Publication Ethics

Journal of Social and Development Sciences (JSDS) is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal. Its aim is to augment the knowledge base in collaboration with scholars, academicians, professionals and practitioners by allowing free access to valuable information around the world.

The validity of published research rests on everyone involved behaving well: the authors who write it, the editors who decide on it, and the reviewers who judge it. What each of them owes the others is set out below. JSDS follows the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Authors

Submitting to JSDS is an undertaking that the work is your own, that it is reported honestly, and that anything a reader would need in order to judge it has been declared. In practice that means:

  • Submit original work, and say so. In a cover letter to the editor, confirm that the paper is your own, is not under consideration anywhere else, and that every listed author approves the submission. A paper already published elsewhere, or awaiting a decision from another journal, will not be considered; once accepted here it may not be published elsewhere in the same form. Substantial overlap with other work will end the submission unless there is a legitimate explanation for it.
  • Credit the work you build on. Cite the publications that shaped your paper. Do not pad a reference list to inflate anybody's citation count, including this journal's.
  • List the right people as authors. Authorship belongs to those who contributed to the formation, design, execution or interpretation of the research. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring nobody uninvolved is listed, and that others who contributed are acknowledged.
  • Report data accurately, and keep it. Give enough detail and enough sources for someone else to repeat the work. Falsified or deliberately imprecise statements are a serious breach. Editors and reviewers may ask to see the underlying data, so retain it where you can; the request often comes after publication.
  • Declare anything that could look like an interest. Disclose conflicts of interest and funding sources in your cover letter.
  • Do not pass off anyone's words as your own, including your own. Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable: copying verbatim, paraphrasing another's work, and re-using your own published writing without saying so. Anything drawn from the work or words of others must be quoted or cited.
  • Say where you have used generative AI. Disclose any use of it in preparing the article, beyond straightforward language correction, editing and formatting. You remain responsible for verifying whatever an automated tool produces, whether it was used in the research or in writing it up. A tool cannot be credited as an author, and generative AI cannot be cited as a source.
  • Correct what turns out to be wrong. If you find a significant error in your own published paper, tell the editor at once and help us retract or correct it.

Editors

The editors decide what JSDS publishes. They are accountable for settling that on the work alone, and for protecting everything that passes through their hands:

  • The decision rests with the editor. The editor decides which papers are published, guided by the editorial board and bound by the law on libel, copyright and plagiarism, and may consult other editors or reviewers. Neither the Chief Editor nor the board may influence a reviewer's assessment.
  • Judge the work, not the author. Manuscripts are evaluated on their intellectual content, without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the people who wrote them.
  • Keep submissions and reviewers confidential. Nothing about a submitted manuscript is disclosed to anyone beyond the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisers and the publisher. Reviewers remain anonymous, and their identities are not passed to anybody without their consent. Unpublished material in a submission may not be used in an editor's own research without the authors' written permission.
  • Act on reported errors. When an author reports a significant error, respond promptly and issue a formal correction or retraction.

Reviewers

Peer review is the journal's only real test of a paper, and it is given freely by people under no obligation to do it. Accepting an invitation carries these undertakings:

  • Review confidentially. A manuscript sent for review is a confidential document. Do not show it to, or discuss it with, anyone unless the editor agrees.
  • Say early if you cannot do it. If the paper is outside your field, or you cannot meet the date in the invitation, tell the editor and withdraw. If you need longer, ask.
  • Be impartial and specific. Criticize the work, never the author, and support your views with arguments. If you recommend rejection, explain why. If the paper is promising, state clearly what revisions it needs and suggest how it might be strengthened. You are not expected to rewrite a weak paper. Useful things to weigh: originality, importance, craftsmanship, exposition, how well the introduction places the work in the existing literature, internationality, and analytical rigor.
  • Point to work that should have been cited. Note relevant publications the authors have missed, and tell the editor if you recognize significant overlap with something already published.
  • Decline where you have an interest. If you have a collaborative, competitive or other relationship with the authors, their institutions or associated companies, tell the editor rather than reviewing. Nothing you learn while reviewing may be used for your own benefit.

Questions

Write to the editorial office at [email protected].