Ethics and Malpractice Statement:
Plant Disease Research (PDR) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and preventing any form of malpractice in the scholarly publishing process. One of the priorities of the editorial team is to publish quality papers. The journal adheres to the guidelines and principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is dedicated to promoting integrity, transparency, and accountability in all aspects of its operations. The authors, peer reviewers, and members of the editorial board are expected to fully adhere to the journal's policy regarding publication ethics and malpractice. Anyone who believes that research published in the PDR is not in line with these principles should raise their concerns with the Editor-in-Chief at e-mail: insopp1984@gmail.com
Duties/ Responsibilities of the Authors:
Authors submitting their work to PDR must ensure that their manuscripts represent original research, free from any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, or falsification. Proper acknowledgment of the contributions of others must be provided, and all sources used in the research should be appropriately cited. Concurrent submissions to other journals or redundant publications of the same work are considered unethical and are not acceptable. Authors who submit papers to our Journals attest that their work is original and unpublished and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. In addition, authors confirm that their paper is their own original work that has not been copied or plagiarized, in whole or in part, from other works, and if the authors have used the works of others the same has been appropriately cited or quoted.
It is ensured that the applicable copyright laws and conventions are followed. Copyright materials are reproduced only with the permission and due acknowledgment.
Authorship Order: The order of authors should reflect their relative contributions to the research and manuscript preparation. The first author usually made the most significant contributions, followed by subsequent authors in decreasing order of contribution.
Corresponding Author: One author or more should be designated as the corresponding author, responsible for communication with the journal and readers. This author's contact details are often provided for inquiries and correspondence. The corresponding author is directed to ensure that all co-authors are included in the paper and that the co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Authorship Changes: Any changes to authorship (additions, removals, or order changes) after submission should be agreed upon by all authors and communicated to the journal with a clear explanation.
Transparency: Authors should provide a clear description of each author's contributions to the research and manuscript.
Conflict of Interest: Authors should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their research or its interpretation. This could include financial, personal, or professional relationships that might be seen as influencing the work.
Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their work is original and properly cited. Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and redundant publication (submitting the same work to multiple journals) are unethical practices and should be avoided.
Data Integrity: Authors should provide accurate and transparent reporting of data, methods, and results. Fabrication (is making up data or results and recording or reporting them), falsification (is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record), and selective reporting of data are considered serious ethical breaches.
Image Editing and Manipulation: We expect that the authors should specify image editing for legitimate reasons in Materials and Methods. However, manipulation of images to misrepresent the results is unacceptable.
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools: Use of AI tools as an author and generative AI images in publication is not acceptable in PDR. Also, the authors should mention the use of AI tools in the Materials and Methods section. Nevertheless, the PDR will permit the utilization of AI tools by authors to enhance readability and refine language through meticulous editing.
Retractions, Corrections, Clarifications, and Apologies:
All authors are responsible for promptly notifying and cooperating with the editors to rectify any errors discovered in their published works. Additional instances of misconduct encompass violations of explicit ethical and legal obligations, such as misrepresenting interests, breaching confidentiality, failing to obtain informed consent, and mishandling research subjects or materials. The Editorial Board will look into the event of potential misconduct, if any. Authors will have the opportunity to respond to allegations of severe misconduct and any necessary corrections will be prominently indicated in the journal. In cases of significant misconduct, the author(s) may be blacklisted. Employers and funding agencies of authors implicated in substantiated instances of severe misconduct will be informed. The journal's response to misconduct will vary based on its gravity and may involve retractions, corrections, clarifications, or apologies.
Peer Review Policy Statement:
Plant Disease Research is a Peer Reviewed Journal
1. Peer-Review Process: The manuscripts published in the PDR are subjected to peer review by obtaining advice on individual manuscripts from reviewers/experts in the relevant field. All published articles in the Journal are subject to a rigorous peer review process based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by the referee(s). The objectives are to assure research/ review quality, sustain the originality and quality of research work, and filtration poor quality and plagiarized articles. The “peer review process” involves the following ? The author(s) writes a research/review manuscript and submits it adhering to/ following the INSTRUCTIONS covered above. The Editor-in-Chief does the initial screening (including plagiarism check) and forwards it to the reviewers. The assigned reviewers review the manuscript according to the guidelines provided and verify the quality of research and the article is returned to the Editor-in-Chief along with a recommendation to reject the article, revise it, or accept it. The editor drafts a decision to be sent to the author with due consultation of members of the editorial board. The article is returned to the author along with the reviewer's feedback. The editor receives the updated article; it is vetted by the Editor-in-Chief and sends it to the Production Unit for Publication. This whole process is done within 4-6 weeks as given above. The final decision on the “peer review process” is conveyed to the authors within this time. Recommendations made by the reviewers, with verbatim comments are conveyed in this final decision. Revised manuscripts are usually sought from authors within 2-3 weeks. The Editor-in-Chief solicits further advice from the Section/ Subject Editors / Reviewers, if required, within 1-2 weeks. This process may demand more than one revision of a manuscript. Special Issues / Conference Proceedings will have almost similar peer review procedures with slight modifications. The decision of the Editorial Board is final in all the above submissions and reserves the right in all decisions/ actions.
2. Editorial Decisions: These decisions are based on peer review. The reviewers are expected to maintain absolute confidentiality with regard to the contents of manuscripts. The reviews are conducted objectively and the referees are expected to express their views clearly with supporting reasons. The reviewers should have no conflict of interest with the author(s) and the subject matter of the research. The reviewers are required to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any observation or argument that has been previously reported should also be accompanied along with the relevant citation. Similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under review and any other published paper of which the reviewer may have personal knowledge may also be brought to the attention of the members of the Editorial Board. The information or ideas obtained through peer review are of a privileged nature and these are kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers are informed not to consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions connected to the manuscript.
3. Editor's Responsibilities: The Editorial Board of the journal is responsible for making a decision as to which of the manuscripts submitted to the PDR are to be published. The members of the Editorial Board have complete discretion to reject/accept the manuscript. The board may confer/deliberate with other reviewers/members in arriving at its decisions. The evaluation of manuscripts is made on the basis of their scholarly and intellectual content without having regard to the nature of the authors or the institution including gender, race, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The PDR follows a policy of fair play in its editorial evaluation. The editors are expected to exercise caution and ensure that they have no conflict of interest with respect to the manuscripts they accept/ reject. The members of the Editorial Board follow strict confidentiality and are required not to disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and the Editor-in-Chief. Authors are encouraged to correct the errors that are found during the process of review while preserving the anonymity of the reviewers.
4. Duties/ Responsibilities of Editorial Board/ Reviewers: Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the Journal. All manuscripts are peer-reviewed following the “peer review process” given above. It is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief to convey the decision of the “peer review” within 4-6 weeks. Peer Review follows the “peer review process” given above employing single blind review, where the reviewer remains anonymous to the authors throughout the process. Reviewers are matched to the manuscript according to their expertise as advised by the Section/ Subject Editors. The Section/ Subject Editors/ Editor-in-Chief holds a reviewer database containing reviewer contact details together with their subject areas of interest which are constantly updated.
5. Publication Process: Article submissions must adhere to the INSTRUCTIONS. Authors are required to peruse the publication ethics/ essential requirements given under the “Ethics and malpractice statement” of the journal. Submissions are acknowledged/ processed with the understanding that authors subscribe to the ethics/ requirements by default. Articles not adhering to the above are liable to be rejected.
Plagiarism Policy:
The authors must give the written and signed undertaking that they have not plagiarized somebody's work along with the submission of the manuscript and they will ensure that they have provided the proper reference of all the contents which they have extracted from other sources.
All the manuscripts submitted to INSOPP for consideration of publication in Plant Disease Research will be first checked for Plagrism using online software http://www.plagiarisma.net or Copyscape or CrossCheck/Trintrin/ iThenticate.
If plagiarized, the manuscript will be returned to authors with comments to explain the plagiarized content in stipulated, one week time. In case of failed response from the authors, it is considered that the plagiarized content has been deliberately added to the manuscript and such manuscripts will be rejected and returned to the authors. Such authors will be barred from publishing any articles in the PDR journal for next one year.