Scholar: Human Sciences
Statement of Publication Ethics
To maintain superior quality and standard of publications in the Scholar: Human Sciences, we hereby are dedicated to the requirement that the following violations are strictly prohibited and authorized. First, the plagiarism of other research studies in all forms including self-plagiarism. Second, the manuscripts and articles with data invention and alteration. Third, the articles that are published in other journals and publications. Lastly, the manuscripts and articles that are manipulated during citation.
Manuscripts that are under review that breached any one and more of these above requirements, must be rejected effective immediately, and published articles resulted in any of these violations must be withdrawn from the publication.
On the off chances that the author withdraws or sends an original copy to different journal publications any time after the manuscript has been sent to peer review until the final decision is announced, the Journal will charge the author a penalty expenses for its time and resources dedicated in due course of action. The authors should consistently pay for the page charge paying regardless of the withdrawal is allowed.
Duties of Authors
Original work: Scholar: Human Sciences anticipated all submitted manuscripts to be original contributions, not previously published in any language or country (except as an abstract or preliminary report), and not to be getting looked at for publication at other platforms. Submission of a research work to more than one Journal is exploitative and unsatisfactory. Scholar: Human Sciences adapts ‘Turnitin’ software to check for plagiarism and/or previous publication plagiarism history (if applicable) and rejects the manuscript that have substantial proportions of text that are directly adapted from other journals or resources.
Accuracy: Authors of the manuscript that report original research should submit a proof of an accurate account of the work performed as well as discussions regarding its significance, since underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. Conclusions and decisions should be made according to the evidence presented in the paper.
Acknowledgment of Sources: A research paper that is built upon previously published research study. Author(s) must acknowledge ideas and previously published outcomes by citing the studies in the manuscript and list them in the references. Providing statements of ideas and figures without acknowledging and citing evidence to back up these statements is not a favorable research practice.
Disclosure of Financial Support and Conflicts of Interest: All financial assistance for the manuscript and the research study composing interaction ought to be disclosed in the affirmations and any conflicts of interest ought to be expressed.
Authorship: Each personnel listed as an Author should have sufficient participation in the research, accountable for public responsibility for the submitted manuscript, and agree to be accountable for all areas related to its authenticity. This support should incorporate conception and plan of action of the manuscript, data acquisition or analysis of data and interpretation, the manuscript drafting and/or revising it for critically significant intellectual content, amendments and final approval of the manuscript and statistical analysis, obtaining fund, administrative, technical, or material support, or supervision.
Any personnel who made substantial contributions to the research reported in the manuscript (i.e., technical help, writing/editing assistance etc.) but fail to meet the criteria for authorship, should not be listed as an Author, however, should instead be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgments" section, after their written consent to be named is obtained. The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its publication submission.
Duties of Editors
Confidentiality: The editors of Scholar: Human Sciences use a "double-blind" peer review process (minimum 2 referees) where neither the creators nor the commentators know each other's character. The editors make all best efforts to protect the identity of author(s) and reviewers throughout the peer review process. Unpublished materials revealed in a submitted composition should not be cited or referred to by an editor without the express composed assent of the creator. Information or ideas obtained throughout the peer review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Conflicts of Interest: Editors recuse themselves from the review process when they face a conflict of interest or personal involved in the publication of a research.
Objectivity: Choices on distribution are made dispassionately subsequent to exploring the submitted composition and the companion audits. The importance of the article's contribution to the existing research in its field, the quality of articulation of the argument, and the strength of the submitted evidence are critical factors in the decision to publish.
Duties of Reviewers
Confidentiality: Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the review process. They should not discuss aspects of the research under review with other researchers until the article is published. Unpublished materials revealed in a composition under audit should not be cited or referred to by an analyst without the express composed assent of the creator, mentioned through the editorial board. Information or ideas obtained through the peer review process must be kept confidential and not to be used for personal advantage.
Conflicts of Interest: If the reviewer realizes, after receiving a manuscript for review, that he or she has been involved in the research described, knowing the researchers involved in the research, or under any condition can't give a target survey of the composition, the commentator ought to illuminate the editors and decay the audit. Conflicts of interest can include competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper under review.
Objectivity: Manuscripts should be reviewed objectively in the context of the reviewer's expertise in the field. The significance of the article's commitment to the current exploration in its field, the nature of verbalization of the contention, and the strength of the proof gave are basic factors in auditing the nature of the manuscript. Personal opinions without backing evidence should not be used as criteria for review decisions.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify important relevant previously published work that has not been cited by the authors. A reviewer should also address the editor's attention for any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published manuscript of which they have personal knowledge.