| Home >> Subscription Based Journals >> Editorial Policies |
Overview of Editorial PolicyThe Technical Committee on Publications and Communications (TCPC) of Red Flower Publications aims to maintain a high degree of technical, literary, and typographical excellence in its publications. The primary consideration in conducting the publications is therefore given to the interests of the reader and to safeguarding the prestige of the Society. To this end, the TCPC confidently expects that sponsor groups will subject every paper recommended by them for publication to careful and critical review for the purpose of eliminating and correcting errors and suggesting ways in which the paper may be improved as to clarity and conciseness of expression, the accuracy of statement, and omission of unnecessary and irrelevant material. The primary responsibility for the technical quality of the papers rests with the sponsor groups. In approving a paper for publication, however, the TCPC reserves the right to submit it for further review to competent critics of its own choice if it feels that this additional precaution is desirable. The TCPC also reserves the right to request revision or condensation of a paper by the author or by the staff for approval by the author. It reserves the right and charges the editorial staff, to eliminate or modify statements in the paper that appear to be not in good taste and hence likely to offend readers (such as obvious advertising of commercial ventures and products, comments on the intentions, character, or acts of persons and organizations that may be construed as offensive or libelous), and to suggest to authors rephrasing of sentences where this will be in the interest of clarity. Such rephrasing is kept to a minimum. In as much as specific criteria for the judging of individual cases cannot, in the opinion of the TCPC, be set up in any but the most general rules, the TCPC relies upon the editorial staff to exercise its judgment in making changes in manuscripts, in rearranging and condensing papers, and in making suggestions to authors. The TCPC realizes that the opinions of the author and editor may sometimes differ, and hence it is an invariable practice that no paper is published until it has been passed on by the author. For this purpose page proofs of the edited paper are sent to the author prior to publication in a journal. Changes in content and form made in the proofs by authors are followed by the editor except in cases in which the Society’s standard spelling and abbreviation forms are affected. If important differences of opinion arise between author and editor, the points at issue are discussed in correspondence or interview, and if a solution satisfactory to both author and editor is not reached, the matter is laid before the TCPC for adjustment. Publication Criteria
ONLINE publication model and Reprints We strongly encourage the "ONLINE" publication model. But we also understand that "Reprints" are required by some authors. Reprints may be used to display the potential of the article at interviews, conferences, distribution to colleagues, seminars, other promotional activities, etc. Therefore, if required, reprints can be ordered here (Link). ‘REPRINTS ORDER FORM’ is separate from Article Processing Charge (APC) or Publication Charge. Agreement for Authorship Submission of a paper to the journal indicates that the author(s) have agreed on the content of the paper. One author should be indicated as the corresponding author for all publication-related communications. All correspondence and proofs would be sent to the corresponding author, who will be treated as a final representative voice for all authors regarding any decision related to the manuscript unless otherwise requested during submission. This journal would not be responsible for any dispute related to the authorship of a submitted paper. Any change in the authorship (such as addition or deletion of author(s) or change in the sequence of author list) should be intimated to the editorial office at author@rfppl.co.in through a letter signed by all authors before publication of the paper. In absence of any signed letter, approval of 'Galley proof' by the corresponding author will work as a 'certificate of final agreement of the authorship’. Generally, any change in the authorship after final publication is not entertained and COPE guidelines are followed for any dispute. Red Flower Publication Peer Review Mechanism From the publication of the 1st issue of all Red Flower Publication journals followed a strict double blindfold review policy to ensure neutral evaluation. During this review process identity of both the authors and reviewers is kept hidden to ensure an unbiased evaluation.) Advanced OPEN peer review (Applicable only to OPEN ACCESS Journals) We have migrated to a transparent and toughest ‘Advanced OPEN Peer Review System’ (Detailed general information is available in this link). High-quality manuscripts are peer-reviewed by a minimum of two peers in the same field. The OPEN peer review system provides the provision to reveal the identities of the authors and reviewers to each other during the review process. In order to add transparency further, details of all reviewers and academic editors are published on the first page of every published paper. As a final step to provide the highest level of transparency in the process, all review comments, authors' feedback, all versions of the manuscript, and editorial comments are published (along with date) with the paper in 'Review History'. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc.) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. If reviewers do not want to reveal their identities, we will honor that request. In that case, only the review reports will be published as ‘anonymous reviewer reports’. Additionally ‘Advanced OPEN peer review’ greatly helps in ‘continuity and advancement of the science’. We strongly believe that all the files related to peer review of a manuscript are valuable and hold an important place in the continuity and advancement of science. If publishers publish the peer review reports along with published papers, this process can result in savings of thousands of hours for future authors during experiments, manuscript preparation, etc. by minimizing the common errors after reading these previously published peer review reports. Therefore, as per our new official policy update, if the manuscript is published, all peer review reports will be available to the readers. All files (like the original manuscript, comments of the reviewers, revised manuscript, and editorial comments (if any)) related to the peer review, will be available in the “Review history” link along with the published paper. Additionally, we believe that one of the main objectives of the peer review system is ‘to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript’. Normally we try to publish the ‘average marks (out of 10)’ a manuscript received at the initial peer review stage and at the final publication stage to record its history of improvement during peer review. This process further increases transparency. It is more important to record honestly the ‘strength and weakness of a manuscript’ than claiming that 'our peer review system is perfect’. Therefore, these transparent processes (i.e. publication of review history files and scores of a particular manuscript) additionally give a clear idea of the strength and weakness of a published paper to the readers, which enhances the chances of proper use of the research (and or reduces the chances of misuse of the weakness of the findings of the paper). Thus this transparent process may prove to be highly beneficial for the society in long run. We strongly discourage any attempt by the authors to contact the reviewer directly to influence the review process. We also strongly discourage any attempt by the reviewers to contact the authors directly. Editorial policy is the set of guidelines by which the news organization operates. It includes the news organization's attitudes toward its community and aids editors in making editorial decisions. The editorial board of our journals makes recommendations on all editorial policy decisions. The editor-in-chief serves as chairperson. The editorial board meets twice weekly, during online production and before production of each print issue, to determine the editorial position of the unsigned editorial and to assign the writing of that editorial. Regardless of who writes the editorial, responsibility for content remains with the editorial board and the editor-in-chief? Editorials, whether written by the editor-in-chief or another member of the editorial board, must be based on adequate research to demonstrate an accurate understanding of the issue. When necessary, the editor-in-chief is responsible for formulating editorials based on a consensus (unanimous consent) of the editorial board. If a consensus cannot be reached a vote will be taken. To be approved a proposed editorial must garner four (4) positive votes. Editorials approved by four (4) positive votes or by consensus will be unsigned and considered the opinion of the paper. If four (4) positive votes cannot be achieved, a proposed editorial must be signed by those who support it. The editor-in-chief has the authority to overrule the editorial board and to refuse to allow an editorial topic to be addressed in the student news publication; however, the editor-in-chief cannot substitute a different position on the same topic without a majority positive vote of the editorial board The editor-in-chief has the responsibility to implement any policy decisions reached by the editorial board. When determining policy the board should keep in mind the need for readers to know information, community standards, and the effect the newspaper has upon the community agenda. Last updated on 29 April, 2023 at 17.31.00 PM (IST) Copyright and Open Access StatementEthical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their work and ideas. Red Flower Publication is not a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) however we committed to follow its guidelines and core practices. Authors Retain Copyright All of the content published in the Red Flower Publication journals is protected under the International copyright law, defined by Creative Commons and International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The author of an article retains the academic copyright of the content and can self-archive the article. The journal retains the commercial rights of the published content and publisher executes the commercial rights on behalf of the journal. The journal also grants to all readers and users a free, irrevocable, global, perpetual right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute and display the content publicly and to make and distribute derivative works in any digital medium for any reasonable and non-commercial purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship and ownership of the copyrights under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International Public License. Open Access Publication and Creative Commons Licensing In an open-access journals, manuscripts published are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License (CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0), which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. Compliance with Funder-Mandated Open Access Policies An author whose work is funded by an organization that mandates the use of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License is able to meet that requirement through the available open-access license for approved funders. Privacy Statement The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party. For any Questions or Difficulties please contact us info@rfppl.co.in. Publication Ethics and GuidelinesEthical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their work and ideas. Red Flower Publication is not member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and committed to follow its guidelines and core practices. All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are expected to meet standards of academic excellence. If approved by the editor, submissions will be considered by peer reviewers, whose identities will remain anonymous to the authors. Our Editorial team will occasionally seek advice outside standard peer review, for example, on submissions with serious ethical, security, biosecurity, or societal implications. We may consult experts and the academic editor before deciding on appropriate actions, including but not limited to recruiting reviewers with specific expertise, assessment by additional editors, and declining to further consider a submission. Plagiarism Authors must not use the words, figures, or ideas of others without attribution. All sources must be cited at the point they are used, and reuse of wording must be limited and be attributed or quoted in the text. Red Flower Publication uses authentic Similarly Check tool to detect submissions that overlap with published and submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts that are found to have been plagiarized from a manuscript by other authors, whether published or unpublished, will be rejected and the authors may incur sanctions. Any published articles may need to be corrected or retracted.
Duplicate submission and redundant publication Red Flower Publication journals consider only original content, i.e. articles that have not been previously published, including in a language other than English. Articles based on content previously made public only on a preprint server, institutional repository, or in a thesis will be considered. In such cases, the preprint or thesis must be cited and discussed within the article. Manuscripts submitted to Red Flower Publication journals must not be submitted elsewhere while under consideration and must be withdrawn before being submitted elsewhere. Authors whose articles are found to have been simultaneously submitted elsewhere may incur sanctions. If authors have used their own previously published work, or work that is currently under review, as the basis for a submitted manuscript, they must cite the previous articles and indicate how their submitted manuscript differs from their previous work. Reuse of the authors’ own words outside the Methods should be attributed or quoted in the text. Reuse of the authors’ own figures or substantial amounts of wording may require permission from the copyright holder and the authors are responsible for obtaining this. Red Flower Publication journals will consider extended versions of articles published at conferences provided this is declared in the cover letter, the previous version is clearly cited and discussed, there is significant new content, and any necessary permissions are obtained. Redundant publication, the inappropriate division of study outcomes into more than one article, may result in rejection or a request to merge submitted manuscripts, and the correction of published articles. Duplicate publication of the same, or a very similar, article may result in the retraction of the later article and the authors may incur sanctions. Citation manipulation Authors whose submitted manuscripts are found to include citations whose primary purpose is to increase the number of citations to a given author’s work, or to articles published in a particular journal, may incur sanctions.
Editors and reviewers must not ask authors to include references merely to increase citations to their own or an associate’s work, to the journal, or to another journal they are associated with. Fabrication and falsification The authors of submitted manuscripts or published articles that are found to have fabricated or falsified the results, including the manipulation of images, may incur sanctions, and published articles may be retracted. Authorship and acknowledgements All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript, approved its claims, and agreed to be an author. It is important to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution. We refer to the ICMJE guidelines. Author contributions may be described at the end of the submission, optionally using roles defined by CRediT. Submitting authors must provide an ORCID and we encourage all authors to provide one. Changes in authorship must be declared to the journal and agreed to by all authors. Anyone who contributed to the research or manuscript preparation, but is not an author, should be acknowledged with their permission. Submissions by anyone other than one of the authors will not be considered. Conflicts of interest Conflicts of interest (COIs, also known as ‘competing interests’) occur when issues outside research could be reasonably perceived to affect the neutrality or objectivity of the work or its assessment. This can happen at any stage in the research cycle, including during the experimentation phase, while a manuscript is being written, or during the process of turning a manuscript into a published article.
If unsure, declare a potential interest or discuss with the editorial office. Undeclared interests may incur sanctions. Submissions with undeclared conflicts that are later revealed may be rejected. Published articles may need to be re-assessed, have a corrigendum published, or in serious cases be retracted. For more information on COIs, see the guidance from the ICMJE and WAME. Conflicts of interest do not always stop work from being published or prevent someone from being involved in the review process. However, they must be declared. A clear declaration of all possible conflicts – whether they actually had an influence or not – allows others to make informed decisions about the work and its review process. If conflicts of interest are found after publication, this may be embarrassing for the authors, the Editor and the journal. It may be necessary to publish a corrigendum or reassess the review process. Conflicts include the following:
Authors Authors must declare all potential interests in a ‘Conflicts of interest’ section, which should explain why the interest may be a conflict. If there are none, the authors should state “The author(s) declare(s) that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.” Submitting authors are responsible for coauthors declaring their interests. Authors must declare current or recent funding (including article processing charges) and other payments, goods or services that might influence the work. All funding, whether a conflict or not, must be declared in the ‘Funding Statement’. The involvement of anyone other than the authors who 1) has an interest in the outcome of the work; 2) is affiliated to an organization with such an interest; or 3) was employed or paid by a funder, in the commissioning, conception, planning, design, conduct, or analysis of the work, the preparation or editing of the manuscript, or the decision to publish must be declared. Declared conflicts of interest will be considered by the editor and reviewers and included in the published article. Editors and Reviewers Editors and reviewers should decline to be involved with a submission when they
Reviewers must declare any remaining interests in the ‘Confidential’ section of the review form, which will be considered by the editor. Editors and reviewers must declare if they have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors. Sanctions If Red Flower Publication becomes aware of breaches of our publication ethics policies, whether or not the breach occurred in a journal published by Red Flower Publication, the following sanctions may be applied across the Red Flower Publication journals:
Red Flower Publication may apply additional sanctions for severe ethical violations. Investigations Suspected breaches of our publication ethics policies, either before or after publication, as well as concerns about research ethics, should be reported to our Editorial team. Claimants will be kept anonymous if requested, Red Flower Publication may ask the authors to provide the underlying data and images, consult editors, and contact institutions or employers to ask for an investigation or to raise concerns. Corrections and retractions When errors are identified in published articles, the publisher will consider what action is required and may consult the editors and the authors’ institution(s). Errors by the authors may be corrected by a corrigendum and errors by the publisher by an erratum. If there are errors that significantly affect the conclusions or there is evidence of misconduct, this may require retraction or an expression of concern following the COPE Retraction Guidelines. All authors will be asked to agree to the content of the notice. An author name change after publication will be made to the article and any citing articles published by Red Flower Publication without requiring documentation, a corrigendum notice, or informing any other authors, following a request to the journal. For RefereesPolicies and ProcessesAll you need to know when peer reviewing a manuscript for Red Flower Publications. Please read this section before submitting a report. This section provides information you will need when reviewing a manuscript for Red Flower Publications. Please read this section before submitting a report. The general peer-review policy for all Red Flower Publications Research journals is available in the Peer-review policy section of our Editorial policies. Criteria for publicationRed Flower Publications receives many more submissions than it can publish each month. Therefore, we ask referees to keep in mind that to be published in Red Flower Publications, a paper should meet several general criteria:
In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field. There should be some reason why the work deserves the visibility of publication in Red Flower Publications rather than a more specialist journal. The review processAll submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save authors and referees time, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review. Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review, typically to three reviewers. The editors then make a decision, based on the reviewers’ advice, from among several possibilities:
Referees are welcome to recommend a particular course of action, but they should bear in mind that other referees may have different views, and the editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reports, therefore, provide the editors with the information on which a decision should be based. Setting out the arguments for and against publication is often as helpful as a direct recommendation one way or the other. Editorial decisions are not a matter of counting votes or numerical rank assessments, and we do not always follow the majority recommendation. We try to evaluate the strength of the arguments raised by each referee and by the authors, and we may also consider other information not available to either party. Our primary responsibilities are to our readers and to the scientific community at large, and in deciding how best to serve them, we must weigh the claims of each paper against the many others also under consideration. We may go back to referees for further advice, particularly in cases where referees disagree with each other, or where the authors believe they have been misunderstood on points of fact. We therefore ask that referees be willing to provide follow-up advice as requested. We are very aware, however, that referees are normally reluctant to be drawn into prolonged disputes, so we try to keep consultation to the minimum we judge necessary to provide a fair hearing for the authors. When referees agree to review a paper, we consider this a commitment to review subsequent revisions as well. However, editors will not send resubmitted papers to the referees if it seems that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the referees’ criticisms. We take referees’ criticisms very seriously, and in particular, we are very reluctant to disregard technical criticisms. In cases where one referee alone opposes publication, we may consult with the other referees as to whether s/he is applying an unduly critical standard. We occasionally bring in additional referees to resolve disputes, but we prefer to avoid doing so unless there is a specific issue on which we feel a need for further advice. Transparent peer reviewRed Flower Publications uses a transparent peer review system, where for manuscripts submitted from February 2020 we can publish the reviewer comments to the authors and author rebuttal letters of published original research articles. Authors are provided the opportunity to opt out of this scheme at the completion of the peer review process, before the paper is accepted. If the manuscript was transferred to us from another Red Flower Publications Research journal, we will not publish reviewer reports or author rebuttals of versions of the manuscript considered by the originating Red Flower Publications Research journal. The peer review file is published online as a supplementary peer review file. Although we hope that the peer review files will provide a detailed and useful view into our peer review process, it is important to note that these files will not contain all the information considered in the editorial decision making process, such as the discussions between editors, editorial decision letters, or any confidential comments made by reviewers or authors to the editors. This scheme only applies to original research Articles, and not to Review articles or to other published content. Reviewer informationIn recognition of the time and expertise our reviewers provide to Red Flower Publications’ editorial process, we formally acknowledge their contribution to the external peer review of articles published in the journal. All peer-reviewed content will carry an anonymous statement of peer reviewer acknowledgement, and for those reviewers who give their consent, we will publish their names alongside the published article. We will continue to publish peer reviewer reports where authors opt in to our separate transparent peer review scheme. In cases where authors opt in to publication of peer reviewer comments and reviewers opt in to being named, we will not link a reviewer’s name to their report unless they choose to sign their comments to the author with their name. If the reviewers wish to be named their names will appear in alphabetical order at the end of the paper in a statement as below:
Selecting refereesReferee selection is critical to the review process, and we base our choice on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations and our own previous experience of a referee’s characteristics. For instance, we avoid using referees who are chronically slow, careless, too harsh or too lenient. We normally contact potential referees before sending them manuscripts to review. Referees should bear in mind that these messages contain confidential information, which should be treated as such. ConfidentialityWe ask referees to treat the review process as strictly confidential, and not to discuss the manuscript with anyone not directly involved in the review. It is acceptable to consult with laboratory colleagues, but please identify them to the editors. Consulting with experts from outside the referee’s own laboratory may be acceptable, but please check with the editors before doing so, to avoid involving anyone who may have been excluded by the authors. TimingRed Flower Publications is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication, and we believe that an efficient editorial process is a valuable service both to our authors and to the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask referees to respond promptly (normally within two weeks of receiving a manuscript, although this may be either longer or shorter by prior arrangement). If referees anticipate a longer delay, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternative referees. AnonymityWe do not release referees’ identities to authors or to other referees, except when referees specifically ask to be identified. Before revealing their identities, referees should consider the possibility that they may be asked to comment on the criticisms of other referees; identified referees may find it more difficult to be objective in such circumstances. We ask referees not to identify themselves to authors without the editor’s knowledge. If referees wish to reveal their identities, this should be done through the editor. We deplore any attempt by authors to confront referees or determine their identities. Our own policy is to neither confirm nor deny any speculation about referees’ identities, and we encourage referees to consider adopting a similar policy. Editing referees’ reportsAs a matter of policy, we do not suppress referees’ reports; any comments that were intended for the authors are transmitted, regardless of what we may think of the content. On rare occasions, we may edit a report to remove offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information about other matters. We ask referees to avoid saying anything that may cause needless offence; conversely, authors should recognize that criticisms are not necessarily unfair simply because they are expressed in robust language. Competing interestsOur normal policy is to avoid referees whom the authors have excluded, for whatever reason. We also usually try to avoid referees who have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors, who have commented on drafts of the manuscript, who are in direct competition to publish the same finding, who we know to have a history of dispute with the authors, or who have a financial interest in the outcome. It is not possible for the editors to know of all possible biases, however, so we ask referees to draw our attention to anything that might affect their review, and to decline to review in cases where they feel unable to be objective. We recognize, however, that competing interests are not always clear-cut, and the above circumstances need not automatically undermine the validity of a report. Indeed, the people best qualified to evaluate a paper are often those closest to the field, and a sceptical attitude toward a particular claim does not mean that a referee cannot be persuaded by new evidence. We try to take these factors into account when weighing referees’ reports. Referees who have reviewed a paper for another journal might feel that it is unfair to the authors for them to re-review it for Red Flower Publications. We disagree; the fact that two journals have independently identified a particular person as well qualified to review a paper does not, in our view, decrease the validity of his or her opinion. How to Write a ReportThe primary purpose of the review is to provide the editors with the information needed to reach a decision. It should also instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. As far as possible, a negative review should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision. This is secondary to the other functions, however, and referees should not feel obliged to provide detailed advice to authors of papers that do not meet the criteria for Red Flower Publication. All feedback pertaining to the scientific evaluation of the manuscript should be stated in the comments for transmission to the authors; confidential comments to the editor may be appropriate to discuss useful sensitive information or opinion but should in no way contradict the comments to the authors. As a peer reviewer, you will be asked to provide an assessment of the following aspects of the manuscript (where relevant, and not necessarily in this order):
How to Submit a ReportInformation on how to submit your referee report to the editors of Red Flower Publications. We strongly encourage referees to submit their comments via our online submission system by following the link provided in the editor’s email. For help with the system, please contact the journal’s editorial assistant. Revisions and FeedbackInformation on your involvement as peer reviewer in the revision process, and on feedback from the editors of Red Flower Publications. Download Assessment Sheet for Evaluator. Reviewers are normally asked to referee all revisions of a paper, and are informed of the decisions being taken by the editors. When we ask referees to re-review a manuscript that has been revised in response to their criticisms, we normally send them copies of the other referees’ comments. We routinely inform referees of our decisions and send copies of the other referees’ reports by email. We normally inform referees if a paper is accepted despite their negative recommendation. Referees who are overruled should realize that this does not imply any lack of confidence in their judgment; it is not uncommon for experts to disagree, and in the absence of a consensus, the editors must still reach a decision one way or the other. For EditorsThis section offers guidance and resources to assist our Editors in their roles. The Editor Community As an editor, you have exclusive access to the Editor Community, an online platform providing you with valuable features that will enhance your experience with Red Flower Publication. Log in today and receive full access to the following:
Editors’ roles and responsibilities Academic Editors at Red Flower Publication assess the scope and quality of each submitted manuscript and make a recommendation based on feedback from peer reviewers. Editorial Boards are collectively responsible for ensuring that the journal publishes high-quality research that falls within its scope and objectives. Handling manuscripts One of an Academic Editor’s most important tasks is to decide whether or not a manuscript should be published in one of our journals. This guide explains the steps involved in the decision-making process and offers help for new Editors. Publication ethics Red Flower Publication consults Editors when ethical issues arise with published articles. We recommend that you read their guidelines and other resources. We have a comprehensive list of Red Flower Publication’s publication ethics policies on our dedicated ethics page. For questions or to report research integrity issues, contact info@rfppl.co.in Approving Special Issues Special Issues are one-off issues of a journal, which focus on a specific topic or contemporary theme. Special Issues are proposed and managed by a team of Guest Editors from outside the Editorial Board. Editorial Board members are also encouraged to submit Special Issue proposals. Publishing Editors at Red Flower Publication perform essential due diligence on all Special Issue proposals. Our team ensures that key information is present and verified, as well as assessing the likelihood of receiving sufficient submissions in response to the Call for Papers. Editorial Board members are best placed to make a decision on whether the topic of a Special Issue is a good fit for the journal. Therefore, we contact Editors for advice on a Special Issue proposal. Providing feedback We ask Editors to provide feedback on a journal’s direction or performance. We use this feedback to improve all aspects of our operations. Our Publishing Editors serve as the point of contact for our Editors. These Red Flower Publication employees are publishing professionals who also have a research background. They provide subject-specific support to our Editors and also work to promote the journals in their areas of expertise. Promoting the journal We hope that our Editors will be keen to share their hard work with colleagues, collaborators, and other connections. The most successful journals are those that are supported and promoted by their Editorial Boards. We encourage Editors to discuss their journals among their colleagues, add them to their online profiles, and promote them at conferences. Appointing editors The size of the Editorial Board is determined by many factors. These include the number of submissions a journal receives, the average amount of time a manuscript takes to be processed, and the time commitment of individual board members. In the event that a board member retires, or if our analysis suggests that a larger board is required, Red Flower Publication will handle the recruitment of new Editors. In order to be invited to become an Academic Editor, an individual must have a track record of publishing well-received papers within the journal’s scope. Red Flower Publication assesses any potential candidates before issuing an invitation. Handling a manuscript Academic Editors at Red Flower Publication are responsible for deciding whether a manuscript should be published as an article in a journal. If you are a new Editor or a Guest Editor or if you have not handled a manuscript for some time, this guide provides step-by-step assistance for the editorial process. Manuscripts are handled using Red Flower Publication’s online system. Editors receive an email when they are invited to handle a new manuscript. Receiving a manuscript Our team assign manuscripts based on an Editor’s field of study and current workload. Editors should be comfortable with the topic of the manuscript, but an in-depth understanding is not essential. It is the role of the peer reviewers to assess the technical details. However, if an Editor finds that a manuscript is too far from their area of expertise, they should decline to handle the manuscript. Although we select our Editors carefully, if an Editor suspects a conflict of interest (e.g., they work in the same institution as one of the authors or are working on a competitive project), they should decline to handle the manuscript. Conflicts of interest As a member of a journal’s Editorial Board, you need to be very aware of the risk of conflicts when handling a manuscript. Firstly, you should assess your own potential conflicts. If you have recently co-authored with the author(s) of the manuscript, you could be perceived to be influenced by your relationship. Similarly, if you have recently shared an affiliation or employment history with the author(s), it could also be seen to be inappropriate for you to handle their work. Red Flower Publication aims to avoid assigning papers to Editors who might have conflicts, but we also expect our Editors to declare any conflicts. If you believe a conflict exists, you should refuse to handle the manuscript. As a subject expert, the journal relies on your knowledge of the discipline to assess any conflicts declared by a submitting author. You are also uniquely placed to be able to identify any undeclared conflicts that an author might have. You should think about these factors when making a recommendation on the manuscript. You should also consider potential conflicts when assigning the manuscript to reviewers. Typically, you should not select a referee who:
Discretion may be applied when publications are authored by a consortium. If you have concerns about a potential reviewer, consider appointing someone else. If you believe a reviewer’s recommendation on a manuscript was made to further their own interests, you may tell the authors they do not need to address that point. We are aware that certain specialist areas may involve a higher likelihood of association and overlap between researchers. In some instances, you may be the best-placed individual to act as Editor despite a connection with the author or authors. In this case, you should inform your Red Flower Publication editorial contact. They can then refer the case for review by our Research Integrity team. Initial evaluation Red Flower Publication performs essential editorial screening on all submissions, before assigning them to Editors. On receiving a manuscript, Editors should check if it is potentially suitable for publication. They should consider whether the article suits the scientific scope of the journal, as well as the basic quality of the article. Research published in a Red Flower Publication journal must also be:
In the spirit of sharing findings through our open science mission, emphasis is not placed on novelty, interest, or perceived impact. Submissions failing this evaluation should be rejected immediately. All other articles should be sent for formal peer review. Recruiting peer reviewers Editors should invite at least two reviewers to assess the manuscript. We encourage Editors to invite reviewers of their choosing, but Red Flower Publication’s software will also provide reviewer suggestions. There are many important factors to consider when selecting a peer reviewer. Are they impartial? Reviewers should not work at the same institution as any of the authors, or have an active or recent collaboration with any of the authors. Avoid using any referees whom the authors have requested not be invited. If we detect a potential conflict of interest, we will ask you to assign a different reviewer. See our page on ‘Managing Conflicts of Interest’ for more information. Are they qualified? Reviewers should have significant experience in the relevant field. Editors can assess a reviewer’s experience by looking at their publication history. Reviewers range from post-doctoral researchers through to emeritus professors, but occasionally experts from industry may also be appropriate. Do they cover every necessary expertise? It may not be possible for a particular referee to adequately assess all aspects of a manuscript. For example, if a manuscript covers practical laboratory-based experiments and high-level theoretical work, it may not be possible to find a single reviewer with all the necessary skills. Editors should ensure that the reviewers are capable, between them, of covering the breadth of techniques employed. Editors may choose reviewers from their existing academic network. They may have come into contact with suitable reviewers through conferences or collaboration or as colleagues. Searching for key terms in abstracting and indexing services is another excellent way to find referees. We also suggest browsing a manuscript’s reference list to discover researchers working on similar topics. Finding peer reviewers is not always easy, as appropriate candidates may not have the time to accept your invitation. Asking those who decline an invitation to suggest similarly qualified experts, perhaps from their own research group or institution, is an excellent way of gathering further recommendations. Reviewers may, upon request, consult with colleagues from their own research group so long as the confidentiality of the manuscript can be maintained. In such cases, we ask that they note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘comments to the editor’ section of their report. Making a decision Having read and assessed the manuscript, each reviewer will provide a report along with one of the following recommendations:
Considering the reviewers’ recommendations and deciding the fate of a manuscript is not always straightforward. If a majority of reviewers suggest rejection of a manuscript, then it must be rejected. However, if just one reviewer notices a fundamental technical flaw and suggests rejection, it can warrant rejection of a manuscript despite positive recommendations from the other reviewers. Published manuscripts must be technically sound. Concerns over the validity of the experimental process, or logic employed, should result in rejection. The perceived importance and potential impact of a manuscript should not be a primary cause for rejection, though papers should present original research and add to scientific understanding. Red Flower Publication journals publish work of significance to specialists, but replicative and highly derivative work should be rejected unless a strong scientific case supports publication. If the reviewers raise insurmountable problems, for example if the experiments are critically flawed or the results have been presented previously, then the Editor should reject the manuscript. Red Flower Publication supports the deposition of manuscripts in preprint servers, and does not consider this to compromise the novelty of the results. If the manuscript could be improved to make it more suitable for publication, the Editor should invite the authors to revise and resubmit. We ask Editors to use ‘Consider after Minor Changes’ if they are confident that they are able to assess personally whether the suggested changes have been made properly. If an Editor believes they require the reviewers’ expertise to assess the changes, they should use ‘Consider after Major Changes’ instead. If the reviewers find no fault, and deem the manuscript to be suitable for publication in its current state, the Editor may choose to use ‘Publish Unaltered’. Confidentiality All manuscripts should be kept completely confidential. Editors should not use any of its insights until after publication. Reviewers will be anonymous to the authors unless they choose to disclose their identity by signing the review report. At no time should an Editor communicate the names of the reviewers to the authors, or to anybody else in the community. Publication ethics Red Flower Publication’s editorial screening team checks manuscripts and the publication record of the authors for issues including plagiarism and other types of research misconduct. If an Editor becomes aware of any publication ethics issues on a manuscript they are handling, including plagiarism, authorship disputes, duplicate and redundant submission, or manipulation of data and figures, they should contact the Research Integrity Team via info@rfppl.co.in. From time to time, we may consult you about ethics issues on published articles. Red Flower Publication recommend reading their guidelines and other resources of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Recognition In recognition of Editors’ work and to provide transparency about the journal’s review process, the name of the Editor who accepts a manuscript will be mentioned in the final published version of the paper. Interpreting similarity check reports Through our plagcheck software highlight text overlap between a submitted manuscript and existing literature. Occasionally, our Editorial Office will send you a similarity report to assess whether there is inappropriate re-use of wording. The report will contain a calculation of the overall percentage of reuse. This number should be taken with caution. A high percentage is not necessarily unacceptable, but only an indication that there might be plagiarism or redundancy. It is important to look through the report to see the sources of overlap and where sections of overlap occur. Things you should consider
If you feel the level of similarity requires attention, you can request that the authors rewrite sections of their manuscript and cite any missing references prior to peer review. It may be that you regard the manuscript as too plagiarized to be further considered, and therefore it should be rejected. If you have any questions regarding the plag report or to discuss concerns about plagiarism in an article, feel free to contact author@rfppl.co.in. Assessing Special Issue proposals Red Flower Publication journals frequently publish Special Issues, a collection of articles that concentrates on a topical research area within the scope of a journal, proposed and edited by a team of Guest Editors. This team is responsible for handling the peer review of received manuscripts, and the promotion of the Special Issue. Before proceeding with the launch of a Special Issue, we seek feedback from our Editorial Board Members on the appropriateness of the proposal in terms of its scope and timeliness, its likely contribution to the journal and field, and the suitability of the Guest Editor team. With the advice of our Editorial Board, Red Flower Publication’s Content Development Team then decide whether to proceed. The following sections provide guidance on assessing a Special Issue proposal. Assessing the scope A Special Issue proposal takes the form of a Call for Papers. If the proposal is approved, the Call for Papers will help researchers to find the Special Issue and submit their manuscripts. The most important thing is to assess whether the topic of the proposal is within the scope of the journal it is submitted to. The aims and scope of the journal can be found under the ‘About this Journal’ section of the journal’s website. The scope of a Special Issue should be broad enough to attract a reasonable number of submissions but narrow enough to provide a cohesive collection of articles. The Special Issue should cover a small part of the scope of the journal, but not all of it. The proposal should also emphasize the current relevance of the subject and indicate why new research on the subject is warranted. The proposal should provide enough background information to entice submissions but does not need to be overly detailed. Concise proposals are more likely to catch and hold the attention of qualified researchers, leading to higher quality submissions. The scope of the proposal should be made clear throughout the text and topics. Broad descriptions that cover the entire scope of the journal are not appropriate. The text and topics should be explicitly linked to the narrower scope of the Special Issue. We encourage Guest Editors to structure their proposal as follows:
Assessing the team All Special Issues are led by one Lead Guest Editor and a team of 2-5 supporting Guest Editors. The proposal states the names and affiliations of all Editors of the proposed issue. Red Flower Publication will screen Guest Editors to ensure they meet the journal’s editorial requirements. When assessing the team yourself, determine whether you believe that the Guest Editors have sufficient expertise to handle all incoming submissions, taking into account their publication record and professional history. You can use databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, or Google Scholar to find the Guest Editor’s publications if needed. We ask that teams include Guest Editors from multiple institutions and locations, as this diversity reduces conflicts of interest and helps the issue reach a wider audience. Become an Editor Are you interested in being an editor on a Red Flower Publication journal? Or are you a current editor and wish to suggest a colleague to join your Editorial Board? Learn more about the benefits of becoming an editor on our Editor Community, or fill in the application form. We'd love to hear from you. Editor/Reviewer application and nomination form Becoming a Special Issue Guest Editor If you would like to run your own Special Issue, the following resources will guide you through the process, from assembling your Guest Editor team and writing your proposal, through to advertising your Call for Papers and managing submissions, to celebrating your published Issue. Find out more on Special Issues, please contact us on author@rfppl.co.in Contact us Our editorial office is always available to offer support. If you have any questions about editorial duties at Red Flower Publication contact your Editorial Assistant. Duties of the PublisherHandling of unethical publishing behaviorIn cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. Access to journal contentThe publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive. For details on Red Flower Publication’s archiving policy, please click here: http://rfppl.co.in/archiveJournal.php?mid=21. Advertising Policy
Publishing modelsRed Flower Publications was founded by scientists to make peer-review constructive, to bring the best technology to the service of the authors and editors, and to ensure that the active researchers within the field shape the direction of science, not publishers. In Red Flower Publications, decisions on publication are decided by an external Editorial Board that is not financially incentivized to accept articles. This ensures an independence between the publisher's responsibility to grow and promote the Red Flower Publications journals and the responsibility of the external editors to shape the direction of research. Red Flower Publications distributes editorial responsibility to the entire Editorial Board. Review Editors are empowered by directly interacting with the authors in the Collaborative Review Forum; Associate Editors are empowered to accept articles; Chief Editors are empowered to enhance the integrity of peer review. Red Flower Publications has developed the most advanced IT platform for publishing in academic publishing. In particular, Red Flower Publications provides to all of its editors the state of art Digital Editorial Office and my Red Flower Publications platforms. Here they can perform all the operations required to run a Red Flower Publications journal, completely independently and at any time of the day or night. The Red Flower Publications publishing model is an advanced model that addresses many ails of academic publishing and guarantees editorial independence and distributed power for researchers to shape the direction of research. The model is based on profound principles around peer review and evaluation of research and evolves with community feedback. Community-run Journals At Red Flower Publications we operate community-run journals. This means that we put our publishing platform into the hands of competent representatives of the academic community in the objective to publish articles that present sound and valid findings. We take great care to appoint only leading experts in their fields and specialties according to strict criteria of excellence. Once appointed, researchers are empowered to take editorial decisions to accept or reject articles. Editorial power is distributed across the Editorial Boards, and focuses on the Associate Editors. We trust that these experts, selected according to strict criteria of excellence, provide a seal of approval and certify the soundness of the research presented in the articles, by disclosing their names on the published manuscript. Hence the distributed power at Red Flower Publications comes with responsibility, accountability and recognition of services to the community. Red Flower Publications operates its programs based on a commitment to science and knowledge conducted in a collaborative spirit, openly shared, and assessed exclusively for its merit. These commitments guide us in defining our editorial policy and processes, which aim to be fair and constructive to authors, effective and efficient. Red Flower Publications seeks technological solutions for many of the routine aspects of publishing process, for which our workflows have been defined – and continue to be revised and improved – with careful consideration of our open-access principles. Gaining efficiency through technology is a central part because it allows us to provide a cost-effective and high-quality service to many authors. The Red Flower Publications publishing model of community-run journals:
Transparency, distribution of editorial power across many leaders in a community, and the requirement for a rigorous and constructive review process are a fundamental part of the Red Flower Publications principles to uphold integrity in academic publishing. Adhering closely to these principles has made Red Flower Publications a recognized leader in publishing innovation. Red Flower Publications brought open access publishing to new fields of research; developed a fully digital independent editorial office that is accessible anytime; introduced article-level metrics to the publishing world in 2007; designed and implemented a Collaborative Review Forum that focuses the review on objective issues and scientific soundness and makes the review process fair, transparent, collaborative, efficient and highly rigorous; pioneered the concept of reviewer recognition by creating the Review Editor role and publishing their names on each article; built Loop, the first open research network to make researchers and their work more discoverable. Journal Structure The basic editorial unit at Red Flower Publications is the Specialty Section. The Specialty Chief Editor is the editorial authority for the Section. He or she is responsible for establishing the Mission Statement for the Section, as well as for the nomination of a board of Associate Editors. As such, the Specialty Chief Editor is free to define the scope of content to be published in the Specialty Section, in consultation with the Field Chief Editor and the Red Flower Publications Editorial Office, the latter who manages questions of coordination with other journals of our program. The nomination of adequate Associate Editors is of particular importance, because they handle the review process and have the power to accept manuscripts or recommend their rejection. A Field Journal is a collection of core communities defined by the Specialty Sections. This tiered structure provides the basis for our journals program and, notably, allows for bridging across the limits of traditional discipline boundaries through the "cross listing" of certain Specialties under two or more relevant fields. This recognizes the importance of emerging fields and improves the discoverability of content across traditional domains. Content is organized on an even more granular level with Red Flower Publications Research Topics. These are collections of articles around a tightly defined and emerging area of research, allowing the community itself to define the direction of study. As the research landscape quickly evolves, it is becoming ever more important to offer this level of specialization, as the bigger "bins" of a traditional subject areas are no longer adequate. The Red Flower Publications web environment provides a beautiful showcase for all Research Topics, for their participants and their articles, with article-level metrics and the possibility to download the content as an e-book. Editorial Roles Our Editorial Boards determine the suitability and quality of scientific and academic content within each discipline, while Red Flower Publications policies ensure that the consistency of Red Flower Publications model is maintained across all of our publications. This ensures that the editors operate in the spirit of full editorial independence. Below are the descriptions of each editorial board role. THE REVIEW EDITOR Red Flower Publications Review Editors should hold a PhD with post-doctoral experience, or an equivalent degree with several additional years of academic work, or the equivalent number of years to a recognized qualification in the relevant field of research. Review Editors should have a recognized affiliation and a proven publication record in the specialty area. Review Editors are appointed by Associate or Chief Editors, and listed on our Editorial Board pages. Individual journals may have additional requirements and restrictions for this role. Red Flower Publications Review Editors receive regular invitations to provide an expert review of submitted manuscripts in a collaborative, transparent and efficient manner during the Red Flower Publications peer review. They provide an independent review report after which they interact with the authors directly to help improve a manuscript. Red Flower Publications acknowledges the contribution of Review Editors by publishing their name on endorsed manuscripts upon acceptance and online publication of the article. This also ensures full transparency regarding any conflicts of interest. Red Flower Publications has in place processes to support the management of both actual and perceived conflicts of interest, including policy and checklists completed by reviewers before taking on assignments. THE ASSOCIATE EDITOR Red Flower Publications Associate Editors are high-impact researchers and recognized leaders in their field, with a strong publication record in international, peer reviewed journals and with a recognized affiliation. They are typically associate professor level or higher, or an equivalent position of equal standing in their field, and are appointed by the Specialty Chief Editors. Associate Editors make an initial assessment to ensure a manuscript fits within the scope of the Specialty and is scientifically robust. They invite reviewers and directly oversee the interaction between the reviewers and authors during the collaborative peer review process. Based on the reviewers' recommendations, and ensuring all quality, validity and ethical standards have been met, Associate Editors make the final decision on acceptance or recommend a manuscript for rejection to the Specialty Chief Editor. THE SPECIALTY CHIEF EDITOR Red Flower Publications Specialty Chief Editors are leading academics and active experts in their field, typically full professors from a recognized institution with a proven track record of publications in international, peer reviewed journals and with editorial experience. Specialty Chief Editors define the editorial scope for their Specialty and have the responsibility for leading and supervising the activities related to their section and providing support and guidance to the Editorial Board. Specialty Chief Editors are expected to build and maintain a strong board of Associate Editors to ensure manuscripts are handled by relevant experts and that the peer review is of the highest quality, efficiency and transparency. The Specialty Chief Editors are empowered to act at all levels and at any stage of the peer review process in a system of editorial "checks and balances." THE FIELD CHIEF EDITOR Red Flower Publications Field Chief Editors have an established academic career with an overarching understanding of their whole field and an extensive network of collaborating experts with a very strong track record of publications in international, peer reviewed journals and typically with editorial experience. As recognized authorities in their area of research, Field Chief Editors define the overall scope of the journal and supervise all activities related to the Field Journal, with the aim to build the community of researchers in the field, drive publications to fully represent the research activity of the community, and build the quality and reputation of the field. They are expected to maintain a strong board of Specialty Chief Editors and to provide support and guidance to the editorial board. The Field Chief Editor leads the college of Specialty Chief Editors in the implementation of the Red Flower Publications publishing model and collaborative review guidelines, monitoring their tasks, encouraging team spirit, and taking the lead on building the reputation of the journal. RED FLOWER PUBLICATIONS STAFF Red Flower Publications staff span a wide range of expertise from scientists to software engineers, who support the operations of the journals and research network. The Editorial Office includes dedicated Journal Managers and Coordinators, who are the main contacts for the Chief Editors at Red Flower Publications. Together with their teams, the managers support editors in using the platform and ensuring journal growth and stewardship. The Editorial Office staff also include teams that coordinate the peer review process and assist authors, editors and reviewers. A further team ensures that submitted and published papers are fit for peer review and adhere to established ethical guidelines.
Quality Control Each Red Flower Publications article strives for the highest quality, thanks to genuinely collaborative interactions between authors, editors and reviewers, who include many of the world's best scientists and scholars. Red Flower Publications is well aware of the potential impact of published research both on future research and on society. Quality is assured by requiring that all submitted manuscripts adhere to the highest ethical standards and demonstrate rigorous and insightful research methodology and conclusions. Inclusion of appropriate reporting guidelines and the adherence of community standards for data availability to support reproducibility are also strict requirements. Failure to meet these requirements precludes review. Research must then be certified by peers before entering a stream of knowledge that may eventually reach the public - and shape society. Therefore, Red Flower Publications only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews, established in the high standards of the Red Flower Publications Review System. Red Flower Publications has a number of procedures in place to support and ensure the quality of the research articles that are published: EDITORIAL BOARD QUALITY 1) Only leading experts and established members of the research community are appointed to the Red Flower Publications Editorial Boards. Chief Editors, Associate Editors and Review Editors are all listed with their names and affiliations on the Journal pages and are encouraged to publicly list their publication credentials. ASSOCIATE EDITOR ASSIGNMENT QUALITY 2) Associate Editors oversee the peer review and take the final acceptance decision on manuscripts. Editorial decision power is distributed in Red Flower Publications, because we believe that many experts within a community should be able to shape the direction of science for the benefit of society. 3) Submitting authors can choose a preferred Associate Editor to handle their manuscript, because they can judge well who would be an appropriate expert in editing their manuscript. There is no guarantee for this preference of choice, Associate Editors can decline invitations any time, and the handling Associate Editor can also be over-ridden by the Chief Editor before she/he is invited to edit the article or at any other stage. 4) Associate Editors are mandated to only accept to edit a manuscript if they have no conflicts of interest. 5) Should it become clear that the Associate Editor has a conflict of interest or is unable to perform the peer review timely and adequately, a new Associate Editor can be assigned to the manuscript by the Chief Editor, who has full control to intervene in the peer review process at any time? 6) The Associate Editor initially checks that the article meets basic quality standards and has no obvious objective errors. REVIEWER ASSIGNMENT QUALITY 7) The Associate Editor can then personally choose and invite the most appropriate reviewers to handle the peer review of the manuscript, including Review Editors from the board or external reviewers. 8) The Associate Editor is aided in this by the Red Flower Publications Collaborative Review Forum software and interface, which suggests the most relevant Review Editors based on a match between their expertise and the topic of the manuscript. Associate Editors can however choose any reviewer they deem adequate. 9) After a certain timeframe and if no reviewers have in the meantime accepted to review the manuscript, the Red Flower Publications platform and algorithmic safety-net steps in and invites the most appropriate Review Editors based on constantly updated and improved algorithms that match reviewer expertise with the submitted manuscript. 10) Review Editors and reviewers are mandated to only accept to review a manuscript if they have no conflicts of interest. 11) Red Flower Publications algorithms are constantly fine-tuned to better match Review Editors with manuscripts, and additional checks are being coded into the platform, for example regarding conflicts of interest. 12) Should it become clear that a particular reviewer has a conflict of interest or is unable to perform the peer review timely and adequately, he or she shall be replaced with an alternative reviewer by the Associate Editor or the Chief Editor, who will be alerted and has full control to intervene in the peer review process at any time. INDEPENDENT REVIEW STAGE QUALITY 13) In the Independent Review Stage the assigned reviewers perform an in-depth review of the article independently of each other to safeguard complete freedom of opinion. 14) The reviewers are aided by an online standardized review questionnaire – adopted to article types – with the goal to facilitate rigorous evaluation according to objective criteria and the Red Flower Publications Review Guidelines. INTERACTIVE REVIEW STAGE QUALITY 15) The Associate Editor assesses the reviews and activates the "Interactive Review" – informing the authors of the extent of revisions that are required to address the reviewers’ comments, and starting the Interactive Discussion Forum where authors and also the reviewers get full access to all review reports. 16) Manuscript and review quality at this stage are enhanced by allowing authors and reviewers to discuss directly with each other until a final version of the manuscript is endorsed by the reviewers. 17) Reviewer identity is protected at this stage to safeguard complete freedom of opinion. 18) Reviewers can recommend rejection at this stage if their requests to correct objective errors are not being met by the authors or if they deem the article overall of insufficient quality. 19) Should a dispute arise, authors or reviewers can trigger an arbitration and will alert the Associate Editor, who can assign more reviewers and/or bring the dispute to the attention of the Chief Editor. The Associate Editor can also weigh in on the discussion and is asked to mediate the process to ensure a constructive revision stage. DECISION STAGE QUALITY 20) The manuscript can only be accepted by the handling Associate Editor if at least two* reviewers endorse the submission for publication (*for full-length article types). 21) The names of the Associate Editor and reviewers are disclosed on published articles to encourage in depth and rigorous reviews, acknowledge work well done on the article and to bring transparency and accountability into peer review. 22) Associate Editors can recommend the rejection of an article to the Chief Editor, who needs to check that the authors' rights have been upheld during the peer review process, and who can then ultimately reject the article if it is of insufficient quality, has objective errors or if the authors were unreasonably unwilling to address the points raised during the review. 23) Chief Editors can at any stage of the peer review step in to comment on the review process, change assigned editors, assign themselves as a reviewer and even as the handling editor for the manuscript, and therefore have full authority and all the mechanisms to act independently in their online editorial office to ensure quality. SAFEGUARDS AGAINST FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 24) Only leading researchers acting as Associate Editors, who are not part of Red Flower Publications staff, can make acceptance decisions based on reviews performed by external experts acting as Review Editors or reviewers. None have a financial incentive to accept articles, i.e. they are not paid for their role to act as Associate or Review Editors, and any award scheme is not linked to acceptances of manuscripts. 25) Chief Editors receive an honorarium if their Specialty Section or Field reaches certain submission levels. However, this honorarium is based on the total number of submitted articles during a calendar year, and not the number of accepted articles. Therefore they also have no financial incentive to accept manuscripts. POST-PUBLICATION STAGE QUALITY 26) The Red Flower Publications platform enables post-publication commenting and discussions on papers and hence the possibility to critically evaluate articles even after the peer review process. 27) Red Flower Publications has a community retraction protocol in place to retract papers where serious concerns have been raised and validated by the community that warrant retraction, including ethical concerns, honest errors or scientific misconduct. Comments and complaints policy Red Flower Publications has a highly interactive and transparent publishing model which was established, in part, to engage all the players in scholarly publishing to act responsibly and professionally. All papers are published with the names of the handling editor and the reviewers, who have publicly validated the soundness and academic/scientific validity of each article. However, our duty as a publisher includes correcting the literature whenever it is brought to our attention that an article contains scholarly errors or that authors have committed unethical or illegal acts in relation to their published work. The aim of our policy for comments and complaints is to reflect the founding principles of Red Flower Publications to provide a mechanism that is community-driven through our editors, and that fosters scholarly debate. If errors are identified in an article, the authors have the possibility of publishing a correction or amendment as a corrigendum. If ethical, legal or scholarly concerns are raised or identified after publication of a journal that could warrant further action, including retraction, Red Flower Publications follows the steps outlined below in order to consult the editors and carry out their decisions. POST-PUBLICATION COMMENTS POLICY Readers have the option of highlighting issues related to a specific article to the academic community by:
The vast majority of expressions of post-publication comments or concerns can be legitimately expressed in this manner. General Commentaries on articles are peer reviewed. Red Flower Publications reserves the right to edit or remove comments perceived to be derogatory and/or do not contribute to a scholarly debate on the topic. Authors are automatically notified of comments on their articles by our publication platform. Authors of comments must use their real identity; pseudonyms are not allowed as Red Flower Publications stands for accountability and transparency in the academic discourse. Where Red Flower Publications considers that authors of comments have not followed this policy, appropriate action will be taken, which may include moderation or deletion of the comment, and deletion of their account. RED FLOWER PUBLICATIONS COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE FOR PUBLISHED ARTICLES Many complaints are subjective. Conflicts or accusations for which there can be no reasonable expectation of objective assessment by our boards of external editors will not be considered in the context of this policy. Red Flower Publications will only act on official complaints made directly to the Chief Editors and the Red Flower Publications Editorial Office. Complainants should begin by contacting the corresponding author and attempting to resolve the issue directly, before sending their concerns to the journal. It is appropriate to involve the journal in cases where there are valid reasons for not contacting the authors, if the authors were unresponsive when contacted, or if the discussion in the first instance did not resolve the concerns. When contacting the journal the following procedure should be followed: 1) A reader who would like to raise a concern or complaint regarding a published article in a Red Flower Publications journal should email the relevant Red Flower Publications editorial office with a letter addressed to the Specialty Chief Editor outlining the complaint. The letter must contain the following information:
2) Only complaints regarding the scientific/academic validity or ethical or legal aspects of the work or its review will be considered. Complaints will not be considered if they contain personal criticisms of the authors, inappropriate or derogatory language, or where the complainant has used a false or misleading identity. All complaints will be investigated, including anonymous complaints. However, unless a specific and valid reason can be provided for wishing to remain anonymous, Red Flower Publications reserves the right not to update the complainant on the outcome of the investigation. Complainants can request Red Flower Publications and the Chief Editors to handle their complaint confidentially to the extent that this can be accommodated by our internal protocols. 3) Complaints are brought in the first instance to the attention of the Specialty Chief Editor. 3.1) The Specialty Chief Editor, in consultation with the handling Associate or Guest Associate Editor if he/she is available, and / or with additional experts from the editorial board, decides whether there are sufficient grounds for the complaint to be considered further. If they feel that further investigation is warranted, then the authors and Field Chief Editor(s) are informed of the complaint. In certain cases, the publisher or the editors may publish an Expression of Concern indicating that serious objections have been raised. They may also close the case as unsubstantiated at this stage. In this event the complainant is informed that no further action will be taken. 3.2) For complaints having legal implications, Red Flower Publications will seek advice from its legal counsel, who might also contact the editors, the complainant or the authors for further information. Red Flower Publications reserves the right to retract articles that are, or are considered likely to be, in violation of applicable legal principles. 3.3) For ethical concerns, Red Flower Publications will execute the decision of the editors, who will follow widely accepted guidelines such as those by the Committee on Publication Ethics as closely as possible, including concerns around suspicions of data manipulation and data fabrication; if it appears probable that such falsification has taken place, the case can be referred to the authors’ institutions for investigation. 4) If the complaint is upheld by the Chief Editor (as under 4.1), the resulting investigation can result in any of the outcomes detailed below as decided by the Chief Editors: 4.1) The complaint is deemed unsubstantiated – No further action is taken and the complainant is informed that the case has been closed. Further communication by the complainant on the subject will only be considered if additional information to substantiate the concerns is brought forward. 4.2) Investigation into the complaint identifies errors that justify the publication of a corrigendum – The Chief Editors will detail to the authors the points needed to be addressed in the corrigendum. Red Flower Publications will work with the authors to ensure a corrigendum is published that satisfactorily deals with the issues identified in the Chief Editors’ decision. If the authors refuse the Chief Editors will proceed without the authors’ consent to correct the literature and/or may initiate retraction. 4.3) Investigation into the complaint reveals author bias on a contentious or controversial subject – The editors decide on the most appropriate action to address the concerns, which can range from retraction to, for example, inviting a commentary on the article providing a balanced and objective context. The Chief Editors will decide on the potential authors to be invited to write the commentary. The commentary will be peer reviewed by a handling editor and reviewers not associated with the original article. 4.4) Investigation into the complaint indicates that a retraction needs to be considered and further examined – An Expression of Concern may be published to notify readers of an ongoing investigation. The editors may consult further experts or the institutions concerned to reach a decision and under exceptional circumstances may form a committee to ensure a broader representation of views. 4.5) Investigation into the complaint exposes an irrefutable reason for a retraction – The editors endeavour to work together with the authors to retract the article, but can do so even without the authors’ consent. The Committee on Publication Ethics retraction guideline will be followed where applicable. A retraction notice will be published detailing the reasons for retraction. 5) Complainants should note that investigations may take some time to conduct. Red Flower Publications is under no obligation to divulge the status of the investigation until a decision has been reached by the editors. When a notice is published, it will be brought to the attention of the complainant; Red Flower Publications has no obligation to provide the complainant with additional detail concerning the decision. Furthermore, Red Flower Publications reserves the right to cease communication with complainants who do not remain cordial in their contacts with Red Flower Publications staff or Editors. Red Flower Publication's PoliciesPublisher Policies These policies support our primary duty as a leading research publisher to ensure that authors who entrust us to publish their work do so in the confidence that we will take every effort to make sure that it is as discoverable, accessible, understandable, usable, reusable and shareable as possible. Accelerated article preview- hyperlinked with home page>> Journals>>All Journals>> any journal>> Archive We believe that the most impactful research papers should be made available as soon as possible after acceptance. We achieve this by offering ‘accelerated article preview’ for selected journals. This allows a typeset version of the accepted article to be published online within several days of acceptance. The manuscript has not been copy edited, and is replaced online by the version of record when that becomes available. Accessibility We believe that the content we publish should be fully accessible to all users, regardless of physical abilities. We achieve this by ensuring our websites meet mandated accessibility standards, and supporting machine readability to empower third-party tools that further aid access. Anti-piracy We believe that it is vital to protect our authors against infringement of intellectual property, while also considering the sensitivities and concerns of the research community. We achieve this by proactively identifying, monitoring and taking action against potential instances of infringement to ensure that any threats to the intellectual property rights of our authors are targeted, disrupted and, where possible, closed down. Any concerns about online piracy or physical counterfeiting can be reported to our anti-piracy team by emailing us at info@rfppl.co.in. Accepted manuscript We believe that the version of record is the most useful and accurate version of a research paper, but that our authors should be permitted to use their accepted manuscript in line with funder policies. We achieve this by applying embargoes that comply with all relevant funder mandates regarding the availability of accepted manuscripts. Compliance with local rules and regulations We believe that it is important that, we take account of the rules and regulations in the countries in which we distribute our published content. We achieve this by supporting researchers in complying with the rules and regulations that apply locally to the place where they do their research; working to minimize the impact of local laws on our central duty to ensure that our authors’ content reaches the widest possible global audience and that their ability to participate in international scientific endeavors is not restricted; maximizing access to content while complying with local regulations and international sanctions; and remaining neutral with regards to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright and licensing (Open Access (books) We believe that authors should retain copyright of their book manuscript irrespective of imprint and book type and receive clear credit for, and ownership of, their work. We achieve this by working to harmonize book contracts across publishing divisions and book types. Most book and chapter authors will then sign a broad exclusive License to Publish for their contributions. Copyright and licensing (Open Access Journals) We believe that authors should retain copyright of their research manuscripts and receive clear credit for, and ownership of, their work. We achieve this by requiring authors to sign a broad exclusive License to publish for original research papers for many journals, and we are moving towards implementing this for all journals. Some content types (such as review articles in selected journals or feature articles by scientist authors in Scientific American) require a copyright assignment due to the high degree of editorial involvement in their creation. Crossmark We believe that it should be quick and easy for readers and librarians to see the changes to the content they are reading such as corrections or retractions, and to access valuable additional metadata such as ORCID iDs and funder information. We achieve this by participating in Crossmark and embedding their button and link on our content pages. Data privacy We believe that Red Flower Publication should be compliant with applicable data privacy legislation and use data appropriately to provide the best service we can. We achieve this by aligning our processes, data management and controls to comply with current legislative and regulatory requirements. In addition, we are updating our approach to reflect the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Developing countries We believe that we need to invest in education and scientific research in places where it’s needed but where people might not be able to afford it. By working globally with such organizations to support their initiatives in reducing the scientific knowledge gap between industrialized countries and the developing world. Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) We believe that all the content we publish should be easily identifiable and that there should be a persistent link to its location on the Internet. We achieve this by assigning a DOI to every suitable piece of content and including the DOIs of referenced articles in the bibliographic reference lists. Reference lists are now openly available. Discovery We believe that connecting authors’ works with relevant researchers, via our own or empowered third-party services, is a core function of publishing. We achieve this by ensuring that our content is readily discoverable in key discovery services (for example, Google, Google Scholar, Scopus etc) and via support for machine readability (e.g. Linked Open Data, APIs etc). We also connect all referred content via bi-directional online links. Diversity commitment We believe that research benefits from diversity. We aim to foster equity, diversity and inclusion within our internal practices and in published content, embody these values in all our editorial activities and to support and promote these values in the research community. Hybrid journals We believe that the publication requirements of our authors are best served via the availability of, and choice offered by, a mixed model of publishing. This allows authors to publish in the journal of their choice while meeting their funder requirements. Intermediaries and distribution partners We believe that to allow for the widest reach of our content and the most appropriate local support for our products and customers, we should work with committed partners. We achieve this by working globally with resellers and agents to reach a broader group of customers and readers. This allows us to facilitate local requirements and create an extended presence around the globe. We require our partners to commit to our Business Partner Code of Conduct, joining us in reaffirming our commitments to respect the laws and regulations that impact our business and to act in a sustainable and socially responsible way. Open access We believe that driving open research is of great and increasing importance to advancing discovery. ORCID identifiers We believe that ORCID’s vision of “a world where all who participate in research, scholarship, and innovation are uniquely identified and connected to their contributions across disciplines, borders, and time” is an inspirational goal that we should strongly support. Political neutrality We believe that Red Flower Publication should not take political positions and should not support political parties or endorse political candidates. We achieve this by being politically neutral (which includes not donating to political parties or endorsing politically-driven boycotts) while respecting the editorial independence of the media in respect of our journalist content. This means that while editorial content in Red Flower Publication might sometimes take a political position, it should not be seen as a reflection or otherwise of the company’s position. Editorial content is not influenced by the company and vice versa. Preservation of our content We believe that it is our duty to support preservation of the scientific record for future generations. PORTICO, Crossref, and Index Copernicus and other several services helping in this case. Reference metadata We believe that it is important to share bibliographic reference lists of works cited in scientific publications to advance discovery and reuse. We achieve this by making our references available under a CC-BY-NC license through Crossref, as well as through our Red Flower Publication metadata. Any organization that would like to make commercial use of this information should contact us at info@rfppl.co.in. Rights and permissions We believe that third parties should be able to reproduce material from our publications and online products as part of another publication, product or origin at a conference, presentation or app. We achieve this by enabling rapid, simple implementation of third-party permissions through the Permission/Republication system. Scholarly collaboration networks We believe that as a progressive publisher, we should support authors who wish to share their research on scholarly collaboration networks. Sharing of our content We believe that researchers should be able to share research content easily, while respecting applicable licensing and copyright terms and conditions. Subscription access We believe that the subscription model remains relevant as it is the best way to provide sustainable and widespread access to journals with significant editorial investment and very low acceptance rates and to ensure that researchers without funding still have a route to publish. Text and data mining We believe that the content we publish should be available for further research and analysis. Use of our content We believe that the content we publish should be available to the widest possible audience. We achieve this by working closely with librarians to provide cost-effective access to their patrons, and complying with the vast majority of funder policies for green and gold open access. Version of record We believe that we have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the scientific record by correcting and preserving the version of record of the manuscripts. We achieve this by defining the version of record in a digital world, ensuring independent preservation, and clearly indicating if the version of record has been corrected through our article presentation and implementation of Crossmark. Peer Review SystemFeatures of the electronic peer review system
Advantages of web-based manuscript processing
Unique features
Peer-review Process & PolicyOverview of Peer Review All research articles, review articles, case reports, and case series published in Red Flower Publication journals undergo full peer review by independent academic editors and reviewers. We only publish articles that have been approved by highly qualified researchers with expertise in a field appropriate for the article. By accepting an invitation to review with a Red Flower Publication journal, reviewers agree to act in accordance with generally accepted publication ethics and best practices (including the COPE’s Core Practices and associated guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics). The reviewer understands any manuscript input they provide as a reviewer will belong to Red Flower Publication and its affiliates. The reviewer also understands that authors of good-quality manuscripts that the journal is unable to accept may be referred to journals with a similar subject area within the Red Flower Publication network. Such manuscripts (along with any peer reviewer reports) will be transferred to the receiving journal to expedite any further evaluation and the editor's decision. The reviewer consents to the possible transfer of their name, email, and review to a relevant alternate journal. In cases where a manuscript has been transferred from a journal that does not participate in Transparent Peer Review to a journal that does, any reviews submitted to the original journal will not be published. What is peer review and why is it important? Peer review is defined as the "critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are not part of the editorial staff." Ninety-one percent of authors think that peer review improved the quality of their articles. The reviewer’s help authors hone key points, identify and resolve errors, and generate new ideas. Peer review ensures the integrity of science by excluding invalid or low-quality research. What are editors and reviewers looking for? During the peer review process, editors and reviewers are looking for:
Red Flower Publication is committed to publishing high-quality material in its journals and most journals have quite high rejection rates, typically above 50%. Papers referees deem to be technically sound, but of limited interest, are usually rejected. Use of an arbitrator If the referees' reports are not in agreement, the paper and the reports are sent to an independent arbitrator (often a member of the journal's Editorial Board) who is first asked to form their own opinion of the paper and then to read the referees' reports and adjudicate between them. A decision is then made based on the arbitrator's recommendation. If a referee is overruled by an arbitrator, we will normally notify the referee of this. Submission, screening, and triage The entire editorial process for manuscript review is performed using Red Flower Publications’ online manuscript tracking system. Once a manuscript is submitted for publication, the manuscript is checked by the journal’s editorial office, to ensure the files are complete and that the relevant metadata is in order. Once this screening phase is complete manuscripts may then be triaged by a senior Editorial Board member — either the Chief Editor or one of a select team of Associate/Section Editors. At this point, the manuscript may be rejected if deemed unsuitable for the journal. The Editorial Board is clearly displayed on each journal’s homepage. Pre-refereeing stage Upon receiving a new manuscript, the editorial office conducts initial pre-refereeing checks to ensure the article is legible, complete, correctly formatted, original, within the scope of the journal in question, and in the style of a scientific article, and written in clear English. Articles pass successfully through the pre-refereeing stage and then begin formal peer review. Refereeing stage The journal editor invites reviewers who are experts in your article's subject matter to evaluate the article and provide feedback. Reviewers comment on a variety of points such as whether the study is well designed or if the results are too preliminary. The reviewers' feedback informs the editor's decision on whether to accept or reject the article. Red Flower Publication policy requires at least two qualified reviewers to evaluate a submitted article before the editor can reach a decision. The most common types of peer review are single-blind and double-blind reviews. In single-blind, the names of the reviewers are not shared with the author but the reviewers are aware of the author's identity. In double-blind, neither the author nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identity. In both models, the anonymity of the reviewer ensures that the reviewer can give an honest and impartial evaluation of the article. Most Red Flower Publication publications use the double-blind review format. Editorial assignment and assessment Manuscripts that successfully pass the previous phase are assigned to an Academic Editor who coordinates the peer review process. This assignment is performed algorithmically according to their subject expertise, or personally by a senior Editorial Board Member. The Academic Editor performs an assessment of the manuscript before inviting a number of potential reviewers to provide a peer-review report for those they deem potentially publishable. Reviewers are asked to summarise the manuscript, give constructive analysis, and suggest whether the manuscript should be accepted, reconsidered after changes, or rejected. Making a decision On the basis of the submitted reports the Academic Editor makes one of the following decisions:
If the Academic Editor decides to “Reject,” the authors are sent any review reports that have been received and are notified that their manuscript will no longer be considered for publication in the journal. If the Academic Editor decides to “Consider after Major Changes,” the authors are notified to prepare and submit an updated version of their manuscript with the necessary changes suggested by the reviewers. This might require new data to be collected or a substantial revision of the text. The manuscript is then reassessed by one or more of the original reviewers before the Academic Editor makes a new recommendation. If the Academic Editor decides to “Consider after Minor Changes,” the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, optionally having sought further advice from one or more of the reviewers, the Academic Editor can recommend “Publish Unaltered”. If the Academic Editor decides to “Publish Unaltered,” the manuscript will undergo a final check by the journal’s editorial office in order to ensure that the manuscript and its review process adhere to the journal’s guidelines and policies. Once done, the authors will be notified of the manuscript’s acceptance. Other article types 'Editorials' are written by Red Flower Publications’ Editorial Board Members or Guest Editors and do not typically undergo peer review. 'Letters to the Editor’ allow readers to comment on a published article and are published in the same journal as the original article. All Letters to the Editor are assessed by a member of the editorial board, usually the handling editor of the original article. The handling editor determines the appropriateness of the letter for publication and may consult with peer reviewers at their discretion. 'Errata', 'corrigenda', 'retraction notices', and 'expressions of concern' are all written by Red Flower Publications’ editorial staff and do not typically undergo peer review. Reviewer guidelines Applications to review
Become a reviewer for Red Flower Publications We appreciate applications in our community of peer reviewers. Please use this form if you wish to apply as a reviewer for a specific Red Flower Publication journal. You may also be contacted with requests to review other journals in your subject area. Please note that completion of this form does not guarantee that you will be contacted to review. Our Academic Editors select reviewers on a manuscript-by-manuscript basis. In each case, the most relevant scientists will be invited. How to peer review for Red Flower Publications The reviewer report should comprehensively critique the submission and consist of much more than a few brief sentences. Red Flower Publications does not require a specific structure for reports, however, a suggested format is:
We encourage reviewers to help authors improve their manuscripts. The report should give constructive analysis to authors, particularly where revisions are recommended. Where reviewers do not wish authors to see certain comments, these can be added to the confidential comments to the Academic Editor. While expectations vary by discipline, some core aspects that should be critiqued by reviewers may include:
To help authors receive timely reviews, reviewer reports should be submitted via the manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline. Reviewers should contact Red Flower Publication if they are unable to meet the deadline so an alternative date can be arranged. We encourage reviewers to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the scientific aspects of the submission, including the soundness of the methodology and whether the conclusions can be supported by the results. At the end of their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions:
However, it is important to note that the overall decision will be made by the Academic Editor. Reporting guidelines Red Flower Publications does not mandate the use of reporting guidelines by authors, however, we encourage reviewers to use relevant reporting guidelines to help assess the submission. The EQUATOR Network provides clinical guidelines, while FAIRsharing list clinical and general science guidelines. We particularly encourage the use of:
Article assessment All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are expected to meet standards of academic excellence. If approved by the editor, submissions will be considered by peer reviewers, whose identities will remain anonymous to the authors. Our Research Integrity team will occasionally seek advice outside standard peer review, for example, on submissions with serious ethical, security, biosecurity, or societal implications. We may consult experts and the academic editor before deciding on appropriate actions, including but not limited to recruiting reviewers with specific expertise, assessment by additional editors, and declining to further consider a submission. Plagiarism Authors must not use the words, figures, or ideas of others without attribution. All sources must be cited at the point they are used, and reuse of wording must be limited and be attributed or quoted in the text. Red Flower Publication uses Plagcheck to detect submissions that overlap with published and submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts that are found to have been plagiarized from a manuscript by other authors, whether published or unpublished, will be rejected and the authors may incur sanctions. Any published articles may need to be corrected or retracted. Duplicate submission and redundant publication Red Flower Publication journals consider only original content, i.e. articles that have not been previously published, including in a language other than English. Articles based on content previously made public only on a preprint server, institutional repository, or in a thesis will be considered. Manuscripts submitted to Red Flower Publication journals must not be submitted elsewhere while under consideration and must be withdrawn before being submitted elsewhere. Authors whose articles are found to have been simultaneously submitted elsewhere may incur sanctions. If authors have used their own previously published work, or work that is currently under review, as the basis for a submitted manuscript, they must cite the previous articles and indicate how their submitted manuscript differs from their previous work. Reuse of the authors’ own words outside the Methods should be attributed or quoted in the text. Reuse of the authors’ own figures or substantial amounts of wording may require permission from the copyright holder and the authors are responsible for obtaining this. Red Flower Publication journals will consider extended versions of articles published at conferences provided this is declared in the cover letter, the previous version is clearly cited and discussed, there is significant new content, and any necessary permissions are obtained. Redundant publication, the inappropriate division of study outcomes into more than one article (also known as salami slicing), may result in rejection or a request to merge submitted manuscripts, and the correction of published articles. Duplicate publication of the same, or a very similar, article may result in the retraction of the later article and the authors may incur sanctions. Citation manipulation Authors whose submitted manuscripts are found to include citations whose primary purpose is to increase the number of citations to a given author’s work, or to articles published in a particular journal, may incur sanctions. Editors and reviewers must not ask authors to include references merely to increase citations to their own or an associate’s work, to the journal, or to another journal they are associated with. Fabrication and falsification The authors of submitted manuscripts or published articles that are found to have fabricated or falsified the results, including the manipulation of images, may incur sanctions, and published articles may be retracted. Authorship and acknowledgements All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript, approved its claims, and agreed to be an author. It is important to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution. We refer to the ICMJE guidelines. Author contributions may be described at the end of the submission, optionally using roles defined by CRediT. Submitting authors must provide an ORCID and we encourage all authors to provide one. Changes in authorship must be declared to the journal and agreed to by all authors. An author may change their name on a published article. Anyone who contributed to the research or manuscript preparation, but is not an author, should be acknowledged with their permission. Submissions by anyone other than one of the authors will not be considered. Conflicts of interest Conflicts of interest (COIs, also known as ‘competing interests’) occur when issues outside research could be reasonably perceived to affect the neutrality or objectivity of the work or its assessment. This can happen at any stage in the research cycle, including during the experimentation phase, while a manuscript is being written, or during the process of turning a manuscript into a published article. If unsure, declare a potential interest or discuss with the editorial office. Undeclared interests may incur sanctions. Submissions with undeclared conflicts that are later revealed may be rejected. Published articles may need to be re-assessed, have a corrigendum published, or in serious cases be retracted. For more information on COIs, see the guidance from the ICMJE and WAME. Conflicts of interest do not always stop work from being published or prevent someone from being involved in the review process. However, they must be declared. A clear declaration of all possible conflicts – whether they actually had an influence or not – allows others to make informed decisions about the work and its review process. If conflicts of interest are found after publication, this may be embarrassing for the authors, the Editor and the journal. It may be necessary to publish a corrigendum or reassess the review process. Conflicts include the following:
Authors Authors must declare all potential interests in a ‘Conflicts of interest’ section, which should explain why the interest may be a conflict. If there are none, the authors should state “The author(s) declare(s) that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.” Submitting authors are responsible for co-authors declaring their interests. Authors must declare current or recent funding (including article processing charges) and other payments, goods or services that might influence the work. All funding, whether a conflict or not, must be declared in the ‘Funding Statement’. The involvement of anyone other than the authors who 1) has an interest in the outcome of the work; 2) is affiliated to an organization with such an interest; or 3) was employed or paid by a funder, in the commissioning, conception, planning, design, conduct, or analysis of the work, the preparation or editing of the manuscript, or the decision to publish must be declared. Declared conflicts of interest will be considered by the editor and reviewers and included in the published article. Editors and Reviewers Editors and reviewers should decline to be involved with a submission when they
Reviewers must declare any remaining interests in the ‘Confidential’ section of the review form, which will be considered by the editor. Editors and reviewers must declare if they have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors. Sanctions If Red Flower Publication becomes aware of breaches of our publication ethics policies, whether or not the breach occurred in a journal published by Red Flower Publication, the following sanctions may be applied across the Red Flower Publication journals:
Red Flower Publications may apply additional sanctions for severe ethical violations. Investigations Suspected breaches of our publication ethics policies, either before or after publication, as well as concerns about research ethics, should be reported to our Research Integrity team. Claimants will be kept anonymous if requested, though claimants may also wish to use an anonymous email service such as ProtonMail or TorGuard. Red Flower Publication may ask the authors to provide the underlying data and images, consult editors, and contact institutions or employers to ask for an investigation or to raise concerns. Corrections and retractions When errors are identified in published articles, the publisher will consider what action is required and may consult the editors and the authors’ institution(s). Errors by the authors may be corrected by a corrigendum and errors by the publisher by an erratum. If there are errors that significantly affect the conclusions or there is evidence of misconduct, this may require retraction or an expression of concern following the COPE Retraction Guidelines. All authors will be asked to agree to the content of the notice. An author name change after publication will be made to the article and any citing articles published by Red Flower Publication without requiring documentation, a corrigendum notice, or informing any other authors, following a request to the journal or the Research Integrity team. Reviewer suggestion It is a prerequisite to submit, with the manuscript, the names, addresses and e-mail addresses of 4 potential reviewers (When suggesting peer reviewers, please follow these guidelines to avoid any probable conflict of interest. Suggested reviewers should not:
Reviewer selection Reviewer selection is a critical parameter to maintain the high peer review standard of any journal. Many factors are considered during peer reviewer selection like: proof of expertise in terms of published papers in the same area in reputed journals, affiliation, and reputation, specific suggestion, etc. We try to avoid reviewers who are slow, careless or do not provide sufficient justification for their decision (positive or negative). Authors can also identify peers that they want not to review their paper. As far as possible, Red Flower Publication editorial team respects requests by authors to exclude reviewers whom they consider to be unsuitable. We also, as much as possible, try to rule out those reviewers who may have an obvious competing interest. The main force behind our fast, efficient and quality Peer review system is the tremendous hard work of our Peer Reviewers & Editors. We are extremely grateful to the peer reviewers and editors for their great service. Red Flower Publication journals are published on our official website. Review process flow The reviewers’ comments are generally sent to authors within 3 weeks after submission. With the help of the reviewers’ comments, FINAL decision (accepted or accepted with minor revision or accepted with major revision or rejected) will be sent to the corresponding author. Reviewers are asked if they would like to review a revised version of the manuscript. The editorial office may request a re-review regardless of a reviewer's response in order to ensure a thorough and fair evaluation. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in accordance with the FINAL decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered and their service not properly appreciated. Experts often disagree, and it is the job of the editorial team to make a FINAL decision. Authors are encouraged to submit the revised manuscript within 7-15 days of receipt of reviewer’s comment (in case of minor corrections). But in any case, the revised manuscript submission should not go beyond 8 weeks (only for the cases of major revision which involves additional experiments, analysis, etc.), in order to maintain the journal’s mission of fast publication. Along with the corrected manuscript authors need to submit a filled ‘Red Flower Publication review comment form’, any rebuttal to any point raised by reviewers. The Editor of the journal will have exclusive power to make the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript during the peer review process. One of the main policies of the journals is ‘fast spreading’ of scientific findings by publishing suitable manuscripts within 12 weeks after submission (except for some abnormal cases). Under special circumstances, if the review process takes more time, author(s) will be informed accordingly. The editorial board or referees may re-review manuscripts that are accepted pending revision. Manuscripts with the latest and most significant findings will be handled with the highest priority so that they could be published within a very short time. Red Flower Publication is determined to promote integrity in research publication. In case of any suspected misconduct, Red Flower Publication management will reserve the right to re-review any manuscript at any stage before final publication. General guidelines for Peer Review Process
Post-publication peer review
Portability of Peer-review In order to support efficient and thorough peer review, Red Flower Publication aims to reduce the number of times a manuscript is reviewed after rejection from any Red Flower Publication journal, thereby speeding up the publication process and reducing the burden on peer reviewers. Request from the author for 'transfer of manuscript' from one journal to another journal of Red Flower Publication, also may be accommodated under this policy. Under the above-mentioned cases, by following 'portability of peer-review' policy, Red Flower Publication will pass the review comments of a particular manuscript to the editor of another journal at the authors' request. We will reveal the reviewers' names to the handling editor for editorial purposes unless reviewers let us know when they return their report that they do not wish us to share their report with another Red Flower Publication published journal and/or that they do not wish to participate further in the peer review of this manuscript. Special note for authors As a part of restructuring all Red Flower Publication journals, we are closing all the manuscripts, where manuscripts are pending dormant for more than 8 weeks after the final acceptance mail. Due to the restructuring of our editorial policy and regulations, we have closed all the files of these types of manuscripts. Files of these types of manuscripts can be kept alive if authors agree for a fresh round of peer review by at least two peer reviewers or re-approved by the present editorial board. For any queries, authors are requested to contact by mail at author@rfppl.co.in Contact us Our editorial office is always available to offer support. If you have any questions about editorial duties at Red Flower Publication contact your Editorial Assistant. Conflict of Interest PolicyRed Flower Publication recognizes the multiplicity of financial and other conflicts confronting authors, referees, and editors. Red Flower Publication adopted a policy in August 2004 that does not aim to eliminate conflict but to manage it. The most important element of our policy is that all authors, members, referees, and editors must disclose any association that poses or could be perceived as a financial or intellectual conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript. Authors are required during submission of their manuscripts to complete the online declaration form, to disclose any conflict of interest, and to acknowledge all funding sources supporting the work. The corresponding author must ensure that all authors have been asked to disclose any conflicts of interest. When asked to evaluate a manuscript, reviewers and editors must disclose any association that poses a conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript. Recent collaborators, defined as people who have co-authored a paper or were a principal investigator on a grant with any of the authors within the past 48 months, must be excluded as editors and reviewers. Referees and editors are asked to recues themselves from handling a paper if the conflict makes them unable to make an impartial scientific judgment or evaluation. A referee or editor who has a conflict but believes that it does not preclude his or her from making a proper judgment must disclose to the journal the nature of the conflict. Divulging a potential conflict usually does not invalidate the research or the comments of a referee or editor; it simply provides the reader with information necessary to independently assess the work. A conflict of interest includes a financial association or relationship that could influence the objectivity, integrity, or interpretation of a publication. Such conflicts of interest include relationships with corporations whose products or services are related to the subject matter of the article. These relations include employment, substantive ownership of stock or mutual funds, membership on a standing advisory council or committee, service on the board of directors, or public association with the company or its products. Other areas of conflict of interest could include receiving consulting fees, patent filings, serving as a paid spokesperson, or providing services in exchange for honoraria. Other examples of possible conflicts include past or present association as thesis advisor or thesis student, or a family relationship, such as a spouse, domestic partner, or parent-child relationship. When a conflict of interest is disclosed either by the author or editor, a footnote describing the conflict will be included with the published article. Red Flower Publication reserves the right to publish an erratum disclosing conflict(s) of interest related to a previously published paper. Authors, referees, or editors who have deliberately or recklessly failed to disclose conflicts of interest may receive sanctions, including being banned from publishing in Red Flower Publication for a period of time. This policy applies to all material published in Red Flower Publication including research articles, Perspectives, Editorials, Reviews, Colloquium Papers, and Commentaries. For clarification of the policy, please see article submission page or contact us at e-mail- author@rfppl.co.in. Managing Conflicts of InterestWhile publishing a research paper in journals normally request the author to add a statement in the end: “the researcher claims no conflicts of interest.” This is the author’s declaration that guarantees objective and fair research. It implies the research results are not influenced by external factors or misconduct, such as the trade of financial incentives for positive results. If the research is funded by a corporation, the author should issue a public statement that the research is free of bias. This is a way of adhering to the code of conduct needed for academic publishing, while acknowledging the corporation’s contribution. Let’s understand in greater detail what conflict of interest entails. A conflict of interest arises when the basic interest is influenced by a secondary interest that may harm professional judgment and objectives. Here, the basic interest refers to the main objective of the work, including employee benefit, patient health, academic honesty, and social responsibility, while the secondary interest covers not only financial benefit but also professional and personal gain. Conflict of interest related to financial benefit is easiest to identify because financial benefit is relatively traceable and easy to quantify. There is nothing wrong with researchers seeking secondary interest, for example, aspiring for a promotion or a higher salary when they publish a paper, provided the secondary interest does not override the basic interest. In the medical research field, major conflicts of interest may arise between medical researchers and pharmaceutical or medical technology corporations, and one of the most common points of conflict is the corporation influencing the researcher to exaggerate the effects of a drug or treatment. To avoid these conflicts, researchers, publishers, funders, and supervisors should jointly fulfil their own responsibilities in the following ways: Researchers To ensure that research is conducted independently and with optimal value to science, authors are responsible for disclosing their financial relationship with a grant provider to their own research organization and the public, if necessary. Publishers To protect authors’ and reviewers’ rights, publishers are responsible for (a) selecting reviewers who do not have a conflict of interest with the authors, (b) protecting reviewers’ identity, and (c) maintaining a neutral and objective stand in the peer review process. The open peer review movement can pose a major challenge to these requirements. Funders Funders are responsible for respecting a researcher’s autonomy and independence and should not interfere with the research process itself. Funders also need to report the funding details to the researcher’s organization and disclose the same to public, if necessary. Research supervisors Research supervisors are responsible for looking out for any potential conflicts of interest between funders and researchers on a regular basis. Supervisors can request the funders and researchers to publicly disclose their conflicts of interest. Organizations should also have thorough relevant guidelines to prevent any misconduct that could happen due to any underlying conflicts of interest. Plagiarism PolicyPlagiarism and fabrication Red Flower Publication strongly opposes the practice of duplicate publication or any type of plagiarism. The Red Flower Publication journals aims to publish original high-quality research work. Submission of a manuscript to the Red Flower Publication journals indicates that the study has not been published anywhere or not been submitted elsewhere for publication. If author(s) are using any part of a published paper (in English or any other language), they should give a proper reference or in any case, if required they should get permission from the previous publisher or copyright holder (whichever is suitable). Plagiarized manuscripts would not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is found in any published paper after an internal investigation, a letter would be immediately sent to all the authors, their affiliated institutes and funding agency, if applied and subsequently the paper will be retracted. Plagiarism policy of the Red Flower Publication journals is mainly inspired by the plagiarism policy of The Nature which is described below:
Plagiarism is unacknowledged copying or an attempt to misattribute original authorship, whether of ideas, text or results. As defined by the ORI (Office of Research Integrity), plagiarism can include, "theft or misappropriation of intellectual property and the substantial unattributed textual copying of another's work". Plagiarism can be said to have clearly occurred when large chunks of text have been cut-and-pasted without appropriate and unambiguous attribution. Such manuscripts would not be considered for publication in a Red Flower Publication journals. Aside from wholesale verbatim reuse of text, due care must be taken to ensure appropriate attribution and citation when paraphrasing and summarising the work of others. "Text recycling" or reuse of parts of text from an author's previous research publication is a form of self-plagiarism. Here too, due caution must be exercised. When reusing text, whether from the author's own publication or that of others, appropriate attribution and citation is necessary to avoid creating a misleading perception of unique contribution for the reader. Duplicate (or redundant) publication occurs when an author reuses substantial parts of their own published work without providing the appropriate references. This can range from publishing an identical paper in multiple journals, to only adding a small amount of new data to a previously published paper. Red Flower Publication journal editors assess all such cases on their individual merits. When plagiarism becomes evident post-publication, we may correct, retract or otherwise amend the original publication depending on the degree of plagiarism, context within the published article and its impact on the overall integrity of the published study. Red Flower Publication is part of Similarity Check, a service that uses software tools to screen submitted manuscripts for text overlap. Due credit for others' work Discussion of unpublished work Manuscripts are sent out for review on the condition that any unpublished data cited within are properly credited and the appropriate permission has been attained. Where licenced data are cited, authors must include at submission a written assurance that they are complying with originators' data-licencing agreements. Discussion of published work When discussing the published work of others, authors must properly describe the contribution of the earlier work. Both intellectual contributions and technical developments must be acknowledged as such and appropriately cited. Red Flower Publication journals' policy on duplicate publication Material submitted to a Red Flower Publication journal must be original and not published or concurrently submitted for publication elsewhere. Authors submitting a contribution to a Red Flower Publication journal who have related material under consideration or in press elsewhere should upload a clearly marked copy at the time of submission, and draw the editors' attention to it in their cover letter. Authors must disclose any such information while their contributions are under consideration by a Red Flower Publication journal - for example, if they submit a related manuscript elsewhere that was not written at the time of the original Red Flower Publication journal submission. If part of a contribution that an author wishes to submit to a Red Flower Publication journal has appeared or will appear elsewhere, the author must specify the details in the covering letter accompanying the Red Flower Publication submission. Consideration by the Red Flower Publication journal is possible if the main result, conclusion, or implications are not apparent from the other work, or if there are other factors, for example if the other work is published in a language other than English. Red Flower Publication will consider submissions containing material that has previously formed part of a PhD or other academic thesis which has been published according to the requirements of the institution awarding the qualification. The Red Flower Publication journals support prior publication on recognized community preprint servers for review by other scientists in the field before formal submission to a journal. More information about our policies on preprints can be found here. Red Flower Publication journals allow publication of meeting abstracts before the full contribution is submitted. Such abstracts should be included with the Red Flower Publication journal submission and referred to in the cover letter accompanying the manuscript. In case of any doubt, authors should seek advice from the editor handling their contribution. If an author of a submission is re-using a figure or figures published elsewhere, or that is copyrighted, the author must provide documentation that the previous publisher or copyright holder has given permission for the figure to be re-published. The Red Flower Publication journal editors consider all material in good faith that their journals have full permission to publish every part of the submitted material, including illustrations. Some useful information is available at the following links: Correction and retraction policyThe process for handling cases requiring Corrections, Retractions, Withdrawals, and Expressions of Concern Red Flower Publication is determined to promote integrity in research publication. We have great respect and we generally follow the guidelines, given by COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE) for any publication disputes, authorship disputes, etc. For these kinds of disputes, we generally visit and follow the COPE website and author(s) are also requested to do so. Excellent guidelines, related to COPE’s Code of Conduct and its advice to tackle cases of suspected misconduct, are available in this link (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts). All the materials available in COPE website are the copyright of COPE. Red Flower Publication recognizes the importance of the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record to researchers and librarians and attaches the highest importance to maintaining trust in the authority of its electronic archive. It is a general principle of scholarly communication that the editor of a learned journal is solely and independently responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal shall be published. In making this decision the editor is guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. An outcome of this principle is the importance of the scholarly archive as a permanent, historic record of the transactions of scholarship. Articles that have been published shall remain extant, exact, and unaltered as far as is possible. However, very occasionally circumstances may arise where an article is published that must later be retracted or even removed. Such actions must not be undertaken lightly and can only occur under exceptional circumstances. This policy has been designed to address these concerns and to take into account current best practices in the scholarly and library communities. As standards evolve and change, we will revisit this issue and welcome the input of scholarly and library communities. We believe these issues require international standards and we will be active in lobbying various information bodies to establish international standards and best practices that the publishing and information industries can adopt. Circumstances may arise where an article is published that must later be retracted or removed. These are exceptional circumstances and are not taking lightly. When a paper is retracted, the journal and the journal's preservation site will retain all versions of retracted or removed papers. We will follow the best practice and recommendations of ICMJE. Article withdrawal Withdrawal could be used for papers in the Press, an early version of the articles, containing some errors or submitted twice. An article could be withdrawn if they represent infringements of professional, ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data. Withdrawn means that the article content is removed and replaced with the statement that the article has been withdrawn according to the National Library of Medicine's policy. Only used for Articles in Press which represent early versions of articles and sometimes contain errors, or may have been accidentally submitted twice. Articles in Press (articles that have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published and will not yet have the complete volume/issue/page information) that include errors, or are discovered to be accidental duplicates of other published articles (s) or are determined to violate our journal publishing ethics guidelines maybe "Withdrawn" from us. Withdrawn means that the article content (HTML and PDF) is removed and replaced with an HTML page and PDF simply stating that the article has been withdrawn. Article retraction Retraction could happen if a manuscript contains infringements of professional, ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data. It may also happen when error correction is needed in a publication. If the paper is clearly defamatory or infringes others' legal rights, or we have good reason to expect it will be, the subject of a court order, or where the article, if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk, we will remove an article from the online database. In these cases, 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. The retraction of an article by its authors or the editor under the advice of members of the scholarly community has long been an occasional feature of the learned world. Standards for dealing with retractions have been developed by a number of library and scholarly bodies, and this best practice is adopted for article retraction, the following steps will be followed:
Article replacement If an author thinks a paper might pose a serious health risk, an author 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 Article Removal: Legal limitations In an extremely limited number of cases, it may be necessary to remove an article from the online database. This will only occur where the article is clearly defamatory or infringes others’ legal rights, or where the article is, or we have good reason to expect it will be, the subject of a court order, or where the article if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk. 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. Expressions of Concern Journal editors may consider issuing an Expression of Concern if they have well-founded concerns and feel that readers should be made aware of potentially misleading information contained in an article. However, Expressions of Concern should only be issued if an investigation into the problems relating to the article has proved inconclusive, and if there remain strong indicators that the concerns are valid. See COPE case 17-02 Data manipulation and institute's internal review. On very rare occasions, an Expression of Concern may be issued while an investigation is underway but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time. However, in such cases there must be well-founded grounds to suggest that the concerns are valid. In all cases, editors should be aware that an Expression of Concern carries the same risks to a researcher's reputation as a retraction, and it is often preferable to wait to publish a retraction until a definitive judgment has been achieved by an independent investigation. See COPE case 15-10 Handling self-admissions of fraud. Data sharing policyData sharing policy- Open Access Journals Publisher data sharing policies This means that researchers must make their datasets publicly available, whereby readers can “reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript” and “replicate the reported study findings in their entirety.” Datasets can be made publicly available in three ways:
Red Flower Publication is encouraging all journals to adopt one of the standard research data sharing policies. All Red Flower Publication journals are implementing the data citation policy. You can access the list of journals and the policies they support at the ‘Author Compliance Tool’. Where data are held in repositories, the choice of license will be determined by the terms of the repository. Some funders also have specific license requirements. Authors are responsible for reviewing the license agreements during submission. Researchers should ideally decide how their research data is made available, but can only share data they are legally permitted to share or make public. In general, a license that enables the maximum potential for reuse, such as one of the ‘Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International License’, is preferred. It is the responsibility of the author depositing data to confirm they have the necessary rights to submit data to a repository or journal. Authors are encouraged to make research data available as early as possible, in accordance with community practice and as required by funder and institutional policy. Practice varies by field, and embargoes on data sharing are common practice in some communities so, in the absence of funder mandate, the relevant community standards should prevail. Only the “mandates data sharing” policy requires data sharing as a condition for publication and requires data sharing upon acceptance by the journal – authors should confirm the policy of their target journal prior to submission Authors are required to provide a data availability statement, including a link to the repository they have used, and to cite the data they have shared. Whenever possible the scripts and other artefacts used to generate the analyses presented in the paper should also be publicly archived.
Red Flower Publication’s Data Sharing Policies Red Flower Publication is committed to a more open research landscape, facilitating faster and more effective research discovery by enabling reproducibility and verification of data, methodology and reporting standards. We encourage authors of articles published in our journals to share their research data including, but not limited to: raw data, processed data, software, algorithms, protocols, methods, materials.
Encourages Data Sharing The Red Flower Publication encourages authors to share the data and other artefacts supporting the results in the paper by archiving it in an appropriate public repository. Authors may provide a data availability statement, including a link to the repository they have used, in order that this statement can be published in their paper. Shared data should be cited.” All accepted manuscripts may elect to publish a data availability statement to confirm the presence or absence of shared data. If you have shared data, this statement will describe how the data can be accessed, and include a persistent identifier (e.g., a DOI for the data, or an accession number) from the repository where you shared the data. You may use the Standard Templates for Author Use or draft your own. The Red Flower Publication expects that data supporting the results in the paper will be archived in an appropriate public repository. Authors are required to provide a data availability statement to describe the availability or the absence of shared data. When data have been shared, authors are required to include in their data availability statement a link to the repository they have used, and to cite the data they have shared. Whenever possible the scripts and other artefacts used to generate the analyses presented in the paper should also be publicly archived. If sharing data compromises ethical standards or legal requirements then authors are not expected to share it. The Red Flower Publication requires, as a condition for publication, that the data supporting the results in the paper will be archived in an appropriate public repository. Authors are required to provide a data availability statement, including a link to the repository they have used, and to cite the data they have shared. Whenever possible the scripts and other artefacts used to generate the analyses presented in the paper should also be publicly archived. Exceptions may be granted at the discretion of the editor, for example, if sharing data compromises privacy of human data, ethical standards or legal requirements. If authors are unable to share data (for example, if sharing data compromises ethical standards or legal requirements) then authors are not required to share it and must describe restrictions in their data availability statement. Mandates Data Sharing and Peer Reviews Data The Red Flower Publication requires, as a condition for publication, that the data supporting the results in the paper will be peer reviewed and archived in an appropriate public repository. Authors are required to provide a data availability statement, including a link to the repository they have used, and to cite the data they have shared. Whenever possible the scripts and other artefacts used to generate the analyses presented in the paper should also be publicly archived. Exceptions may be granted at the discretion of the editor. If sharing data compromises ethical standards or legal requirements then authors are not required to share it. And: Or: Peer review of empirical data will be conducted to confirm that the data reproduce the analytic results reported in the paper. Standard Templates for Author Use Below is a list of standard templates for the text that will appear in the "Data Availability Statement" portion of your article.. These statements adhere to guidelines set forth to comply with journals that have an "Expects Data" or "Mandates Data" policy.
Data citation: [dataset] Authors; Year; Dataset title; Data repository or archive; Version (if any); Persistent identifier (e.g. DOI) How to choose an appropriate data repository See below for Red Flower Publication’s recommended methods of choosing an appropriate data repository for your research: Visit re3data.org or fairsharing.org to help identify registered and certified data repositories relevant to your subject area Appointing editorsThe size of the Editorial Board is determined by many factors. These include the number of submissions a journal receives, the average amount of time a manuscript takes to be processed, and the time commitment of individual board members. In the event that a board member retires, or if our analysis suggests that a larger board is required, Red Flower Publication will handle the recruitment of new Editors. In order to be invited to become an Academic Editor, an individual must have a track record of publishing well-received papers within the journal’s scope. Red Flower Publication assesses any potential candidates before issuing an invitation. The Red Flower Publications also selected editors based on their qualifications and in recommendations of other current members. Although we select our Editors carefully, if an Editor suspects a conflict of interest (e.g., they work in the same institution as one of the authors or are working on a competitive project), they should decline to handle the manuscript. Editorial Values StatementEditors of the Red Flower Publications believe in the transformational power of science and its potential to drive positive change in the world. As members of the scientific community, we are committed to supporting the research enterprise by curating, enhancing and disseminating research that is rigorous, reproducible and impactful. We work to promote openness and transparency as well as the highest standards in research culture. We provide an independent forum for reporting and discussing issues concerning research and the community, and we engage with researchers at all stages of their career to understand their needs and advocate for positive change. We believe that science should represent everyone. As such, we recognize that it is our responsibility to work towards overcoming inequities and to foster a culture of diversity and inclusion in our communities. Advertisement Policies
Online Cancellation Policies Advertiser may cancel the entire Insertion Order, or any portion thereof, as follows:
Advertising complaints policy Please send any complaints about advertising to: info@rfppl.co.in Advertisement Standard Code of India (ASCI) The Advertisement Standard Code of India investigates complaints about published medicines advertisements and ensures compliance with the India Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion which include a section on medicines advertising. It also monitors advertising in the press, direct marketing and sales promotion and on the Internet. Advertisements directed at health professionals are exempt from the India Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion. The Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) Complaints about the advertising of medicines supplied on prescription are considered by the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority under the OPPI Code of Pharmaceutical Practices. Complaints which are made under the Code about promotional activities and promotional material are considered by the Code of Practice Panel, the decisions of which can be appealed to the Code of Practice Appeal Board. Reports on completed cases are published quarterly in the Code of Practice Review. Policy correct as of 30.11.2022 ICMJE-recommendationsProtection of Patients' RightsComing Soon PDF & EBook access PolicyIn addition, several journal editors, ethics committees and medical colleges have made it mandatory to register clinical studies in the CTRI. PDF access policy Peer review Terms & ConditionsPeer Review Terms and Conditions Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process. The Red Flower Publications requests that all reviewers adhere to a set of basic principles and standards during the peer-review process in research publication; these are set out below. Please read them carefully before you submit a review, as, by agreeing to be a reviewer for journals from Red Flower Publications, you are acknowledging that you agree to and accept these conditions. These conditions are based on The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for Peer Reviewers which also provides further information on how to be objective and constructive in your review. Conflicts of interest During the review process we ask you to declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which could be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature) so that editors can assess these and factor them into their decisions. Please refer any major concerns over potentially competing interests to the editorial office before beginning your review. In addition, you should not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review. Confidentiality Unpublished manuscripts are confidential and you must not disclose their contents to anyone except a professional colleague whose input you request as part of your review process. If you do choose to discuss the manuscript and/or your review with a professional colleague you are responsible for ensuring that they are made fully aware of the confidential nature of the discussion and that they must not disclose any information about the manuscript until the article is published. The identity of any co-reviewer and any potential conflicting or competing interests they may have must be disclosed when submitting your review. Timeliness If you feel qualified to judge a particular manuscript, you should agree to review only if you are able to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame (i.e. within 72 hours). If you cannot review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers if relevant, based on their expertise and without any influence of personal considerations or any intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome. Scientific misconduct If you have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article; please do let the journal Editor know. Appropriate feedback As a reviewer you must provide a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. For example, be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements. Be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope. Our use of your review Depending on a journal’s editorial policy, you may be offered the opportunity to make additional confidential comments to the editor. Unless the reviewer has been offered confidentiality, reviews will usually be passed on in full to authors and other reviewers when an editorial decision is made. Reviews should be civil and constructive and editors reserve the right to edit or remove any comments felt to be inappropriate. Authors are given the option of nominating other journals from Red Flower Publications to which they would like their manuscript passed if it is rejected for publication by their first choice. This may result in the paper being resubmitted to other journals from Red Flower Publications in succession. If the author of the manuscript you reviewed has taken up this option, your review will be passed on to the editor(s) of the nominated journal(s) along with the manuscript and you might be invited to review a revised version. If the article is selected for publication in another journal from Red Flower Publications, your review may also be published (depending on the editorial policy of the journal in question). You will be contacted for your permission before this happens. Restrictions on your use of your review We do not restrict the use you make of your review once the manuscript has been published. However, an author’s manuscript remains confidential until it is published, and you must not disclose any information about an unpublished manuscript, including your review of it. Please note that if the article is NOT published you may refer to the journal which requested your review and the fact that you have reviewed an article for it. However, you may not post any details of the article which was reviewed, or any part of the review that would breach the confidentiality under which the article was provided to you for review. Your registration details We hold your details on the database for the journal you register to review for. We also ask your permission to hold your details on the reviewer databases for other journals from Red Flower Publications, with similar content. If you agree to this, you may opt out at any time by emailing the editorial office of the journal you registered to review for. Specific conditions:
That the aforesaid terms and condition shall be binding upon me and all legal disputes subject to Delhi jurisdiction. I have signed this paper on the date and place mentioned below after fully understanding contents of this Term and Conditions with my own sweet will, without any threat or coercion. Ethical guidelinesComing Soon Article Processing Charges
Indexing and DatabasesAuthor Services & RatesComing Soon |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
