ETHICS OF PUBLICATION

IJAMPS is dedicated to following ethics in publication and quality of articles. Hence, conformity to standards or ethical behavior is therefore anticipated from all parties which include authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher in particular.

Authors: Authors of reports or original works should submit an accurate account of the research undergone as well as an objective discussion of its significance. A fraudulent or knowingly incorrect statement represents unethical behavior and is unwelcome. Reviewed works should also be objective, all-encompassing, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should check that they have written original works entirely, and where the authors have used the comments and/or words of others, this has to be befittingly cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms represents unethical publishing behaviour and it is condemned. Presenting the same written material to more than one journal at the same time also constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is intolerable. Authors must not present articles describing essentially the same work to more than one journal. The corresponding author should insist that there is a full agreement of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its presentation for publication. When an author discovers a fundamental error or inaccuracy in his/her own published research, it is the author’s responsibility to quickly inform the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Editors: Editors should assess manuscripts solely on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not make use of unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written permission of the author. Editors are advised to take tenable prompt responsive measures when ethical complaints have been sent in concerning a submitted manuscript or published work.

Reviewers: Any research work accepted for appraisal must be treated as classified documents. Privileged information or ideas received through peer review must be kept private and not used for any personal advantage. Reviews should be carried out objectively, and findings should be developed clearly with supporting contentions, so that authors and scholars can make use of them for improving their works. Any designated referee who does not feel qualified to review the research work reported in a manuscript or knows that its immediate review will be unattainable should inform the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process. Reviewers should not see manuscripts in which they have clash of interest resulting from contending, cooperative, or other relationships or connections with any of the scholars, authors, organizations, or institutions connected to the works. All received papers must be appraised in impartiality based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry or political values or affiliation of author(s). Reviewers should also state relevant published work which is not yet cited or well cited.