IMLP journals are double blind peer reviewed journals commited to ensuring the highest standards of publication ethics.To maintain the standard of ethical behaviour everyone involved in the act of publishing (the publisher, editors, reviewers and the authors)have to agree upon. Our ethics and malpractice statement are based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors

Post publications discussion Policy.– PDF
Policies on complaint and appeals.-PDF
Plagiarism Policy-PDF
Policy on authorship and contribution-PDF
Policy on conflict of interest-PDF
Policy on Data and Reproducibility -PDF
Policy on Research Misconduct -PDF

Ethical Responsibilities of Editor in Chief

  1. The Editor in Chief should be guided by the journal policy and guidelines for preventing defamation, plagiarism and copyright infringement of submissions.
  2. He should ensure that proper coordination is maintained between editors and reviewers during the processing of manuscripts.
  3. Should deal with the cases of misconduct in an ethical manner

Editors Responsibilities

  1. Publication decisions                                                                                                                                                                                                                      The editors are responsible for maintaining highest possible standards in evaluating contribution to the journal, as well as for maintaining the integrity of the journal. Editors select manuscript for publication solely based on the scientific merit of the work and relevance to the scope of the journal without regard to the author’s race, gender, nationality, religion or institutional affiliation. The editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. 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 libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
  2. Disclosure and conflicts of interest                                                                                                                                                                                             Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the written consent of the author. Editor has to take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints are presented concerning a submitted published manuscript. In cases of suspected misconduct they follow the COPE guidelines. 
  3. Confidentiality                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate .

Reviewers Responsibility

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the corresponding author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
  2. 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 himself from the review process.
  3. Confidentiality                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  4. Standards of Objectivity                                                                                                                                                                                                              Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  5. 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 paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  6. 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 .Reviewer can help prevent ethical breaches by identifying plagiarism, research fraud and other problems due to familiarity with the subject.

Authors Responsibility

  1. 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 manuscript. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
  2. Data Access and Retention                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Authors are 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.
  3. Originality and Plagiarism                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Authors submitting their work for publication  confirm that the submitted work represent their own contribution and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works without clearly citing the source. Authors should cite publication that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Plagiarism in all forms constitute unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
  4.  Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication                                                                                                                                                                                          An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
  5. Acknowledgement of Sources                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Fundamental errors in published works                                                                                                                                                                                                  When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her 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.

Publisher’s Responsibility                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            As publisher of the journal, the responsibility lies in providing full practical support to the editor and executive editorial board of the respective journal so that they can follow the COPE code of conduct for the journal.

Research Misconduct                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   In case of research misconduct and editors not being able to take any action within two weeks of knowledge of this incident, the internal committee comprising of other editors and the publisher will be constituted to evaluate the case and reccommend corrective action which will be taken immediately. The article affected by research misconduct shall be retracted immediately.