Journal of Advanced Research in Networking and Communication Engineering

Editorial Policy

Peer-Review Process

Conflict of Interest

Guidelines for Editors

Guidelines for Reviewers

Publishing Ethics

Corrections and Retractions

Plagiarism Policy

Misconduct Allegation Policy

Peer-Review Process

The critical evaluation of articles submitted to journals by specialists who are typically not onthe editorial staff is known as the peer-review process. The reviewer evaluates the paperbased on its quality, validity, originality, and adherence to proper procedures. Journal of Advanced Research in Networking and Communication Engineering (JoARNCE) follows theCommittee on Publication Ethics' (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers policy.

Two or more reviewers are assigned to articles that satisfy the minimum requirements. Peer-review is double-blind, meaning that neither the reviewers' nor the authors' identities aredisclosed to each other.

The initial step for a newly submitted manuscript is the plagiarism check. The next step is forthe editors to screen the manuscript; if they determine that it is not original, of insufficientquality, or outside the purpose and scope of JoARNCE, they may reject it.

The minimum number of requirements for an article is met and it is assigned to two or morereviewers. A reviewer has fifteen days to offer his comments on a manuscript. The authorreceives reviewers' comments on the paper after it has been evaluated. The author sends therevised file to the reviewer once more. Satisfaction of the reviewers and editor is a mustbefore acceptance of the paper for publication.

Conflict of Interest

A piece of writing's resilience to criticism and public confidence partly depends on how wellconflicts of interest are handled during the writing, editing, and peer-review stages. A conflictof interest arises when authors, reviewers, or editors have financial or personal ties thatunduly influence (bias) their work. These connections are sometimes known as competingloyalties, competing interests, or dual commitments. The possible impact of these links onjudgment ranges from negligible to substantial. In relationships, there aren't always realconflicts of interest. Even if individuals believe that their relationship has no bearing on theircapacity to make scientific decisions, they may nonetheless be in a conflict of interest. Theconflicts of interest that are most likely to harm the standing of JoARNCE, the authors, andthe field of academics itself are those with financial ties because they are the easiest toidentify. Employment, consulting, stock ownership, honoraria, and compensated experttestimony are a few examples of these connections. However, there are more factors thatcould lead to conflict, such as strained personal ties, competitiveness in the classroom, andintense intellectual curiosity.

In this sense, disclosure of such relationships is especially important, since it can be morechallenging to detect bias in editorials and review articles than in reports of original research.

Editors of JoARNCE may form their conclusions depending on the information provided infinancial interest and conflict of interest disclosures.

Guidelines for Editors

The person in charge of overseeing an academic journal's manuscript publication procedure iscalled a journal editor. Editors decide which article should be published and which should berejected. They manage the review process and make sure that the publications add to thestandard of quality of the journal.

Since we assign the manuscripts based on the editors' areas of competence and interest, wegreatly rely on their judgement regarding each paper or manuscript.

Editors of JoARNCE are accountable for everything that is published in this journal. Theyshould take care of the following:

• An effort should be made to satisfy writers' and readers' requirements.
• It should be ensured that the articles published are of the highest possible quality.
• Attempts to make constant improvements to JoARNCE should be ensured.
• The work’s integrity should be preserved.
• The right to free speech should be maintained.

·         The

compromise of intellectual standards due to corporate needs should be

prevented.

• It should be made certain that the authors have shared the information regardingthe donor who has provided funding for the study and the role he/she plays in theresearch, with the readers.
• They should be willing to release retractions, explanations, and corrections, if andwhen required.
• It should be made certain that the procedure for the peer review process has beenfollowed.
• The decision of whether to accept or reject an article for publication should betaken only on the basis of the relevance of the study to JoARNCE's mandate, itssignificance, originality, and clarity.
• Articles to be published should be chosen based on merit and suitability instead ofany personal benefit/interest of the owner/publisher of JoARNCE, or of authors.
• It should be verified that the JoARNCE has a clearly stated process in place forauthors to challenge editorial decisions.
• It should be made sure that JoARNCE publishes instructions for authors outliningall expectations. This guideline should be updated on a regular basis.
• Acceptance decisions and other prior Editor's decisions should not be revertedunless grave issues are found with the submission.

·         Reviewer

guidelines

should be provided outlining all expectations. These

guidelines need to be updated frequently and to make reference to or provide a linkto COPE best practices.

• Procedures should be established to make sure that the anonymity of reviewers of

JoARNCE is maintained.

·         Procedures

should be established to guarantee that the content submitted to

JoARNCE is kept confidential while it is being reviewed.

• Complaints should be dealt with by following the process outlined in the COPEflowchart.

• It should be ensured that strong and convincing critiques of articles published in

JoARNCE are published unless editors provide strong justifications for not doingso. Authors should be provided with a platform to share their responses, if theirwork has been questioned.

• Studies with negative findings should be included as well.

·         It

should be verified that the research published in JoARNCE complies with

globally recognised ethical standards. The Editors should ask for confirmation thatevery study has been authorised by the relevant authority (such as the institutionalreview board or the research ethics committee). They should understand, though,that this approval does not imply that the research is ethical.

• Privacy of personal data (such as that acquired via a patient-doctor relationship)should be reserved. As a result, getting patients' or participants’ written informedconsent is nearly always required for using patient photos and case reports. If thereport is significant for public health (or in some other way), obtaining consentwould be exceptionally difficult, and a reasonable person would be unlikely toobject to publishing, it might be permissible to publish without explicit consent (allthree requirements must be met).
• Proper action should be taken if any kind of misconduct is observed. All papers in

JoARNCE, published and unpublished, are subject to this obligation. Papers thatraise questions about potential misconduct should not be rejected straightaway.

The Editors have a moral obligation to investigate any such claims. The accusedshould be contacted first to get their response. The Editors should ask the relevantemployers or another suitable body to look into the matter if they are not pleasedwith the response. They should exert every reasonable effort to guarantee that athorough investigation is carried out; in the event that this isn't accomplished, theyshould exert every reasonable effort to find a solution.

• The academic record's integrity should be assured. If a major error, false statement,or incorrect report is discovered to have been published in JoARNCE, it needs tobe quickly and prominently corrected. Following a proper investigation, if anarticle turns out to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction ought to beeasily discernible to both indexing systems and readers.
• The PDFs of any advertisement received for JoARNCE are shared with the Editorsfor their approval regarding the relevance of the advertisement in JoARNCE. TheEditors should reject deceptive advertisements and be open to publishing criticismsbased on the same standards as the rest of the journal. Reprints should be releasedas they appear in JoARNCE, except in the case of any correction.
• Procedures should be established for handling conflicts of interest involving theiremployees, writers, editors, and reviewers.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers are individuals who suggest improvements in articles, share their opinionsregarding articles, and recommend whether an article should be accepted, rejected, or sent forrevisions to the author. The editors make decisions regarding articles while keeping in mindthe opinions and recommendations of reviewers regarding them.

Every manuscript that appears in JoARNCE goes through a double-blind peer-reviewprocess. The editorial team does not include reviewers. Being on the reviewer board of a

journal is a very prestigious and privileged role. Based on the COPE Ethical Guidelines forPeer Reviewers, the following guidelines have been adopted:

• Reviewers should maintain the confidentiality of any paper they receive, treat allinformation obtained from peer review as confidential, and refrain from using it fortheir own gain.
• In order to help authors make improvements to their papers, reviewers should offerunbiased feedback and make observations that are well-supported by evidence.

• Reviewers who feel unqualified to examine a manuscript's research should raisetheir concerns as soon as possible.
• Manuscripts containing conflict of interest arising from competitive, cooperative,or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, companies, orinstitutions associated with the papers should not be considered by reviewers.
• Citations of pertinent published work that the authors have not cited should beprovided by reviewers. If a reviewer notices any significant similarities or overlapsbetween the manuscript being considered and any other manuscript (published orunpublished) that they are personally aware of, they should notify the editor aboutit.

For every article reviewed by the reviewer, we will share the soft copy of the article alongwith the reviewer certificate (for that particular article), once its issue is released.

Publishing Ethics

JoARNCE maintains the highest standards of article quality and publication ethics. We arecommitted to ensuring freedom of expression. The Editorial Board is the final decidingauthority on all matters pertaining to publication and advertising; the decision should remainunaffected by any commercial revenue. Therefore, it is expected of all parties—editors,authors, reviewers, and the publisher—to adhere to the standards of ethical behaviour. COPEserved as the foundation for the development of the guidelines on publication ethics inJoARNCE.

We have been verifying the similarity of submitted manuscripts from 2021 using theiThenticate software in association with CrossRef. When malpractice is reported, JoARNCEcomplies with the guidelines of the COPE flowchart. JoARNCE has a policy of not acceptingarticles with plagiarism, unclear authorship, or duplicate submissions for publication.

The article will be retracted and the author (and co-authors, if any) will not be allowed tosubmit any article again if any malpractices are found in the article after its publication.

If plagiarism is suspected, the author will be notified and a response will be expected by aspecified date. The editor will get in touch with the author's organisation for additionalresearch if they don't hear back within the specified amount of time.

If an author is to be added or removed from an article submitted in JoARNCE at any point, asigned declaration of agreement and an explanation for the change will have to be providedby each of the authors of that article including the author who wants to be added or removed.

Policy on Human Rights, Ethical Clearance, and Consent of Participant

Without the participant’s prior consent, no information about their identity should bereleased. All research involving human subjects should adhere to institutional and/or regionalethical guidelines. It should be made clear in the text that the participant’s consent has beenacquired if the participant’s identity is disclosed in any way in the article.

A scanned copy of the Ethical Clearance Certificate from the local or institutional ethicscommittee must be submitted by the author to the editorial board of JoARNCE. The authorshould provide information about ethical approval in the Methodology section.

Corrections and Retractions

If a correction is required, JoARNCE will adhere to the following standards:

• To ensure correct indexing, a correction notice would be published as quickly aspossible on an electronic or numbered print page that is included in an electronic or printTable of Contents, outlining changes from and citing the original publication.
• A revised version of the article will be published, detailing the modifications made fromthe first draft and the date(s) of those changes.
• The articles' earlier submissions (via the OJS) would all be archived by Advanced

Research Publications.

• The fact that there are more recent versions of the item would have to be mentioned inearlier electronic versions.
• The most current version should be cited.

The editor is the only person with the authority to make a decision related to the expressionof concern and retraction of an article on the basis of COPE Flowcharts, if scientificmisconduct is alleged.

Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism is the use of someone else's ideas or works without giving due credit orpermission. At the submission stage, an automated plagiarism checker is used to verify allsubmissions for plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, which is illegal as well. JoARNCE hasstrict policies against plagiarism. The articles are rejected if they are found to containplagiarised text. Our team at JoARNCE has been verifying the similarity of submittedmanuscripts using the iThenticate software in association with CrossRef from 2021.

The authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript is entirely their work and hasn'tbeen published before. No words, figures, or tables from other publications may be used byauthors without proper citation and authorization.

Misconduct Allegation Policy

Before submitting the manuscript, authors are requested to thoroughly read the ethicalstandards and author guidelines of JoARNCE and to abide by them.

A peer-reviewed article that has been published may be the subject of a report of researchmisconduct. The following steps should be taken in a sensitive and confidential manner whenhandling reports of author misconduct in JoARNCE:

1. An e-mail should be sent to info@adrpublications.in in order to file a complaint aboutresearch misconduct.
2. The complainant must specify the exact nature and specifics of the misbehavior; forinstance, if plagiarism is suspected, the original and suspected articles must be explicitlycited, and the copied paragraph must be marked.
3. A probe will be carried out, and correspondence between the editor of JoARNCE and thecorresponding author(s) of the alleged paper will occur during this period.
4. The relevant author(s) will be contacted to offer an explanation supported by any relevantproof and factual claims.
5. Depending on the circumstances, the editorial office will take the following actions if thesuspected article's author(s) accepts the misconduct complaint:

a.	A retraction or an erratum might be required to rectify the situation if the article hasalready been published. It should be kept in mind that the proper wording of thedescription may lead to disagreements.

1. If the misbehavior is brought to light during the review process, the review mayproceed with the author(s) making the necessary modifications.

6. The item may be permanently withdrawn or rejected if no answer is received within theallotted period or if the explanation provided is inadequate. Experts from the pertinentinstitution or other authorities as needed would be consulted before a decision is made.
7. Following the resolution of the matter, the complainant will be notified of the result.
8. At that point, the complaint case will be deemed resolved.

Privacy Statement

The e-mail addresses and names entered on the website of JoARNCE will only be used tofurther the goals of this publication; they will not be shared with outside parties or used forany other reason.