HSPC ethics and malpractice statement is mainly based on Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. In order to adhere to the mission of non-discriminatory publication, we feel our duty to follow the guidelines provided by COPE. We also expect the same from the authors, editors and reviewers. We have summarized the expected ethical duties under following facets:
Unbiased Publication decisions- The editors will be responsible for evaluating the quality quotient of the articles submitted for publication in any of the journals. The editors should ensure that the articles are evaluated for the content and not for the authors name, race, gender, religious belief, origin and citizenship.
Abiding to the law- The editors must be well-versed with the policies of Heighten Science Publication editorial boards and the changes incorporated therein according to the prevailing legal requirements regarding copyright issues, plagiarism and defamation.
Maintaining Secrecy- The editors are expected not to disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author(s), reviewers and other concerned members of the editorial board.
Providing constructive feedback- The editors are expected to provide constructive feedback to the authors in order to enhance the quality of the articles and to boost up the research process in the respective field.
Assisting editors in Peer Review Process- Reviewers' are expected to promptly assist the editors in peer review and in communication with the authors for improving the quality of the manuscripts.
Managing time and workload- The reviewers should ensure that they complete the review process within stipulated time so that manuscripts are processed and reach the publication stage on fast track basis. The consistency in publication will also enforce a feeling of trust among the authors.
Maintaining secrecy- The reviewers' should maintain the privacy of the manuscripts during and after the review process and should discuss about the manuscripts only with the authorized editor(s).
Identifying and evaluating resources- The reviewers' are expected to identify and evaluate the resources cited by the authors. They should report to the authorized editors about any plagiarism or any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published or unpublished paper(s).
Providing constructive and unbiased feedbacks- The reviewers' are expected to ensure that while providing feedbacks to the authors, the language used is appropriate and should not include any personal criticism or objectionable content.
Honest and original research- The authors are the base of any publication. We expect that our authors present accurate, original and objective research in the form of manuscripts. The manuscripts should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.
Retaining data- The authors are expected to preserve the raw data and any other valuable information related to the research. The editorial board may review the raw data in relation to the manuscript under publication consideration.
Avoiding parallel publication- The authors are advised not to publish manuscripts related to the same research in more than one at the same time. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one Journal or publication will be considered as unethical. Such behavior is convicting and unacceptable.
Proper citation- The authors are expected to cite properly the publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Reporting errors- The authors are expected to notify the editors or publisher any inaccuracy or error in the submitted manuscript immediately. It is the responsibility of the authors to promptly notify editors about the errors and cooperate with them to withdraw or correct the submitted manuscript.