AIM AND SCOPE:

Journal of the Royal Laureates Academy is a double blind external peer-reviewed online multidisciplinary open access English version journal with annual frequency and covering a wide range of various multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary integrative fields of education i.e. arts and humanities, pure and applied sciences, pharmacy, allied health sciences, architecture, law, commerce, management, library sciences, physical education, psychology, women studies, social sciences, biological sciences etc.  Journal of the Royal Laureates Academy is the official publication of the Royal Laureates Academy.

PUBLICATION ADVANTAGES:

• Free of charge publication for all types of articles.
• No processing fees.
• All areas and disciplines (English version).
• Constructive double blind external peer reviewed.
• Presently published once in a year (January).
• Open submission throughout the year.
• Easy and quick online submission of manuscripts through email.
• Rapid publication by means of running issue concept.
• Free publication of color images.
• Free worldwide visibility of papers (Open Access Online Journal).

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING:

1. ISSN PORTAL, THE GLOBAL INDEX FOR CONTINUING RESOURCES.
2. ROAD, DIRECTORY OF OPEN ACCESS SCHOLARLY RESOURCES.
3. INTERNATIONAL INNOVATIVE JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR (IIJIF).

FLOWCHART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS:

 

EDITORIAL WORKFLOW:

The evaluation process is divided into three parts

Step 1: Initial Screening (In-House)

Step 2: Scientific Review by the Subject Expert (Technical Evaluation)

Step 3: Final Decision by Editor-in-Chief

 

Step 1: Initial Screening

Manuscripts submitted through email routinely undergo initial screening by one of the Internal Academic Editor before scientific review. The manuscript shall be rejected without scientific review if the manuscript fails to qualify the step 1. This step is limited to the following checklist, along with the editor’s response:

Scope of the article

If the topic of the manuscript is out of the journal’s scope, the manuscript will be returned to authors without preceding it for scientific review.

Careless preparation of the manuscript

Manuscripts that do not conform to the journal’s style and writing standards, are invariable given a chance for resubmission. However, if they have not shown any regard for instructions and are very careless in the preparation (such as too many spelling mistakes, poor English, a large number of cited references not listed in the list of references), their manuscripts will be rejected without scientific review.

Originality of the manuscript

Manuscripts reporting repeated study/replication (a study which is largely similar but not identical to the ones already reported in the literature) are not considered original unless they carry some message that was not reported earlier or there is a strong justification for replication.

Duplication/Plagiarism

Duplicate publications (publish or attempting to publish substantially the same work more than once) and plagiarism are viewed seriously. Explanation from authors is sought if the submitted manuscript is found to be already published in full or part. If no satisfactory reply is received within a month, the manuscript will be rejected without review, and action will be initiated as per the journal’s policies.

Step 2: Scientific Review by the Subject Expert

All the manuscripts qualifying the first round of initial screening will be assigned to the field experts, also known as external reviewers for technical evaluation.

Peer-Review Process

Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and our choice is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, and specific recommendations. We avoid using reviewers who are chronically slow, sloppy, too harsh or too lenient.

Academic Editor invites reviewers to review the subject articles and provide them sufficient information about the manuscript for their decision to accept or reject the invitation, only on the acceptance of the invitation, Academic Editors assign the manuscript to the reviewers for evaluation.

The manuscript is usually sent to two expert peer reviewers with the request to complete their review process within stipulated time period. Although editors always hope for a quick turnaround, but this is not always possible. The peer-review process followed by the journal is double-blind. In this process, the peer reviewer’s identities are kept confidential and not revealed to the authors. In the same manner, the author’s identities are not revealed to the peer reviewers. This ensures a fair and unbiased review of every manuscript. Once the manuscript assigns to the reviewer, the editorial office will keep in touch with the reviewer and send them friendly reminders to complete the evaluation process within the due date.

The reviewers will then submit their review reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:

1. Consider after Minor Changes
2. Consider after Major Changes
3. Reject due to the lack of novelty
4. Accept without alteration

Upon receiving the reports from all the reviewers, the internal editor has to choose one of the following categories for the reviewed manuscript:

Can be considered after Minor Revision:

Authors will receive minor comments within their manuscript to be justified in the revised copy beside a proper cover letter. All the changes or responses to the reviewer’s comments should be marked by Track Changes in the Review menu of Microsoft Word Document. The revised copy must be submitted within stipulated time period after the decision is being communicated to the author, otherwise, it will lead the author towards the resubmission process.

May be considered after Major Revision:

The Author will receive major comments to be justified in revised copy along with the only chance to reorganize the manuscript as per the journal’s format and requirement. This also depicts that the author should pay proper attention to the reviewer’s comment, especially the highlighted parts, and each comment must be justified in detail for possible consideration.

In exceptional cases, the editor may discuss the review report with the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal and accordingly may/may not request authors to submit the revised manuscript (must be done with Track Changes) along with the cover letter.

Revised manuscripts of Major Revision must be submitted within a month for consideration; otherwise, the author has to go through resubmission again.

Reject due to lack of Novelty:

Most often, the reason for rejection after peer-review includes methodological and scientific concern. Proper reasons for rejection, along with suggestions from reviewers will be sent to authors to provide a chance to them for publishing in other journals if acceptable.

Withdrawn – Out of Journal’s Scope:

All the articles which do not fit within the scope of the journal will be withdrawn along with the possible suggestions to be sent for consideration to the journal.

Acceptance without alteration:

After a detailed discussion on ready to publish manuscripts with Editor-in-Chief, the final copy of the manuscript will be sent to authors to verify the final proof of the manuscript. The manuscript could then be e-published and will be in a queue to be published in one of the upcoming issues of Journal.

Step 3: Final Decision

The editorial workflow is solely authorities the Editor-in-Chief to take the final decision on submitted manuscripts considering the reviewer’s comments as well as the relevance and suitability of research data. The Editor-in-Chief also holds the right to reject any manuscript at any stage because of being inappropriate data, lacking novelty, or falsified/incorrect results as well as any conflict of interest.

All the articles approaching the new review stage, according to the reviewer’s recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief will decide either to approve the article for publication or another round of review or modification is still required.

To maintain the quality of the Journal and in time issues, the Editor-in-Chief will also be responsible for ensuring a fast track peer-review process to complete all the procedures within a tightly bound time limit.

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT:

As a publisher our academy is committed to upholding scholarly publication ethics through every possible manner. We try to adhere to the norms and guidelines formulated by various scholarly societies to achieve international standards by maintaining quality in publication and by updating our publication system. We expect and encourage all the concerned parties associated with the journal to follow the norms as mentioned in our website.

Authorship:

All published materials-articles, book reviews, poems or art pieces, must contain appropriate attribution of authorship. Since we follow the online medium, it is the sole responsibility of the corresponding author-who initiates the submission process, to ensure integrity of publication ethics by complying with the following:

Appropriate attribution and acknowledgement:

The corresponding author should ensure:

That the submitted manuscript is genuine research work produced by the author/s,

That all the other authors are made aware of the submission,

That permission is taken from other authors for publication,

That the contribution of the authors is appropriately acknowledged,

That the contribution of other persons or parties, who/which add value to the work in any way is sufficiently acknowledged,

That the Conflicts of Interests document is signed properly and sent to us in time.

Changes in authorship:

Authors can send request for changes to authorship to the Editor in Chief. The Editorial Board of the journal reserves the right to take final decision on the request. Changes will be made only if there is valid reason and full agreement among the authors. Public notification may be made in the case of any post-publication change.

Ghost,’ ‘guest,’ or ‘gift’ authorship:

We condemn the unethical practice of ‘Ghost,’ ‘guest,’ or ‘gift’ authorship (or anything that does not have any proper contribution to an article) and take appropriate steps against such practices.

Publication Process:

We wants all concerned with publication of the journal—editors, reviewers and website managers, to strictly follow international norms. We are constantly trying to raise the standards of our publications. We expect the same kind of commitment from authors to conform to the ethical norms by following our guidelines.

Submission:

While submitting with our journal, authors should strictly follow our guidelines. We reserve the right to take action against any of the practices mentioned blow:

Simultaneous Submission to Other Publication Agency:

We accept manuscripts on the belief that the same has not been submitted or will be submitted with other journals while the review process is going on. Concrete action is taken against the authors who make simultaneous submission during the period of peer review.

Plagiarism:

Plagiarism is a curse upon the scholarly world. Authors submitting with us are expected to have proper understanding about the plagiarism issues. Nothing should be copied in any form without proper acknowledgement or legal permission in any way that may violate other’s rights. While they should include acknowledgement to other’s works, they should also take permission for using any material from the concerned parties themselves. The journal will not initiate any process nor will remain responsible for any kind of copyright violation.

Defamation or Promotion:

We do not expect authors to include anything that may turn out to be defamatory or promotional.

Gender, Racial and Language Bias:

Steps against Misconduct

We may take any one or all of the following steps against unethical practices:

The published content is retracted via notification.

A modified content is published with justification for modification.

The author is blacklisted and barred from future submission.

Notification along with evidences of misconduct is communicated to an author’s institution, superior, and/or any concerned authority.

Conflict of Interest:

In order to maintain transparency in publication, we encourage all—authors, editors, reviewers and other person/parties involved in the publication process, to avoid any form of conflicts of interest. Our publication policies and guidelines are regularly revised to address the issues.

Authors:

Authors with our journals and magazines need to be careful of any kind of conflict of interest—be it financial, promotional or honorary. The corresponding author is responsible for sending us the Conflict of Interest document agreed to and signed by other authors.

Editors and reviewers:

Editors and reviewers of our journal are encouraged to avoid any form of potential conflict of interest while performing their duties in concerned capacities in order to maintain integrity of our publication ethics and raise the standard of the journal. They are requested to follow the guidelines sent to them in the form of email communication. All forms of internal conflicts of interest are handled by the Editor in Chief, who maintains privacy and takes appropriate measure.

The professional independence of the editorial board members is strictly maintained by the publisher. The board enjoys full autonomy in performing their scholarly duties. The publisher does not interfere with anything regarding this. For more details, please refer our Guidelines page.

RETRACTIONS:

Journal editors are expected to reject an article having following abnormalities are found.

• If it is proved that research contains either vague or erroneous or manipulated data or misrepresentation.
• If research is neither unpublished purely/partly nor even having written consent for republishing or cross-referencing from original author.
• If plagiarism is detected.
• If research is found to be immoral or unethical.

Journal editors can seek further clarification or issue an expression of concern for re-verification if

• Editors do not have concrete proof for authors’ misconduct.
• Editors may have concrete proof of untrustworthiness of research but do not have faith on authors that they will scrutinize the case.
• Editors may have doubts regarding reliability of authority who examines alleged misbehavior with unfair or incomplete outcome in publication.
• When editor suspects that result of inquiry will be inordinate delay.

Journal editors should consider issuing a corrigendum if

• If editor appreciates reliability of publication which contains minor unintentional mistake which may create confusion.
• If editor finds that author list is erratic which includes the name of author who is unfit or it excludes name of genuine author.
• Withdrawals or disclaimers are discouraged if
• Name of authors required to be deleted or included without any genuine reason

Intimation of retraction should

• It should be clearly visible in title with author name
• It should be clearly visible
• It should be published in such a way which can prevent adverse effects
• It should be freely accessible for all the readers
• Mention the name of person who has retracted
• Describe the exact cause of retraction
• Discourage offensive reports

The purpose of retraction

• It is a tool to rectifying and improving texts which acts as a warning to readers regarding untrustworthy/erratic contents which may be due to research misbehavior or honest error.
• It is used to restrain readers from superfluous/repeated publication, plagiarism or which do not declare competing interest [which may misguide explanations or approvals.
• The motive of retractions should be to rectify the texts and strengthening reliability but not to penalize guilty author

Retraction format

• Retraction notice should contain the exact reason and intention whether it is caused due to misbehavior or honest error with retractor’s name in retraction heading. It should be reflected in all versions of the journal.
• Retracted articles needs to be noticeable easily in all versions. Editors should ensure that retractions are easily identified in all modes whether it is electronic or physical.
• Retracted research should be kept permanently in journal indicating visible status.

Major causes that can lead to retraction

• In case, there is minor, honest and genuine unintentional error, it can be rectified by issuing an erratum which is treated as journal error. In case, there is author error in some portion, then the rectification can be done by issuing a corrigendum.
• Likewise, if plagiarism is detected in rare sentences then, editor is required to justify whether article can be accepted by rectifying the same [to avoid suitably giving credit to original author] for the mutual benefit of reader and the guilty author or reject the whole paper by using unpublished content in other portion.
• Normally, Rejections are to be earmarked or kept aside for publications because of their defective and unreliable nature.
• When an article is found to be superfluous [i.e. if the contents of an article is repeated in many journals without clarification or consent or without having direction to readers to look elsewhere], a redundant notice can be issued by first journal where this paper was originally published. Paper should not be rejected unless it has untrustworthy contents. The journals which consequently publish superfluous papers are supposed to reject the same with proper reason for rejection.
• When a paper is presented (either on-line or in hardcopy) to multiple journals at the same time and processed by all the journals, then preference should be decided based on time and date of either copyright transfer agreement signed by authors or authorization certificate/document was obtained for publishing
• An editor is supposed to take suitable decision when partly repetition contents of a published article with new research. The decision should justify whether paper is to be rejected or a redundant notice explaining which portion is repeated with proper direction to readers to look elsewhere is to be issued for the benefit of readers. The editor should always remember that his intention is to rectify the text not to penalize the guilty authors.
• Withdrawals can be done only for published articles. The illustrations should be referred to see manuscripts identified with redundant publications
• Once the final version is posted in website, it represents as paper is published even if hard copy is not released. In case, of paper which is required to be withdrawn in online version before final printing, it should be shown in journal’s both website as well as in all the relevant physical database records with visible retraction notice. Full proof arrangements to be made regarding retraction clearly visible in electronic version in order to warn researcher.

Retraction responsibility

• It is the accountability & discretion of editor whether to retract the paper or to issue expressions of concern, irrespective of disagreeing by any or all remaining editors.
• The retraction of a publication should be done on priority when it is proved that either it is plagiarized or it contains misleading and imperfect data. The delay in retraction may maximize the number of researchers and adversely affect outcome of their research work resulting erratic conclusions.
• Once the editors have decided to retract the article on the basis of concrete proof, it should not be delayed due to want of authors’ cooperation. On the other hand, if the allegation for misconduct has converted into legal penal action, it is advisable to wait for the verdict before completing retraction formality. However, editor can release expression of concern in order to alert readers in advance.
• When authors are reluctant and misleading/misguiding editors by creating confusion & suspense and in absence judgment of legal formalities/concrete proof, editors are expected to issue expression of concern instead of retraction.
• The original publication (whether it is electronic or it is physical hardcopy), link should be provided to reflect expression of concern or reasons for concern or retraction notice visibly. When final judgment is declared by investing authority, the expression of concern should be replaced with retraction notice. On the other hand, if article is legally proved authentic, a letter of confession should be released/linked.
• Should retraction be applied in cases of controversial authorship?
• Whenever authorship is claimed by multiple authors after publication they insist for retraction. In such cases, if editor have concrete evidence about authentic article/author, retraction (simply due to baseless challenge) is not justified. The editor should communicate to the involved authors his inability to resolve the case but he is agreed to publish a corrigendum if the concrete proof justifying proposed change is provided.
• Whether authors can detach themselves from a retracted article?
• Since authorship is a joint venture of a group of authors and all are equally responsible for deeds and misdeeds of one or all. In case of retraction, it is advisable for all the authors to continue even if they are not guilty, for the sake of reliability of the research article.
• Whether prosecution is legitimate against journal for retraction or its refusal for retraction?
• Journal editors often faces challenge for lawful steps from the authors who raise objection for retraction or whose retraction request is not honored and such disputes may force editors to become unresponsive to retraction request.
• Concerned authors should be made well aware of entire procedure with situations/conditions for retractions through printing and circulating of contracts indicating terms and conditions. Even if such contract fails to indicate the condition for retraction, authors may not have strong base for opting lawful litigation if the journal strictly adheres to proper system and appropriate probes/inquiry.
• It is advised to consult an expert advocate for drafting an allegation properly of retraction or for expressing concern. The drafting should not be offensive and should clearly specify the exact cause of retraction and it should be able to differentiate between honest error and misconduct.
• Editors should try their best to bargain with authors to conclude the drafting which should be transparent and helpful to readers as well as satisfying the concerned authors. This will avoid unanticipated legal complications but such process should not become reason for unjustified delay in publication of retraction in spite of disagreement among authors and editors.

CORRECTIONS:

A Correction notice will be issued when it is necessary to correct an error or omission, where the interpretation of the article may be impacted but the scholarly integrity or original findings remains intact. A correction notice, where possible, should always be written and approved by all authors of the original article. On very rare occasions where there is a need to correct an error made in the publication process, the journal may be required to issue a correction without the authors’ direct input. However, should this occur, the journal will make best efforts to notify the authors. Please note that correction requests may be subject to full review, and if queries are raised, you may be expected to supply further information before the correction is approved. The publisher distinguishes between major and minor errors. For correction notices, major errors or omissions are considered changes that impact the interpretation of the article, but the overall scholarly integrity remains intact. Minor errors are considered errors or omissions that do not impact the reliability of, or the readers’ understanding of, the interpretation of the article. Major errors are always accompanied by a separate correction notice. The necessary measures may be correct the online article, issue a separate correction notice electronically linked back to the corrected version, add a footnote to the article displaying the electronic link to the correction notice, aginate and make available the correction notice in the online issue of the journal and make the correction notice free to view. Minor errors may not be accompanied by a separate correction notice. Instead, a footnote will be added to the article detailing to the reader that the article has been corrected. Concerns regarding the integrity of a published article should be raised via email to the Editor in Chief.

AUTHORSHIP:

Authors should notify us as soon as possible if they find errors in their published article, especially errors that could affect the interpretation of data or reliability of information presented. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure consensus has been reached between all listed co-authors prior to requesting any corrections to an article.

Article removal:

Sometimes, editors are required to completely remove articles or texts from the online database of the journal. This will occur in exceptional cases when errors cannot be corrected, the article infringes legal rights of other individuals, is defamatory or there is a court order that imposes such a decision. In these circumstances, while the metadata (Title and Authors) will be retained, the text will be replaced with a screen indicating the article has been removed for legal reasons.

Article replacement:

In cases where the article, if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk, the authors of the original article may wish to retract the flawed original and replace it with a corrected version. In these circumstances the procedures for retraction will be followed with the difference that the database retraction notice will publish a link to the corrected re-published article and a history of the document.

PEER REVIEW POLICIES:

We review the submitted works following Double Blind External Peer Review. We promise to conceal always the identity of both the reviewers and the author from both the parties. Primarily the submitted articles are considered by us for the confirmation of the standard and the scope of the magazine. If any submitted article fails to fulfill primary standard, the same is rejected and the decision is communicated to the author promptly. If the editors are satisfied, they will select two or more reviewers for detailed consideration of the piece. In case of disagreement between reviewers, the matter is resolved by the Editor in Chief. For more details, please refer our Guidelines page.

COPYRIGHT AND PERMISSION:

Copyright on any open access article published by the Journal of the Royal Laureates Academy (JRLA) sponsored by Royal Laureates Academy is retained by the author(s). Authors grant permission to the Journal of the Royal Laureates Academy (JRLA) sponsored by Royal Laureates Academy to publish the article and identify himself as the original publisher. The authors also have the right to retain patent, trademark, and other intellectual property rights (including research data), and also to proper attribution and credit for the published work.

Publishers are empowered to act on behalf of the author through a copyright transfer or exclusive license to copy, publish, and adapt works, whilst protecting their integrity. In this way, publishers are empowered to do various things on behalf of the author, for example, to ensure that the article is widely disseminated, that all requests for the rights to re-use content and provision of permissions are answered efficiently, and to ensure that the original is correctly attributed.

Copyright on any open access article in a journal published by Royal Laureates Academy is retained by the author(s).

Authors grant Royal Laureates Academy a License to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.

Authors also grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its integrity is maintained and its original authors, citation details, and publisher are identified.