General Information

Every manuscript submitted to the journal is examined as part of the peer review process by at least two anonymous referees using a double-blind peer review process to assess the contribution, originality, relevance, and presentation. Within two months of a manuscript’s submission, the Editor-In-Chief is tasked with notifying each prospective author of the review’s findings. However, it is crucial for writers to be informed that the review process could, in some situations, take up to three months due to the huge volume of submissions that JERCPT receives.

 Duties of Editorial Board Members

The Editor-in-Chief, who takes the final decision based on the referees’ findings, receives publication recommendations from members of the Editorial Board and uses them to handle submissions through the peer review process. Members of the editorial board are also accountable for offering the journal, as needed, professional advice based on their research experience on matters relating to the journal’s policies and publication ethics.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities and Impact on Editorial Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief is assisted in making editorial choices via a peer review process. Additionally, peer review assists the author in many ways in order to improve the article through editorial contacts with the author.

Promptness

Referees should tell the Editor-in-Chief and resign from the review process if they feel unqualified to assess a submission or if they know it will be impossible to do so quickly.

Confidentiality

Any manuscript that is submitted for review must be handled with confidentiality. The manuscript must not be shown to or discussed with anyone else without the editor’s permission.

Standards for Objectivity

It’s crucial to carry out evaluations impartially. Personal criticism of the author is not appropriate. Referees must clearly state their opinions and provide evidence to back them up. To make sure the paper complies with the standards established by the journal, a reviewer must also read the Instructions for Authors.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers are expected to find pertinent published works that the article’s authors have not cited as part of the review process. Any claim that an observation, a deduction, or an argument has already been recorded should be supported by a citation to the relevant original work. Additionally, it is a reviewer’s responsibility to alert the editor of any significant similarities or overlaps between the article under consideration and any other previously published paper that they are aware of.

Disclosure of Conflict of Interest

Information and concepts that have undergone peer review should be kept private and should not be used to one’s own advantage. It is crucial that reviewers refrain from considering articles where they have links or connections—whether cooperative, competitive, or other—with any of the authors, businesses, or organizations connected to the papers. Reviewers must adhere to this directive in order to declare any conflicts of interest when performing their duties related to the article review process because JERCPT follows IMJE’s guidelines on Disclosure of Financial and Non-Financial Relationships and Activities, and Conflicts of Interest.

Author obligations

Reporting requirements

Reports describing original research should be written by writers who can accurately describe the work that has been done and discuss its importance. The underlying data should be accurately represented in the study. An article must provide enough specifics and citations to enable others to duplicate the work in order to be published. The use of deceptive or deliberately false remarks is unethical behavior and is not permitted.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are encouraged to include raw data whenever possible when submitting a work for editorial consideration. According to the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases, it is anticipated that the authors will be willing to make the raw data freely accessible for public inspection and that they will keep the raw data on hand for a reasonable amount of time following publication. The Harvard Dataverse and preprint servers are two examples of dataverses where authors are encouraged to contribute their raw data.

Originality check

The authors should make sure that their writing is wholly unique, and if they have borrowed any ideas or words from others, they should make sure that they have properly cited or quoted them. To stop plagiarism and cheating, JERCPT employs TURNITIN to check the similarity index of submitted articles. Only manuscripts with a similarity value of 20% or less will be externally examined for publication consideration. There may be instances where previously published manuscripts turn out to be plagiarized. Sanctions will be applied in this situation up until the paper is withdrawn.

Multiple, Concurrent, or Redundant Publication

Publishing submissions that fundamentally summarize the same study in more than one journal or principal publication is generally not advised for authors. A manuscript being simultaneously sent to many journals is unethical publishing behavior, which is unacceptable in the publishing industry.

Sources Acknowledgment

Always give credit where credit is due in order to preserve the integrity of your own work. It is advised that authors list works that have influenced their understanding of the type of work being presented.

Authorship of the paper

Only those people who were in charge of the study’s conception, design, execution, or interpretation should be given the right to sign their names as authors. All co-authors who have made a significant contribution to the research must be listed as co-authors. It is vital to thank or recognize as contributions those who participated in significant elements of the research project and helped to shape its course. The corresponding author is responsible for making sure that all suitable co-authors are listed in the manuscript, that no inappropriate co-authors are included, and that all co-authors have viewed the final version of the paper and approved it before it is submitted for publication. To describe each author’s unique contribution to the research output, we encourage writers to use the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT). All authors mentioned in a paper for JERCPT publications must adhere to the standards for authorship established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

Hazards and human or Animal Subjects

If the work involved the use of any chemicals, techniques, or equipment, the manuscript must clearly identify any exceptional risks related to their use.

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Any financial or other significant conflicts of interest that could be assumed to have influenced the findings or interpretation of the paper should, whenever feasible, be disclosed by the authors in their manuscript. Complete disclosure of all funding sources for the project is required. Misconduct is defined as the willful omission to disclose those relationships or activities listed on the journal’s disclosure form.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works and Retraction policy

If an author finds a serious error or inaccuracy in a piece of writing they have previously published, it is their responsibility to swiftly tell the journal’s editor-in-chief or publisher and to work with the editor to retract or fix the work. JERCPT adheres to the COPE Guidelines for Retracting Articles when deciding whether to withdraw a published manuscript that has serious errors.

Withdrawal Policy

Authors must forfeit the submission fee they paid if they decide to remove their manuscript from JERCPT after submission and during the peer review process. Within one month of submitting the manuscript, the author(s) must notify the Editor-in-Chief of their choice. After a month of paper submission, the JERCPT Editorial Board does not permit withdrawals until the paper has been reviewed and approved.