"GOLD" Open access. No requirement for registration or log in to read or download the pdf version of the article for academic purpose. Commercial use requires copyright permission.

Authors should make it certain that they have acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been significant in determining the nature of the reported work. Authors should take permission from the researcher before using the questionnaire in a questionnaire study to avoid any conflict post-publication. Also, in case If you are including material that has been previously published (illustrations or tables or images), you are required to obtain permission from the original publisher to reproduce that material to avoid any conflict.

JCDR does not take any advertisements in its print copy. No advertising inserts or book marks are placed in the print copy. It has placed google adservices.com on its website in right side column. It does not display any other advertisements in footer, header or within the text of an article. No pop outs or scrolls for this purpose are used.

Before raising a complaint we request the complainant to decide if the preview of complaint is related to science of the article or otherwise.

• If it is related to the science of the article then these should be submitted formally as letter to editor. This helps proper and timely response to such issues. Directly sending emails to editor and carbon copying it to all editors and expecting a quick response is seldom the desired path. Most editors have many emails to sort every day and this just chokes the inbox.

• In case Authorship conflict arises during the processing of an article or post-publication, the journal should not be expected to act as an arbitrator. Anonymous mails about such articles describing any existence of conflict will not be entertained. Any such complaint should be Carbon copied to all the involved parties and the final decision towards resolution ( mutually among authors or after institutional intervention) should be made known to the journal. In case of lack of resolution, conflict of a serious nature, being stretched too long, the journal will reserve right to maintain status quo, issue an expression of concern or retract the article based on its own assessment of the issue. Interested reader can refer to the editorial publication based on such experiences click here.

• For complaints related to any other issue in a published article an email to Chief editor (drhemantjain@jcdr.net) or Deputy Chief editor (drartigarg@jcdr.net) should be sent detailing the case. It should not be signed anonymously. Anonymous complaints will not be entertained. Name, designation and institution of the person writing the email should be given. It is preferable if a phone contact number is also provided. Generally first response of acknowledgment of the email will be given within 5 working days. Thereafter the time to resolve the issue will depend up the details of the case itself. Please understand that the journal has a limited editorial staff and other honorary committed people who work together for the efficient conduct of journal. It does not have resources or domain to be an investigative agency. Hence patience is requested. Journal work revolves around educated people and most issues are resolved by email communications. Sending threats or legal notices or screaming on telephones is neither desired nor does it change the outcome. Journal editorial will try to resolve issues as soon as possible within the desired ethical framework.

• Whistle-blowers: If the complainant feels he or she is not comfortable in disclosing the name or fears some repercussion, they can request us not to disclose their identity to the primary author. However we should be convinced that there is paramount reason to do so. In no case shall we entertain a complaint in which the complainant does not identify oneself.

• Writing complaint mails, has been found to be among the quirky obsessions of some people. This, we can say from our own experience. Some readers send irrelevant mails, with content that are neither conflicts nor errors in science of the article. They keep on doing this almost always, after an issue is published. Such a trend is marked by journal and neither the complainant nor the mail is responded to. It becomes an annoying task for the editorial to sort important mails among the pile. This habit is highly condemned.

To Justify authorship for the submitted manuscripts, the contributors should meet the following three conditions:

• Conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data has been done by the author
• Either drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content has been done by the author
• The final approval of the version to be published has been given by the author. Each contributor should have participated sufficiently in the work to be allowed to take public responsibility for suitable portions of the content.

Note :

These are the guidelines given out by respected international bodies for authorship. Based on our experience we have add few points to the above which should also be taken into consideration while deciding upon the authorship list.

• Some articles are drafted based on thesis works. In such cases we expect both the Guide/Mentor and the Principal Investigator to be part of the authorship. In past we have faced post publication authorship conflicts in which either of them were not included, hence the policy of including both these among the authors. If the corresponding author did not follow this, by excluding either or both the Principal Investigator and the Guide, they should be informed before submitting the article and should attach a documental proof of consent on the manuscript publication without his or her name. Interested reader can refer to the editorial publication based on such an incidence click here.

• In some articles author from departments unrelated to the topic of the article, from geographically separate institutions is seen. As incidences of gift or purchase authorship is high in the Indian subcontinent, such authors are viewed with contempt. And as a rule our editors tend to shy away from such articles, unless compelling argument is put forth by the corresponding author.

Naming Order for Contributors

The order of naming the contributors should be based on the relative contribution of the contributor towards the study and the writing of the manuscript. Once submitted, the order cannot be changed without the written consent of all the contributors.

Number of Contributors

In the event of a study carried out in a single institute, the number of contributors should not exceed eight. For case-reports, images, letters to the editor, and review articles, the number of contributors should not exceed five. There should be a written justification if the number of contributors exceeds five.

Authorship Change

No addition of author(s) will be entertained post submission. Exception to this will be made only with proper justification supported by institution/university head.

JCDR follows the COPE guidelines regarding change/addition/removal of authors. For any kind of change it is expected that the corresponding author writes to us detailing the reasons, as well as submit a signed copy from all authors wherein they have agreed upon the change. This can be accepted anytime till the article is published online. Post-publication changes are not acceptable, even any change/hand over of corresponding authorship will not be agreeable by the journal. If, any serious misconduct or conflict is brought to light, the study institution will be informed. A mutual agreement is always prayed for.

Guarantor

One or more author should take responsibility for the integrity of the work from the inception to the publishing of the article. This author will be designated as the guarantor.

Charges and Other Fees

JCDR condemns citation manipulation. Editors are educated to avoid superfluous self citations. These are allowed only when deemed necessary to support an argument/finding. The JCDR self citation rate has remained consistently low and static based on the data provided by Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)

Citation of earlier works of the author, within the current work, is at times necessary. However, in many instances it is a manipulative attempt by authors to improve the citations of their earlier publications. Such a citation is checked and judged for its necessity by the editors. As a conscious decision, an article with ample evidence of citation manipulations, are given low scores by the editorial peer review, that pitches the article towards earning negative reviews.

If a complaint is forwarded to the ombudsman against any journal staff or the editorial, a three member committee is formed, excluding the person against whom the complaint is levied. They then apprise the Ombudsman of their findings and recommend suggestions.

It is the policy of journal Ombudsman to interview all onsite office staff, once every fortnight to individually and informally record any grievances or suggestions. Similarly a senior female editor is responsible to discuss any issue related to sexual harassment in work place or any other issue which a female worker would feel comfortable sharing with another female. For this, the complainant is encouraged a discussion with the editor even after the office hours.

If the complaint is of a serious nature then the committee is widened with inclusion of Accounts head and the company Lawyer and a member of holding trust.

Confidentiality of data relating to individual patients and visitors to the Web site, including their identity, is respected by this Web site. The Web site owners undertake to either honour or exceed the legal requirements of medical or health information privacy as applicable. (Governed by the laws of India)

Only active and current members of the Editorial team have access to this data at any given time. All emails sent to the Journal are kept on the journal mail box for 7 days, there after archived as offline content on our harddrive. There they are stored indefinitely. Only the chief editor, Editorial secretary and the Editor for Review has access to these. We do not forward the content or email IDs of any correspondence to third party outside of journal activities. Info given by people to us on e-mails will be used by us only, these statistics will not be used by third party or other companies.

Data archiving and backup are very important steps to protect articles from being lost due to system failures or if the primary publisher ceases to publish the journal. Archival services like LOCKSS ,Portico , CLOCKSS and others were considered. Despite some being not-for profit services, annual and recurrent charges were found high. Hence the following methods have been adopted by JCDR to maintain continuation and permanence of data.

1. From start of publication till august 2012: In addition to data being published in JCDR webpage the data on all articles published from start of publication till august 2012 has been uploaded on Index Copernicus (IC) publisher* panel. This data can be retrieved at any time by searching the journal within Index Copernicus page without need for login, and clicking on the issues link.

2. From August 2012 to September 2017: Full text of all articles are uploaded in Pubmed Central, which is a well established repository.

3. Data from September 2017 till date: Uploaded on Index Copernicus publisher* panel.

Above are the deposits which JCDR has done proactively. However many Indexing authorities thems1elves crawl the journal website and pick and index the article data. These are listed under indexing authorities.

*Since this is a cumbersome work hence some very old issues are being uploaded on the IC website at the time of this policy. By Mid of 2020 we hope all data would be safely archived.

1. JCDR Mirror: jcdr.in is a mirror of jcdr.net (the main website of the journal) and runs from a different server located at a different continent. The ftp data is synchronized with main website every fortnightly. The database data is updated live.

2. R1 back up service by webhosting.com.uk. This service backs up whole server data which includes jcdr.net (journal data) and jcdr.org.in (manuscript management portal) data onto a different server kept on different location. This is a professional paid service and back up frequency is once every 24 hours. A total of 30 backup points are kept at any given time.

As a policy, JCDR allows limited number of table/figures in each article, sufficient enough to substantiate a study finding. The editorial biostatistician is approached to recheck this data, if the editorial peer review feels such a need. In drafts having data insufficient for the biostatistician to work out the presented outcomes, authors will be requested to provide the complete data set. Purpose is explicitly stated in the journal mail and a vow taken not to use the data in any other manner or publish it. Inability for authors to provide this will lead to rejection of the article. If necessary the journal bio-statistician or the editor would speak directly with the person responsible for derivation of the statistics. This helps to resolve issues surrounding use of different statistical procedures.

If author wishes and allows we publish this complete data set as supplementary data along with the article. However most authors do not agree, this is when we keep the data in the journal custody, tagged with the article documents, for any later reference. After the article is published and has been published for more than a year the data and all article files are archived on an back server. These can then only be accessed by senior members of the editorial with proper reasoning and prior permission from the Chief Editor. Further it is important to note that the corresponding author should be in a position to provide the data set at any date after publication, if some reader raises an issue with the data and requests journal to look into this matter.

Questionnaire-based studies might require the questionnaire to be attached with the article, unless the tables are self explanatory.

When a submitted work is cleared by the editorial, it is sent for peer review. When the article is downloaded, the peer reviewer is requested to login and agree not to use this work or part of the work for any purpose other than to perform peer review. Peer reviewer can be national or international, may be a regular reviewer of the journal or a first time for the journal. In any case, the peer reviewer has a copy of the article. In practice, peer reviewers are honorable people who give their valuable time to review research papers or any literary work. An act that keeps such scholarly works being vetted before publication. However rarely, they may misuse an article for own nefarious motives. This is condemnable, and puts the journal in a very difficult situation. The journal will take this issue very seriously and will do all in its power to stop such an act. However author should understand the limitations of the journal in going after a peer reviewer beyond raising this with peer reviewer’s institution and the overseeing authorities. Pursuing this matter legally is beyond the resources of the journal. Hence Journal requires authors to indemnify it against any such misconduct done by external body that journal has requested to vet the article, within the expected standard norms of scholarly publishing.

Researchers claiming any error in an article, requiring analysis of un-published data, may write to the journal formally. Anonymous, unsubstantiated claims would , however, not be answered. If the journal already has the complete data set, it would be re-evaluated. If this is not the case and journal judges’ complainant to have raised genuine issue, it will request the author to provide the data set. In all cases, this communication between the reader and journal will be made known to the corresponding author (if not carbon copied by the reader).

All manuscripts for articles, original research reports, editorials, reviews, that are submitted to the journal must be accompanied by a conflict of interest disclosure statement or a declaration by the authors that they do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) states in its Guidelines on Good Publication Practice (2003) that:

'Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments on what is published. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.'

JCDR believes that, to make the best decision on how to deal with an article, Journal should know about any competing interests that authors may have, before an article can be reviewed and accepted for publication.

Other interest-

• Author must be truthful and must declare if the article has been published in some other language during the time of submission.

• Author must disclose if some part of work has already been published or under consideration elsewhere.

• If the research submitted is the thesis or PhD work, author should reveal the name of the "Primary researcher" and the "Supervisor".

If there has been a genuine error in an article, which has been missed earlier then an errata or correction in posted in the next issue. Routinely this is not charged. However, if the error is in the details of the authors that could have been carefully weeded out at the time of proofs and the work has been published both in print and online, a small charge is levied.

This encompasses a large number of ethics that is pertinent to how a journal works. Many of these have been dealt else where: Policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data and of business/marketing practices.

We find the singular most challenging ethical dilemma a journal faces is to maintain an equilibrium between the editorial decisions versus revenue generation. For any organization to sustain revenue generation is an irrefutable bottom line. Without this, long term sustainability and achievement of its goals appear far fetched. An ideal publication has to nurture editorial independence, allowing them to take decisions shielded from financial repercussions of their decisions. Hence the whole working revolves around this symbiotic relationship between fund generation and the acceptance-rejection of articles.

JCDR thrives on three main conceptual ideas. First "why are we here and where to we want to reach". This is answered in our vision of the journal and is imbibed by the key members of the journal. An organization is built by varied people with different perspectives and aspirations. It is then the responsibility of the leadership to ensure by way of rules, guidelines and limits for correct principles and ethics be followed. Occasionally a member in great rush to financial fulfillment have found our approach slow and uncompromising, and chose to move on away from JCDR. We respected that decision. We feel satisfied that our culture and working have helped them get selected in larger organizations. The path to ethical evolution in work culture is arduous and requires congruence and internalization of personal and organizational goals. Next broader concept has been to keep the overhead expenses as low as possible. An example to this is giving non financial incentives to workers. Like allowing to work from home for few days a week, hiring a mix of offsite and onsite work force. A strong focus on using information technology in all spheres of working has also helped to control costs. Third, has been the financial security provided by the parent trust. This has hugely contributed to the psychological security of the journal working answering the 'what if' question.

Ethic Review Board (ERB) or Ethics committee clearance is very essential for the studies done on the human subjects, whether prospective or retrospective. The ICMR guidelines in 2017 and the Declaration of Helsinki have mandated this. Those which can be undertaken without ethical approval, include systematic reviews and secondary data analysis (for example, NFHS4 data and data on trials conducted by other researchers that is available on request), case reports with consent of parents and assent of child or case series in which data is being looked at retrospectively, provided the patients are de- identified.

However, this necessary mandate has not been realized by majority of authors in our country. We often find an argument or justification that the data was collected as part of routine clinical work up or this was a survey or was a retrospective study hence does not require ERB clearance. Nevertheless, as a rule, every research protocol must be submitted to the ERB, which then may decide to exempt an approval. There is a provision of retrospective approval of the study by the board which is one option that a researcher can use. However we find, in most cases, it defeats the very purpose of ethics review and so we do not encourage this. This provision should be used in rare circumstances only, for example war zone studies.

As an editorial we understand the inadvertent mistake done by researchers, due to lack of knowledge dissimilation. We have discussed this issue within the editorial and have decided to adopt the following policy, albeit only as an interim, till ERB clearance practice becomes a rule.

In studies judged to be having less than minimal risk, and Minimal Risk done prior to 2018 will be allowed to be published even if the ERB is not obtained. The author will be communicated and stressed upon the need for such procedure to be followed for all his following studies. Future studies from the same author will not be allowed without ERB approval, even if judged to be a Less than minimal and Minimal Risk study.

For studies judged to be having Minor increase over minimal risk or Low risk only if the procedure was done as part of routine care and NOT for the purpose of study, will the study be allowed to be published without ERB.

Similar view is also applicable to those who are not associated with any institution and work independently/private set up. They may not have access to an ethics Committee or may have limited access to independent review committees. Independent review boards are present and new ones are being registered. Authors should review the list available on ?. Website.

Authors and readers should understand this that it is an INTERIM step and policy of the editorial shall be reviewed again. This is only till such time until when researchers get informed about this mandatory requirement for research. .

JCDR does not hold prejudice against any gender or race. All are treated with equality.

Patients have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information, including patients' names, initials, or hospital numbers, should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that a patient who is identifiable be shown the manuscript to be published. Authors should identify Individuals who provide writing assistance and disclose the funding source for this assistance.

Identifying details should be omitted if they are not essential. Complete anonymity is difficult to achieve, however, and informed consent should be obtained if there is any doubt. For example, masking the eye region in photographs of patients is inadequate protection of anonymity. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity, such as in genetic pedigrees, authors should provide assurance that alterations do not distort scientific meaning and editors should so note.

Infrastructure: A proper infrastructure is mandatory for smooth working. Journal has its own designate physical offices. One for the editorial ( approx 1300 sq ft) and One for the publication department (approx. 600 sq foot). These offices not shared or used for other purpose outside of journal work. Journal printing is done at Hansa Arts, Devnagar, Delhi.

Software: It is desired in a journal handling large number of submissions to have a proficient online manuscript management portal. JCDR Pre Publishing® a journal management system is used for processing of all manuscripts. Journal does not accept submission as email attachments or as physical copies The JCDR Pre Publishing was commissioned in late 2007 and is being regularly improved to meet current needs. It has successfully handled more than forty thousand submissions. The software being is maintained and new versions released by full time in-house IT staff.

Humane Approach: Making the working more ergonomic and realizing the wider presence of female staff in editorial, journal allows its senior editorial staff to bring in their toddlers to work. Proper area is provided within the office premises for the toddlers and their nannies to stay, while their mothers work in the office. Self improvement of staff is promoted. This includes, though not limited to, providing in-house protected time to do research, financial reimbursements of workshops and similar activities attended.

Business Model: Primary source of revenue is the author payment of publication charges which is fractionally complemented by reprint and subscription revenues. Journal does not levy article processing fee. Payment is requested from author after acceptance of the article in lieu of publication charges. Journal does provide faster peer review option which is a chargeable service. This however does not affect the final decision on the article. It serves only to get a quicker decision.

The following chart details broadly the fund utilization of the journal.

Information Technology: Technology has become a part of life with increasing presence. At JCDR, IT is taken as very important section and not regarded as just a supportive service. In words of Dr. Ian Callander "what task is repetitive it should be automated". This has been core philosophy behind the daily improvement excises done to less the human burden in both publication and editorial assessment of articles.

Academic Culture: Journal encourages its editors as well as other staff to work on personal development. As part of this initiative it presented six posters in World Association of World Conference. It was won (Dr Bruce Squires Best Abstract Award). Similarly it has been publishing editorial out of it's own experience and journey. From 2019 july onwards one full time position for research fellow has been started. Recently a senior staff has finished course on "Editor's online resource and training" authored by Pippa Smart, which thoroughly discussed the modules on effective Peer review process and editorial functioning. Also, the in-house Editorial team Attended a Workshop on Peer Review conducted at AIIMS, New Delhi, which enhanced the knowledge of senior staff and trained the Naive editors.

Staff working outside of the editorial is also encouraged to be involved in academic activities. One paper has been recently published detailing the success of the IT team in building and execution of mail management portal.(click here)

Workshops: These have been held time to time for the office staff. These are aimed to bring in congruence of understanding of set norms of journal. These become very relevant whenever there is significant number of personnel inducted or with change of heads within a department. Smaller ones are managed within the office, larger ones with external guest speakers are held in external premises.

Business Model: Primary source of revenue is the author payment of publication charges which is fractionally complemented by reprint and subscription revenues. Journal does not levy article processing fee. Payment is requested from author after acceptance of the article in lieu of publication charges. Journal does provide faster peer review option which is a chargeable service. This however does not affect the final decision on the article. It serves only to get a quicker decision.

Manuscript Wavier: Complete or partial waiver is given to reviewers who have consistently reviewed for the journal. It is also provided to all letter to editors which are published in response to journals earlier publication. Manuscripts on which charges have been waived, are processed unprejudiced, in same manner and timeline as other articles.

Editorial Publications:

Why is the Oral Cholera Vaccine Underused in India?
A Compendium of Fibonacci Ratio
Has Violence against Doctors Become the Norm in India?
mSPECTRA: Email Management System of The Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
Tuberculosis Vaccine Development: Current Status and Future Directions
Malaria Vaccine Development: Challenges and Prospects
Naive or Caper: Author Behavior
Dengue Vaccines: Current Status and Future Prospects
Why Journals Need Help from Interviewers to Stop Redundant Publications
Exploring the Coordinates in the Road to Success
Hypertension in Indian Scenario
The Changing Teacher-Disciple (Guru-Shishya) Equation in Modern Times
Legendary Hero: Dr. G.V. Black (1836-1915)
"Why We Say No! A Look Through the Editor's Eye "
Current Scenario and Crisis Facing Dental College Graduates in India
An Overview of Malaria Burden in India and Road-Blocks in Its Control
Neonatal Database ? An Open Source Data Framework
Use of Disposable End Tidal Carbon Dioxide Detector Device for Checking Endotracheal Tube Placement.
Preface To First Edition

Journal requires authors to declare if there is conflict of interests present. This is mandatory information which needs to provide while submitting an article. Same is declared on the last page of every published article. This become very relevant in works which tend to promote a product or patented treatments or diagnostic equipment.

Intellectual property rights include, copyrights, patents and trademarks. The Journal respects these and tries to abide by the stated law of the land.

In practice the most common contentious issue faced by JCDR in the past, were those pertaining to use of an earlier published scale or score. The author who uses an earlier published work or part of work or scale or score should take permission from the original copyright holder. This may be the journal or the author. An exception is to be made only if it is explicitly stated in the original work, allowing it to be reused without permission. The defense by authors that such scale has being used by earlier researcher in their thesis work, hence used without permission is justified, is not vindicated. Nevertheless, it does happen with many scales, if very old, the original author or copyright holder may not respond to genuine attempt to seek permission. In such a case its usage is permitted once the editorial is convinced of the author's sincere effort. Here also it is pertinent to quote the original reference and acknowledge the creator. The onus of responsibility to seek permission to use an earlier work lies with the author. Once the author submits the article, journal presumes that such permissions have been sought. Journal editorial have time to time asked authors to provide the documentary proofs of such permissions. It is also important to mention here that modification or conversion into a different language also require permission. The same policies apply for images and flowcharts. Author of narrative review articles should take special note of this . In past articles, JCDR has retracted articles which were found to have violated such norms post publication.

JCDR accepts article only in English language. All references used in such articles should also be in English language. However on rare circumstances, non-English references were allowed, such as systemic reviews and meta analysis, also when inclusion of such reference was considered valuable and unique without a counterpart in English language. However, we prefer that at least the abstract should be available in English. Nevertheless, authors should consider referring to English articles while preparing manuscript.

Within the manuscript we adhere to UK English, for uniformity. However in some instances, non-UK English words were used. These were overlooked by well meaning diligent eyes, since these dont effect the semantics and readability of the article and if the article had already reached print stage.

List of commonly used words in JCDR ( updated regularly)

Articles in the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research are Open Access articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND). This license permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, is not changed in any way, and is not used for commercial purposes.

Post publication the journal will be the copyright holder of the published work.

JCDR does not involve itself in direct marketing emails requesting articles to be submitted. It does inform via email at the time of release of a new issue to its registered users who have published or submitted work with JCDR or have peer reviewed for it. During this process it offers them to option to exit from any such mails in future.

It does not solicit physical letters to authors asking them to submit articles. During the major Indian festive seasons, it sends out greetings to all those who have been associated with the journal. It participates and provides sponsorship and awards during various bio-medical conferences.

JCDR does not have any external agents or agency and authors should be aware of any such claims made by people on the Journal's behalf.

The peer-review process is double blinded, i.e., the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are.

The manuscripts are reviewed for possible publication on the understanding that they are being submitted only to one journal at one time and have not been published, simultaneously submitted, or accepted for publication elsewhere.

The following is the editorial workflow that every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes during the course of the peer-review process:

The entire editorial workflow is performed using the online JCDR Pre Publishing Manuscript Management System. Once a manuscript is submitted, the manuscript is assessed by a Screening Editor for originality of work, serious scientific flaws and plagiarism.

Thereafter the article is handed over to the editor depending on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors. The editor assess the article and inform the author (through author dashboard )if the article has been accepted for peer review or has been rejected. If rejected, the corresponding author will be informed via an email.

If the editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, it is then sent for peer review (a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 external reviews). The reviewers submit their reports in the standard format ( provided to them by the JCDR ) to the Editor and also grade the article as follows :

• Exceptional quality article
• High quality article
• Good quality article
• Fair quality article
• Unacceptable in present form
• Unacceptable in any form

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor in-charge makes one of the following editorial recommendations :

• Publish Unaltered
• Accept after Minor Changes
• Consider after Major Changes
• Reject

Thereafter the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required changes as suggested by the reviewers. In the case of a first decision of major revisions, authors should respond to the reviewers` comments as a separate file in point by point format, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript (as revised file) to the journal by the given time, else the article will stand rejected with status as 'rejected no author reply'.

The Editor reviews the revised manuscript after the changes have been made by the authors. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript is accepted.

The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, suitability to journal, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal. Any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted.

Reviewer identification and evaluation - Experienced researchers and authors of high quality articles submitted to JCDR, are sent request mails for reviewing articles. Author suggested reviewers are always taken into consideration. Besides this, database searches are done to mark significant research articles and case reports (with topics matching or similar) and those authors are mailed and manuscripts sent, if affirmative. In cases where review reports are not obtained within the stipulated time, after trying three sets of honorary reviewers, a paid peer review is obtained. This is resorted to avoid frustration in author for delaying decisions. Reviewers are graded from 1 to 10 based on promptness, completeness and how useful the comments were in taking final decision on articles (grading is done by the senior Editor in-charge of the article). Dedicated staff positions are there in-house for identifying peer reviewers, searching them by matching the title of articles, noting the promptness of review.

A due acknowledgment for the researchers who have performed the peer-review process for one or more of the manuscripts in the past is made on the journal website. We genuinely feel that without the significant contributions made by these researchers, the publication of the journal would not be possible

The authors must guarantee that they submitted entirely original work and if they have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or referenced.

Journal is strongly committed to prevent plagiarism in its published work. Over the years following experience and our own research work the following work follow is followed within the Editorial.

Initially after submission all articles are screened with professional software to check for plagiarism. These are then classified into very high, moderately high, average and low. Those which are found very high are rechecked using another proprietary software and if results are found consistently high are rejected directly. Same is done with moderately high results however in this case the article is also screened by senior editor. Average and low are processed further. And at the time of final acceptance or while asking for last set of minor revisions the article is manually checked using Google search engine. We have published our own experince with this in European Science Journal (click here)

Prior to publication if the time lapse between last Google check and actual publication is more than 5 weeks the article abstract and title of rechecked for plagiarism. This is done in order to prevent a duplicate publication which has been hitherto missed. It has been learned with experience by the editors that using two strategies and two different timelines is likely to give better chance to prevent plagiarism.

Editorial manually checks issues of plagiarism looking into which part of the article is plagiarized and how much impact it will have on originality of the work. Despite these rigorous methods in place some slip can still happen. Editors welcome these to be brought to our notice post-publication by writing email to editors@jcdr.net.

Authors are permitted to deposit published work in a personal, institutional, thematic and/or other Open Access repository. As post publication the journal will be the copyright holder of the published work author should inform the journal prior to depositing the work.

Authors are not permitted to deposit work which is still under consideration with the journal; part of work ; abstract ; is accepted in-Print but yet to be online

Articles submitted by present working editors of the journal need to be handled carefully.

In this category there are three types of articles -

1. Editorials written by guest or current editors. The policy is to get these peer reviewed by an external reviewer and then with suggested modifications to move with publication.

2. Academic articles submitted by editors of the journal. Such articles are not handled by the submitting editor. Despite best intentions it is unfair to assume that no bias will appear. Peer reviewer is blinded to the author however the in-house processing editor usually is aware of the author of the article. In such a situation it is tried best to keep the assessment as objective as possible. In the recent past, articles authored by present editors were rejected based on certain statistical issues.

3. Articles that are written by editor or research fellow, while working in-house, on the journal publication process. Such works are sent for independent peer reviews and then based on their suggestions the article is modified and improved before publication. However, if the peer reviewer is unsatisfied with the work then research is further carried out until a larger data is acquired and deficiencies are removed.

Declaration of conflict of interest

Articles authored by present Editors and Reviewers are handled with the same policy as with any other article. The external peer review is done on the de-identified file. If accepted for publication, the author affiliations with the journal are also declared along with other author details. The peer reviewer is not chosen by the same editor. Similarly, for a reviewer-authored-article, it is ensured that the assigned reviewer is in no way associated with the author.

The editors assess their own COI in case of submissions from institutions that they are or were affiliated, if the topic of research is a matter of conflict or the author is known professionally or personally. These are informed to the Editor-in-chief before handling the article, who in turn decides about the judicious step. The editor may decline handling an article, at the onset, if an absolute conflict exists.

Reviewers are instructed to declare their potential COI before accepting an article for review. Though the draft is blinded, if in any way the probable identity is guessed which is conflicted or the reviewer is presently working on a similar project, it must be declared. A reviewer may deny from reviewing an article, citing the exact type of conflict.

A reviewer suggesting author to cite own publications on a similar study, is taken cautiously. The assigned editor looks into the case to judge the absolute need for the citation. If found necessary, after discussion with the Editor-in-chief, the suggestion is forwarded to the author.

For authors who have some knowledge about the journal editorial board or the reviewer panel, may write to us while or before submitting an article, if any COI or even a concern exists. This concern is always respected and the editorial ensures that the named board members/reviewers are not chosen to evaluate the article.

Letter to Editors on articles published in JCDR are considered. As a rule, the letter is mailed to the corresponding author of the article. In case the reader highlights any significant lack of data or expects any elaboration on a finding or methodology etc, the letter along with response from the corresponding author is published. A lack of response, however, does not condemn the publication of the letter. If, on the other hand, a correction of an error is required, an errata corrigendum is published. Online discussions are also encouraged wherein a reader can put his/her thoughts on the article in the link. The user after login can post comments directly in the article. These comments are filtered by the editorial for any abusive use of language or irrelevant comment. Rest are posted with the article. This facilitates post publication peer review.

Every effort is taken by the editorial to take care in protecting the interest of vulnerable populations. These include but not limited to studies done on orphans, elderly in old age homes, unidentified patients during disaster etc. Ethical considerations and the expected outcomes and fall outs of the study are considered before allowing its publication.

JCDR publishes every month. This has been followed since August 2012. There are twelve issues per year. Prior to 2012 there were 6 issues per month. So far, JCDR has never defaulted in delaying the publishing of any issue to subsequent month of actual publishing.

Author should not submit/present the same (or substantially overlapping) data in more than one publication without adequate cross-referencing/justification, particularly when this is done in such a way that reviewers/readers are unlikely to realise that most or all the findings have been published before (As per COPE guidelines). Submission of a manuscript concomitantly to more than one journal is unethical and unacceptable. The authors and editors of the journal must concur to the secondary publication, which may reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

If the research is published in some other language previously, author must declare the same at the time of submission of the manuscript or prior permission from the editor must be taken.

Once the article is accepted and publication charges are paid, no refund of the payment will be done. With utmost transparency and clarity all the policies have been stated in the website. In case the authors fail to understand any of the journal terms or policies, we are open to a telephonic enquiry or mail correspondence. If any misinterpretations on part of author leads to a request for withdrawal, no refund will be provided.

In case, where the author has paid for faster peer review option, then the following conditions will apply :

• If the reason for rejection is high degree of plagiarism and/or not an original work and/or falsified or fabricated work and/or work under consideration elsewhere and/or work published elsewhere ( (duplicate publication) it will be rejected and NO amount shall be refunded.
• If the article has gone through peer review process and at least one feedback has been sent after which the author requests withdrawal, 50% of the amount initially paid will be deducted and rest paid back.
• If the article has gone through peer review process and more than once feedback has been sent on original file and revised files, after which the author requests withdrawal of article, 70% of the amount initially paid will be deducted and rest paid back.
• If the article has reached the stage of acceptance or has been accepted but not published after which the author requests withdrawal of article, 90% of the amount initially paid will be deducted and rest paid back.
• If the work content is not found suitable and declined by the editorial-review board at the time of first feedback, then full refund will be provided.
• If the revision is not found suitable or is not found satisfactory and declined by the editorial-review board after one or more revision then 80% refund will be provided.

If the author has been requested to send revisions or some other documentary requests such as copyright forms, gallery proof or any other requirement made by editorial and no response is received from the authors within three months of the requests, then the manuscript shall be closed and no amount shall be refunded.

Disclaimer:Authors must be aware of Journal's present indexation. The indexing agencies take articles post-publication after a small time lag. The mutual agreement between the indexing agencies and Journal provides for termination of agreement by either party without any notice or reason. The authors must be aware and agree to, if any such termination of agreement happens in future the journal shall not be responsible for third party action.

1. Re-traction of the publication:

The publication of the article shall always be subject to the right of the journal to re-tract and removed the article from its website / portal if it is found at any time that :

• The subject matter has been infringing the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR, including copyright) respecting same, similar or identical subject matter belonging to the third party whether published or not.
• The subject matter has been published earlier by any means or in any form whatsoever
• The subject matter and its publication tantamount to ethical misconduct.
• The subject matter and its publication tantamount to ethical misconduct.
• The publication of the subject matter is against public policy and against the provisions of any law of the land in force in the time being.

2. Procedure governing re-traction:

• On receiving a complaint or information from any source whatsoever, whenever it came to the notice that the subject matter published in the journal is similar or identical respecting same subject matter, which is authored by some other person, entity or institution prior to the date on which the author has submitted the subject article for publication in our journal, an explanation shall be called affording reasonable opportunity and to respond in writing to the issue raised respecting the subject matter.
• The author shall on receiving the notice to explain, submit his/her explanation within in the period stipulated in the notice.
• On receiving the explanation the editor may within his/her discretion, and if deemed necessary and expedient, refer the issue in dispute to any expert of the field with request to give his/her report containing opinion on the merits of the subject matter.
• Based upon the complaint, explanation of the author, report/opinion of the expert and considering any other material relevant, the editor of the journal shall, after due application of mind, pass a final speaking order rejecting either the complaint or allowing the complaint backed by reasons. In the event it is decided by the reader to allow the complaint he/she shall issue a show cause notice to the author calling upon him/her as to why the publication may not retracted and removed from the website the journal.
• The author shall within clear 10 days of the receipt of the afore-stated notice, may if so desire submit his/her explanation, following which a reader shall pass an order in terms with the reference of the show cause notice. In the event the editor of the journal passed an order directing removal of the article, the author shall not be entitled for any refund of the charges earlier remitted by him at the time of provisional acceptance of the publication.
• Decision of the Chief Editor and senior editors will be final.
• In the event, the author is not satisfied and aggrieved by the final order of removal of article from the website of the publication, the author may request the editor within 14 days of the receipt of the removal of the article from the publication to refer the issue in dispute to the arbitrator. The publisher, within a further period of 15 days on receipt of such request shall refer issue in dispute to the arbitrator.

While reporting scientific project involving human subjects or experimental animals authors should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) or regulations for laboratory animals. The statement has to be mentioned in "Materials and Methods" section, right after the presentation of the study groups. We believe animal experimentation should be avoided whenever possible in favor of alternative research strategies.

• Author must be truthful and must declare if the article has been published in some other language during the time of submission.
• Author must disclose if some part of work has already been published or under consideration elsewhere.
• If the research submitted is the thesis or PhD work, author should reveal the name of the “Primary researcher” and the “Supervisor”.

Some authors request withdrawal of manuscript after submission. If the withdrawal is done within the time span when the article is with Editor, and for a genuine reason like problems discovered in data etc, author is allowed to withdraw the manuscript without any penalty. If the author withdraws manuscript any time after the manuscript has been sent to peer review till the final decision, then unless there are compelling reasons, the request is not entertained without a penalty. This penalty may be in form of payment to journal for its time and resources spent.