The formal component of the scholarly communication system, that is to say the publication of an article in a peer-reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is prima facie evidence for the quality and impact of the research work of its authors and by extension the institutions that support them. It supports, and is itself an example, of the scientific method. For all these reasons and more, it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behavior by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher, and the society for society-owned or sponsored journals. This includes all parties treating each other with respect and dignity and without discrimination, harassment, bullying, or retaliation.

These guidelines are designed specifically for primary research journals, but may also be relevant for review and other professional publications as well. Individual journals will often have more elaborate or more distinct ethical procedures, generally reflected in their Guide for Authors, and many journals also accept and are in many cases founding participants with respect to discipline-specific standards or standard-setting bodies, such as the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT).

Duties of the Publisher

Guardianship of the scholarly record

These guidelines have been written with all these requirements in mind but especially recognizing that it is an important role of the publisher to support the huge efforts made by journal editors, and the often unsung volunteer work undertaken by peer reviewers, in maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. Although ethical codes inevitably concentrate on the infractions that sometimes occur, it is a tribute to scholarly practice that the system works so well and that problems are comparatively rare. The publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.

International Journal of Ayurveda360 (IJOA) Journal, as a leading journal publisher, takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journals record “the minutes of science” and we recognize our responsibilities as the keeper of those “minutes” in all our policies, not least the ethical guidelines that we have adopted here.

International Journal of Ayurveda360 (IJOA) Journal is adopting these policies and procedures to support editors, reviewers, and authors in performing their ethical duties under these guidelines. We work with other publishers and industry associations to set standards for best practices on ethical matters, errors, and retractions.

Safeguard editorial independence

We are committed to ensuring that the potential for advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

Provide editors with technical, procedural & legal support

We support editors in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors and are prepared to provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

Educate researchers on publishing ethics

We also provide extensive education and advice on publishing ethics standards, particularly for early career researchers.

Competing interests for editors who are members of International Journal of Ayurveda360 (IJOA)

Editors of International Journal of Ayurveda360 (IJOA) who are members are required to report any competing or conflicting interests that could affect, or be perceived to affect, their editorial judgment. Competing interests must be reported as soon as they arise, and in any case through an annual declaration so that they can be assessed and mitigated or resolved. Editorial competing interests may be disclosed on the journal’s website for ongoing competing interests (such as holding a patent), and/or on published papers for competing interests related to the specific paper.

Competing interests for editors include both financial and non-financial interests, such as:

● Current academic affiliations or other editorial roles. Examples include: employment, consultancies, professional affiliations, advisory positions, board memberships, or acting as an expert witness (in each case whether paid or unpaid).
● Financial interests, including patents or patent applications, travel grants, ownership, directorship. Minor investments in publicly traded stock (less than 1% of the outstanding shares of the publicly traded company) or investments through mutual funds/pension funds/401Ks are excluded.

Duties of Editors

Publication decisions

The editor-in-chief of International Journal of Ayurveda360 (IJOA) is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding issues such as libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making these decisions.

Peer review

The editor shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and where necessary, the editor should seek additional opinions.

The editor shall select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the relevant field, taking account of the need for appropriate, inclusive, and diverse representation. The editor shall follow best practice in avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers. The editor shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.

Fair play

The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. When nominating potential editorial board members, the editor shall take account of the need for appropriate, inclusive, and diverse representation.

The editorial policies of the journal should encourage transparency and complete, honest reporting, and the editor should ensure that peer reviewers and authors have a clear understanding of what is expected of them. The editor shall use the journal’s standard electronic submission system for all journal communications.

The editor shall establish, along with the publisher, a transparent mechanism for appeal against editorial decisions.

Confidentiality

The editor shall protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

The editor shall ensure that all authors disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s research without the express written consent of the author.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

The editor shall take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration to the respective complaint or claims made but may also include further communications to relevant stakeholders, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.

Contribution to editorial decisions

The peer-review process assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Responsibilities of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality, plagiarism, and acknowledgment of sources

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Authorship of the paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the authors should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Reviewers should not upload their peer review report into an AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability. This confidentiality requirement extends to the peer review report, as it may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, reviewers should not upload their peer review report into an AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability.

Peer review is at the heart of the scientific ecosystem, and Elsevier abides by the highest standards of integrity in this process. Reviewing a scientific manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by reviewers to assist in the scientific review of a paper as the critical thinking and original assessment needed for peer review are outside the scope of this technology, and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The reviewer is responsible and accountable for the content of the review report.

International Journal of Ayurveda360 (IJOA) Journal’s policy states that authors are allowed to use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process before submission, but only to improve the language and readability of their paper and with the appropriate disclosure, as per our instructions in International Journal of Ayurveda360 (IJOA) Journal’s Guide for Authors. Reviewers can find such disclosure at the bottom of the paper in a separate section before the list of references.