(Last Updated : 25-Feb-2023) is an Online Editorial Management System; managing manuscript submission and reviewing system for scholarly journals published or managed by CONNECT JOURNALS.  It enables the production process and processing of submission fees & adhoc charges. The facilities are extended to other publishers also, who wish to do their editorial process through this platform.

The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method.  The publishing process involves Authors, Editors, and Reviewers as Users of this Online Editorial Management System.  Each one of them plays an important role with a defined responsibility to meet ethical standards at each stage of their involvement during the finalization process of the paper. 

The Editors and the publishers of the journal, take its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and they recognize the ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial income has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.

CONNECT JOURNALS (CJ) presents an innovative and cost-effective package, initiating a global outreach for the journals through our optimized marketing platform. Through this distinctive portal, any and all publishers can avail FREE listing of their Journals, online linkages, conversion to e-Journal, and various other benefits and services; thereby enabling global positioning of their Journals as a member in today’s world of e-commerce. All the facilities for e-Journal management and marketing are available for both online as well as for offline publishers along with an option to go online in the future. 

General duties and responsibilities of Editors

  • Editors will adhere to the following guidelines to the best of their abilities:
  • Strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
  • Strive to constantly improve their journal;
  • Have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
  • Champion freedom of expression;
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record;
  • Preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
  • Always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Best Practice for Editors includes:

  • Actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal's processes
  • Encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal's processes in the light of new findings
  • Working to persuade their publisher to provide appropriate resources, guidance from experts (e.g. designers, lawyers)
  • Supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct
  • Supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
  • Reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines
  • Ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests)
  • Being guided by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) flowcharts ( in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship
  • Publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct e.g. with links to the COPE (Flowcharts)
  • Publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles

Relations with Authors

  • Editors decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the papers importance, originality, and clarity, and the study's validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
  • Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
  • New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
  • A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
  • Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated.
  • Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.

Editorial Procedure and Peer-review

Initial Checks

  • All the submitted manuscripts will be checked by an experienced editor to determine whether the submitted manuscript is properly prepared and whether they follow the ethical policies of the journal and contain all the necessary disclosures.
  • All the submitted manuscripts will be checked for the correctness of the references. The incomplete, inappropriate, or vague/misleading references may lead to desk rejection.
  • All the submitted articles will be checked for the English language at this stage and authors may be asked for language editing by any native or professional English language editor.
  • The submitted articles will be screened for plagiarism as per norms.
  • Manuscripts that are not properly prepared will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission.
  • Manuscripts with insufficient originality, serious scientific or technical flaws, or lack of a significant message, or if not prepared as per journals instructions are rejected without a formal peer-review.


  • The manuscript that passes the initial check/desk review, is subjected to double-blinded peer-review. The manuscript will be reviewed by a minimum of two suitable experts (whose identities will remain anonymous to the authors) in the respective subject area. All articles reviewed earlier were done under the Single-Blind policy.
  • As per the double-blind policy, the identity of authors is not known to the reviewers and vice-versa. To ensure that no author information is shared with the reviewer’s, our editorial team does an initial assessment of the manuscript to make sure that all the author details are removed from the manuscript before sending the same to reviewers.
  • We believe this will further help the peer-review process by reducing the chances of bias. We expect our reviewers not to discriminate and make decisions that may be based on the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors. The review should also not be affected by a potential conflict of interest with the authors.
  • Total anonymity (though not guaranteed) encourages non-discriminatory and healthy peer-review.

Relations with Reviewers

  • Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
  • Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
  • Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards: Authors of the original research article must present the accurate data of work performed during their research. Authors are also expected to discuss the objective of their work and the significance of their results. An article should contain the sufficient information and references to ensure the reproducibility of the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements considered as unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw/supplementary data for a paper that is under editorial review. The authors should be prepared to provide the public access to these data (if practicable) and to retain such data for a reasonable time after the publication.

Multiple Publications & Dual submission: An author should not publish manuscripts that describe the same concept or present the similar data, in more than one journal. In addition, an article should not be submitted to two or more journals simultaneously. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should provide the proper acknowledgment for the work of others. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper and corresponding author: Only the contributors who have made a significant contribution in the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study should be titled as author. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Corresponding author is the author responsible for communicating with the journal for publication. The corresponding author should ensure that no inappropriate contributors are listed as co-authors in the paper. All the co-authors should check the final draft of the manuscript before submitting it to the journal.

Acknowledgment of Funding Sources: All the funding sources must be properly acknowledged.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All the authors should disclose the possible financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, he should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Duties of the Publisher

The publisher is supposed to protect the intellectual property and copyright of the contents submitted by the authors. We respect the privacy and personal data, especially for authors and peer reviewers. We work in close co-operation with the editors and peer reviewers in to maintain the editorial independence, and to guarantee transparency and integrity in peer-review process.

In 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.

Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct

It is the responsibility of the author that likewise published data, unpublished data must be properly credited and the appropriate permission has been sought. In the case of license data, authors must submit a written assurance that they have signed the data-licensing agreement with its owner.

Plagiarism can also occur accidentally when an author does not intend to plagiarize but fails to cite his or her sources correctly and completely. Being careful and having a clear understanding of ethical writing can help to prevent this.

Originality and Plagiarism: Authors should ensure the originality of their contents, while preparing a manuscript draft. In case the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited or quoted. All the articles submitted to journal shall be screened for plagiarism (online plagiarism detection software). In case, plagiarism is detected during review/editorial process, such manuscript(s) will be rejected immediately and we can also consider other steps depending upon the seriousness of the case.

If the plagiarism is proven after publication, such manuscript(s) will be removed from our website and appropriate announcement will be placed in this regard.

Copyright and Licensing

According to the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code), copyright is a form of protection given to the publishers and authors of “original works of authorship”, including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. This law gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to publish, reproduce, sell, distribute or modify their work.

Copyright Infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. An exception to copyright infringement falls under the doctrine of “Fair Use” of copyright law and generally represents instances in which the activity is largely for non-profit educational, scholarship, or research purposes.

The safest way is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. When it seems to be impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “Fair Use” would clearly apply to the situation.

It is the responsibility of the authors of their scientific contents of the papers submitted for publication. However, after publication of the papers, the publishers hold the copyright.

Conflict of Interest and Funding Acknowledgement

The author(s) should certify that all authors of the Manuscript have no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interests, patent-licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted Manuscript, except as disclosed on a separate attachment. All funding sources supporting the work and all institutional or corporate affiliations should be acknowledged in a footnote.

Policies on Conflict of Interest, Human and Animal rights, and Informed Consent

Conflict of Interest

  • It is necessary that authors should disclose any conflict related to the manuscript while submitting the manuscript for consideration in the journls hosted by CONEECT JOURNALS. The conflict of interest will be published along with the article. If the study was funded and there was no conflict of interest the authors must mention “Funding source had no role in study design, data collection, interpretation of results and manuscript writing”. If there is no conflict of interest, authors should mention “Declare none”.
  • Reviewers and subject editors are required to disclose any conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript, authors, biases or competing interests.

Reproducing Copyrighted Material

  • If authors wish to use materials from any source published, online or otherwise, necessary permissions must be sought in writing from the authors or publishers who are the copyright holders.
  • In case of the original material registered under Creative Commons license authors should refer to the appropriate attribution and notify Connect Journals regarding the same.

Ethical Guidelines for the use of Animals in Research:

  • Guidelines for the use of animals in research have been prepared by the National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT). Their purpose is to provide ethical guidelines for researchers and other people who are conducting experiments on animals. These guidelines are very helpful while planning projects; assessing them and reporting, publishing of findings and results.
  • The ethical assessments related to the use of animals in research  are wide ranging. It is generally thought that the use of animals may be necessary to improvement for people, animals or the environment. At the same time, the general opinion is that animals have a moral status, and that our treatment of them should be subject to ethical considerations. Such views are reflected in the following positions :
    • Animals have an intrinsic value which must be respected.
    • Animals are sentient creatures with the capacity to feel pain, and the interests of animals must therefore be taken into consideration.
    • Our treatment of animals, including the use of animals, in research is an expression of our attitudes and influences us as moral actors.

Researchers must follow the following guidelines while working upon the animals:

  • Respect for animal’s dignity:- Researchers must have respect for animals worth, regardless of their utility value and for animal’s interests as living, sentient creatures. Researchers must be respectful when choosing their topic and methods and when disseminating their research. Researchers must provide care that is adapted to the needs of each laboratory animal.
  • Responsibility for considering options:- Researchers are responsible for studying whether there are alternatives to experiments on animals. Alternative methods and options must be given priority, if the same knowledge can be acquired without using laboratory animals. If no good options are available, researchers should consider, whether the research can be postponed until alternative methods have been developed. When justifying experiments on animals, researchers therefore must be able to account for the absence of options and the need to acquire knowledge immediately.
  • The principle of proportionality:- Researchers must consider the risk that laboratory animals experience pain and other suffering and assess them in relation to the value of the research for animals, people or the environment. Researchers must keep in their mind that suffering can only be caused to animals if this is counter balanced by a substantial and probable benefit for animals, people or the environment.
    There are many alternative methods for analysing harm and benefit. Research institutions should provide training on suitable models and researchers are responsible for using such methods of analysis when planning experiments on animals.
  • There are many alternative methods for analysing harm and benefit. Research institutions should provide training on suitable models and researchers are responsible for using such methods of analysis when planning experiments on animals.
  • Responsibility for considering reducing the number of animals:- Researchers must always consider the possibility of reducing the number of animals in the experimental plans. Researchers must only include the number necessary to maintain the scientific quality of the experiments and the relevance of the results. Researchers must conduct literature studies, consider alternatives experiment design and perform calculation before beginning the experiments on animals.
  • Responsibility for minimising the risk of suffering and improving animal welfare:- Researchers must always try to minimise the risk of suffering and provide good animal welfare. Suffering include pain, hunger, thirst, malnutrition, abnormal cold or heat stress, injury, fear, illness and restriction on natural behaviour.
    Researchers must not only consider the direct suffering that may endured during the experiment itself, but also the risk of suffering before and after the experiment, including trapping, labelling anaesthetising, breeding, transportation, stabling and euthanizing. Need of period of adaptation before and after the experiment must be taken into account by the researchers.
  • Researchers must not only consider the direct suffering that may endured during the experiment itself, but also the risk of suffering before and after the experiment, including trapping, labelling anaesthetising, breeding, transportation, stabling and euthanizing. Need of period of adaptation before and after the experiment must be taken into account by the researchers.
  • Responsibility for maintaining biological diversity: - It is responsibility of the researchers to ensure that the use of laboratory animals does not harm and endanger biological diversity. Consequences of stock and ecosystem as a whole must be considered by the researchers. The use of endangered and vulnerable species must be minimised or avoided.
  • Responsibility when intervening in habitat: - Any disruption and bad impact on natural behaviour of individual animals including those that are not direct subject of research must be reduced by the researchers. Principal of Proportionality must be kept in mind while using of research. Technology related projects such as installing radar masts, antennas or other measurement instruments. Researchers must always try to minimise the possibility of negative impact. 
  • Responsibility for openness and sharing of data and material: - Researchers must ensure transparency in research findings and sharing of data and materials from experiments on animals. This practice avoids the unnecessary repetition of the experiments. The negative results of experiments on animals should be in public knowledge. It is responsibility of the researchers to disseminate the finding in public about the experiments which are not worth pursuing shine a light on unfortunate design and help in reducing the use of animals in research.
  • Requirement of expertise on animals: - Researchers and others who handle live animals must have adequately updated and documented expertise on animals. This includes specific knowledge about the biology of animal species in question, and willingness and ability to take care of animals properly.
  • Requirement of due care: - Researchers must follow the national laws and rules and international conventions and agreements regarding the use of laboratory animals. Any person who plans to use animals in experiments must familiarise themselves with the current rules.(Source:  NENT- Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology; )