takes 5-7 working days and if these papers meet the minimum criteria, then they are passed on to at least two-three experts for further quality review.

Peer Review

 It is a process by which experts evaluate scholarly works and analyze the content.  Its objective is to ensure and maintain high-quality standards of our publishing house.

The Peer Review Policy works as another checkpoint to make sure that only good and original quality work is published. All submitted manuscripts are read by our Editorial Staff who are experienced in their fields. We select only those research papers that meet our standards are sent for peer review and finally for publication.

Peer reviewers are ideally experts in their fields. Journals usually build a pool of peer reviewers that have a good track record of producing high-quality reviews. When a Manuscript is submitted to IJOHMN, a double-blind peer review process is followed to accomplish the basic requirements determined by our protocol.

 Double-Blind Review

IJOHMN follows the double-blind review process. In this process, the author and the reviewer are anonymous to each other.  The peer-review process helps the publishing organization to select worthy research work for publication.  These papers are accepted with improvements/modifications. In the peer-review process, the decision to publish a manuscript is the prerogative of a journal editor or the journal's editorial board.

In the broad spectrum, at first read-through reviewers will be assessing your argument construction, the clarity of the language, and content. They question themselves for the following:

  • What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
  • How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
  • Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
  • Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
  • If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
  • If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?
  • Is the argument well constructed and clear? Are there any factual errors or invalid arguments?

They may also consider the following:

  • Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
  • Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
  • Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
  • Does the paper follow a clear and organized structure?
  • Is the paper an appropriate length?
  • Are the key messages short, accurate, and clear?

 Upon closer readings, the reviewer will be looking for major issues:

  • Are there any major flaws?
  • If the experimental design features prominently in the paper, is the methodology sound?
  • Is the research replicable, reproducible, and robust? Does it follow best practices and meet ethical standards?
  • Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
  • Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
  • Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
  • Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough to accurately assess the work?
  • Are there any ethical issues?

 The reviewer will also note minor issues that need to be corrected:

  • Are the correct references cited? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
  • Are there any factual, numerical, or unit errors? If so, what are they?
  • Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled?

Possible outcomes of peer review

The journal’s editor or editorial board considers the feedback provided by the peer reviewers and uses this information to arrive at a decision. In addition to the comments received from the review, editors also base their decisions on:

  • The journal's aims and audience.
  • The state of knowledge in the field.
  • The level of competition for acceptance and page space within the journal.

Reviewers forward review report to the Editor in chief, who will make a final decision to accept or reject the article. Once the Editor in Chief  makes the decision on the manuscripts presented for review, the decision will be one of the following:

  • Accept
  • Accept with minor revision
  • Revise and Resubmit
  • Reject

Once the manuscript is accepted for publication, we will send the Acceptance Letter, publication agreement to the author along with an APC link. After receiving APC, we will forward the final proofread manuscript to the author for approval through email. At this point, the author can send some minor suggestions/corrections in terms of formatting of the manuscript.

We will resend the proofread manuscript for final approval. Once the final approval is received back from the author,  the manuscript will be sent for the final publication process.

If an author is asked to revise their manuscript and author send us an updated manuscript, it will be considered a new submission in terms of initial screening but the updated manuscript will be sent to same reviewers to review it again.