Publishing Ethics and Malpractice Statement

It is important that all editors, reviewers and authors involved in the production of the Management Journal for Advanced Research adhere to the highest levels of professional ethics and standards. Each author clearly agrees that the manuscript satisfies the highest ethical requirements for authors and co-authors by submitting it to this journal. 


(1) The editors of the Management Journal for Advanced Research will make the final decision on whether or not the suggested papers will be published.

(2) The Editors only consider papers for publication based on their scientific merit, regardless of the authors' gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, or political views.

(3) The Editors and members of the working group promise not to reveal information about the papers submitted for publication to anybody except the author, referees, and editor.

(4) Beyond the authors and reviewers, the editor who has been given the work must keep all information about it confidential. In the end, it is up to them to make sure that the peer review is finished on time and that the manuscript is published or rejected. In order to maintain the necessary anonymity during the publishing process, the editorial board of the journal is dedicated to maintaining the confidentiality of papers, authors, and reviewers.


(1) Any reviewer who does not feel suitable up to the task or is unable to complete the evaluation of the proposed contribution within the time range should notify the coordinators as soon as possible.

(2) Every given assignment should be approached as a private discussion. As a result, these texts may not be discussed with anyone else without the express permission of the editors.

(3) The reviewer must provide credible justifications for their decisions. Peer review must be handled in a fair and impartial manner. Any personal opinions regarding the authors or contributors are considered unacceptable.

(4) Reviewer agree to highlight bibliographical references to foundational works that the author may have missed. Any similarities or overlaps between the reading text and other works that the referee is aware of must be reported to the editors as well..

(5) Confidential information must be kept private and not exploited for personal gain during the peer-review process. The reviewer will not be able to read the paper if there is a potential conflict of interest due to previous collaboration or rivalry with the author and/or her/his institution.


(1) The authors must declare that their work is completely unique, including all of the materials they used.

(2) The author should not publish research paper/article in several scientific journals that repeat the same search results. It is unethical and inconvenient to submit the same contribution to multiple scientific journals at the same time.

(3) The author should always give credit to the sources and contributors mentioned in the article.

(4) All authors must declare any potential conflicts of interest that could have influenced their findings or conclusions. Any research funding agencies and/or the project that led to the publishing of the article must also be mentioned by the authors.

(5) When an author notices a substantial error or inaccuracy in his or her work, he or she should notify the journal editors as soon as possible and give them with all the information they need to make the necessary revisions.


Authorship carries responsibility and gives a study's findings credit for a researcher's publication. The following requirements should be met by each author:

(1) Having contributed significantly to the idea or design of the work, the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, the development of new software utilised in the work, or any of these things.

(2) Having drafted the work or substantively revising it.

(3) Approved the version that was submitted.

(4) The author has agreed to be held personally responsible for their own work as well as to make sure that any concerns about the truth or integrity of any aspect of their work—even those in which they had no personal involvement—are duly investigated, addressed, and their solution documented in the literature.

The corresponding author is in charge of handling the manuscript and correspondence throughout the publishing process, and it is up to them to make sure that the data and materials adhere to the field's and journal's criteria for reproducibility and transparency; ensuring that the original data and materials—which serve as the foundation for the submission—are retained according to industry best practises so that they can be retrieved for reanalysis; checking that the data and materials accurately match the original; predicting and removing barriers to data and materials stated in the work's sharing; providing a point of contact for questions regarding the published study, namely, informing all co-authors of any matters arising in relation to the published paper and to ensure such matters are dealt with promptly, and notifying the journal immediately if he/she becomes aware of any aspect that requires correction.


(1) The editorial board of the journal will immediately recognise any complaints it receives, launch an internal inquiry, and then thoroughly examine the complaint to determine its veracity and gravity.

(2) Actions will be taken if it is determined that the complaint is true and relates to ethical issues, misbehaviour, or the peer-review procedure.

(3) All relevant information should be carefully considered while making ethical decisions, and the ideals of fairness and objectivity should be followed.

(4) The Editor-in-Chief of the journal may accept an appeal from authors who believe their submission has been unfairly rejected. In order to guarantee an objective assessment of the appeal, reviews of appeals are normally conducted by a separate panel of experts who were not engaged in the initial decision-making process.

(5) Instead of just objecting to the reviewers' comments, the appeal should be supported by solid scientific or technical grounds.

(6) The author will be informed of the decision on the appeal, and this decision is typically regarded as being final, putting an end to the review process for that specific article.

(7) The journal shall maintain direct and open communication with all parties throughout the complaints and appeals process.

(8) Authors will be updated on the progress of their grievance or appeal, as well as the anticipated timeframe for resolution.


Any financial or other significant conflict of interest that might be thought to have an impact on the findings or interpretation of an article should be disclosed by all authors in their submission. The project's funding should come from all known sources, it should be noted.


(1) If it does not violate the protection of human subjects or other legitimate subject privacy concerns, journal policy on data sharing and reproducibility encourages authors to disclose and make the data that supports their published paper publicly available.

(2) Any data utilised in an author's publication must also be cited. Whether they were created by the author or someone else, all cited data sets need to be provided in the references. Finally, it would be advisable for authors to give a data availability declaration.


(1) According to COPE's Retraction Guidelines, journal editors will take retractions, corrections, or expressions of concern into consideration. If an author's mistake is discovered, the journal will publish a corrigendum. If a mistake is discovered, the journal will publish an erratum. Retractions are typically only made for papers that have major flaws that make it impossible to trust the findings or conclusions, or for articles that have a lot of plagiarism or content that could harm human life. If an author (or authors) finds a serious error or inaccuracy in the article that has been submitted, they are required to give retractions or corrections of faults at any time. If it is determined that it is required to comply with legal obligations, the journal reserves the right to remove an article from online publication. 

(2) If any post-publication corrections or retractions are required, or if an article needs to be removed, these actions will be accompanied by a correction or retraction notice that outlines the errors in the article, the extent of the corrections, or the rationale for the article's removal.


To standardize sex and gender reporting in scholarly papers, we urge our authors to adhere to the Sex and Gender in Research (SAGER) guidelines. To avoid conflating the words, SAGER guidelines advise using'sex' and 'gender' carefully. To the extent that it is possible to affirm, the term "sex" should be used to categorize people as either male or female based on biological differences. The term "gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, actions, and identities of men, women, and persons of all genders.

SAGER General Principles

To avoid conflating the terms sex and gender, authors should use them carefully.

The research should be planned and carried out in a way that can disclose sex-related differences in the outcomes, even if these were not initially anticipated, when the research subjects are creatures capable of differentiating by sex.

The research should be conducted similarly at this additional level of difference where individuals can also be divided based on gender (influenced by social and cultural conditions).

Recommendations Per Section of the Article

Title and Abstract

The title and abstract should mention the sex of the animals or any cells, tissues, or other material obtained from them, as well as the sex and gender of human participants, if only one sex is participating in the study or if the findings are to be applicable to only one sex or gender.


Where applicable, authors should mention whether sex and/or gender variations should be anticipated.


Authors should explain how sex and gender were accounted for in the study's design, if they made sure that both men and women were fairly represented, and provide justification for any exclusions of either gender.


When necessary, data should always be presented separately by sex and gender. Regardless of the outcome, whether it is positive or bad, analysis based on gender and sex should be disclosed. Data on withdrawals and dropouts from clinical studies should be published separately by sex.


It is important to discuss the potential effects of sex and gender on the findings and analysis of the study. It should be explained why a sex and gender analysis was not done. The ramifications of this lack of study on how to interpret the findings should also be covered by the authors.


(1) Every participant's signed informed permission form must be obtained by researchers before they can enroll them in any experiment that will be published in the jounal. Additionally, it is the authors' duty to see that every necessary step is performed within each research design protocol to guarantee that each study participant is made aware of and gives written consent for trial participation.

(2) The informed consent documentation for a study informs participants of the particular requirements they are agreeing to follow before a trial even begins. The signature of the participants signifies their agreement to the aforementioned procurements and the use of any potentially identifying information about an individual, including but not limited to images and photographs (in which case simply blacking out the eyes is acceptable), recordings, videos, charts, case reports, and any other information that may threaten personal identification, privacy, or security.

(3) When children are study participants, it is the author's duty to see that the proper consent is gained; in this case, the guardians of the children must be informed and give written consent for the use of identifiable information. 


Individual anonymity and privacy must be safeguarded. Identification data should not be included in the publication, including names, images, and other identifying information. Only in cases where there is proof that the relevant parties have given their explicit consent can exceptions be created. The journal's policy is to maintain the anonymity of reviewers' names unless they specifically request otherwise in their report.


Research misconduct and fraud skew the body of available data, misdirect research efforts, squander resources, and undermine public confidence in science. Measures to combat research fraud and misconduct have long been supported by the Singh Publication and its editors. We will conduct an investigation with the proper institutions or organisations in cases where an author is determined to have engaged in research fraud or misconduct. Any publication that is discovered to have false results will be retract, or a suitable correction will be published.


With information (metadata) detailing each publication, the Singh Publication keeps a record of everything we publish. We shall make every effort to keep the metadata accessible within that jurisdiction if it is determined that our content does not adhere to the legal requirements of a sovereign state. If we are required to change the publishing history in any way, such as a retraction due to research misconduct, we do so while still maintaining the academic record as much as we can.


Management Journal for Advanced Research is currently indexed in Google Scholar, BASE, WorldCat.