Publication Ethics

Journal of Maize Research and Development

ISSN: 2467-9305 (Online), ISSN: 2467-9291 (Print)

DOI Prefix: 10.3126/jmrd
Editor-in-Chief: Jiban Shrestha
Publication Frequency: Two Issues per year
Submission E-mail:,
Nature: Print and Online
Language of Publication: English   Published by:
Government of Nepal,
Nepal Agricultural Research Council,
National Maize Research Program,
Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal.
Journal Cover page-2017
Vol.3, No. 1, Dec. 2017 
Twitter    LinkedIn     Facebook    RSS

Journal Metrics: 
Papers:30, Citations:29, Years:2,
Cites/year: 14.5, Cites/paper:0.96

Updated August 2017. 

Publication Ethics

Our publication ethics and publication malpractice statement is mainly based on the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2011).

Responsibilities of Editors

• The Chief editor/editor is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the journal will be published. The decision will be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the journal’s scope. The publishing decision is based on the recommendation of the journal’s reviewers. Current legal requirements regarding copyright infringement, and plagiarism should also be considered.

• The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

• Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent.

• Editors should aim to ensure timely peer review and publication and should avoid unnecessary delays. Editors should consider how best to share information with authors about any delays that occur.

• Editors or board members should not be involved in editorial decisions about their own scholarly work. If chief editor/editor contributes his/her papers, these papers will be reviewed by those reviewers which are outside the journal team.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

• The peer-reviewing process assists the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and may also serve the author in improving the paper.

• Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.

• Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

• Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

• Reviewers should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

• Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers.

Misconduct in the article

Misconduct in the article itself comes in two forms:

Reviewer Misconduct: This might include such issues as fabricating data, unethical experiments on animals or humans, and failure to protect the confidentiality of subjects. Reviewer misconduct can range from minor issues, such as rude or unconstructive reviews, to major issues, such as the appropriation of author’s ideas or data. As an editor, you entrust reviewers with a high level of responsibility. They are given access to privileged information (i.e. unpublished research) and their recommendations can sway the publication outcome. Unfortunately, there are rare occasions when that trust is misplaced.Minor problems are relatively easy to respond to. Delete rude comments, and don’t invite reviewers again if they supply poor quality, late, or unconstructive reviews. There may be other instances where editors receive complaints from authors about reviewer misconduct. We outline approaches to these instances below.

Author Misconduct: might include such issues as plagiarism, redundant publication, undisclosed conflicts of interests, and guest authorship.Complaints should be made in confidence to the editor or editorial office, rather than directly to the author or in the public domain, and should be managed in confidence until they are resolved.

Prior to Publication

review may raise a concern about a submitted manuscript during the course of the review process:

  • Where appropriate, the reviewer should be asked for information to substantiate their concern (e.g. suspicious data in the paper).
  • Contact the author should to raise the concern and, if appropriate, ask for clarification. Avoid accusatory or defamatory language; stick to factual statements, presenting any available evidence.
  • The review process should be put on hold until the matter is resolved.
  • If the author provides a satisfactory explanation then the review process can proceed, perhaps following changes by the author.
  • If the author acknowledges misconduct or is unable to provide a satisfactory explanation then the submission should be rejected.
  • The reviewer who raised the complaint should be told of the outcome once the matter is resolved.

After Publication

A reader may raise a concern about a published manuscript. As above, the reader should be asked for substantiating information and then the author should be contacted to raise the concern. If the complaint proves to be unfounded no further action may be required. If action is required, there are three main options.

  • You can publish a correction statement to include information that was missing from the published version (e.g. undisclosed conflict of interests).
  • Publish an expression of concern, alongside the article, if there are well-founded suspicions of misconduct, though this is a halfway house and it is usually preferable to fully resolve the issue.
  • You can retract the published article. This may be appropriate for more serious concerns, such as fabricated data or plagiarized material. See below for more details.

As before, you should inform the reader who raised the complaint of the outcome once the matter is resolved.

Procedures for dealing with misconduct:

a Identification and investigation:
i. Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.
ii. Whoever informs the editor or publisher of misconduct must provide sufficient evidence or documentation for an investigation to be initiated.
iii. Journal editors have primary authority and responsibility for investigations into misconduct, and they should consult with or seek advice from the publisher as appropriate.
iv. Investigations should be undertaken discreetly, with all caution necessary to avoid spreading rumor or allegations beyond those individuals who need to know.
b. Misconduct and possible outcomes:
The editor, in consultation with the publisher, is responsible for the final decision regarding actions for any identified misconduct, including whether the employers of the accused be notified of the breach. The following outcomes are ordered by increasing severity:
i. Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of standards.
ii. Strongly worded written communication to the author or reviewer as a warning against future behavior.
iii. Publication of a formal notice or editorial detailing the misconduct.
iv. A formal letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or funding agency.
v. Formal retraction of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing appropriate department heads, abstracting and indexing services, and the readership of the publication.
vi. Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
vii. Formal report of the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.

Responsibilities of Authors

Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Reviews and other articles should also be accurate and objective, and should unfailingly cite the work on which they are based.

Data Access and Retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Plagiarism in any form, including the touting of material contained in another paper (of the same authors or some other author) with cosmetic changes as a new paper; copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), and claiming results from research conducted by others are among the numerous forms of plagiarism. In all its forms plagiarism constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration to another journal a previously published paper, or the one under consideration with another journal, without the written consent of the two journals involved.

Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Changes in authorship: Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Any addition, deletion or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list should be made only before the manuscript has been accepted. The addition, deletion or rearrangement of authors is not possible after the manuscript has been accepted.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal Chief Editor/Editor or publisher and cooperate to retract or correct the paper.

If the Chief Editor/Editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the Chief Editor/Editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Article retraction

Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:

• they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (eg, data fabrication) or honest error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error)

• the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)

• it constitutes plagiarism

• it reports unethical research

Self-Archiving Policy

Authors of ‘Journal of Maize Research and Development’ retain rights of self-archiving. Authors are allowed deposition of such articles on institutional, non-commercial repositories and personal websites immediately after publication on the journal website.


The contributions that are not specifically related to your research, including personal encouragement (e.g., by your friends or parents) and very general help (e.g., from a laboratory manager who purchases all supplies for your research group), should not be cited. Additionally, anonymous editors and peer reviewers are usually not thanked in the acknowledgments section.

Note that acknowledging grants and fellowships is in fact required by many funding agencies and research institutions. Therefore, All research articles should have a funding acknowledgement statement included in the manuscript.Whether the funding was partial or full, relevant grant numbers,  if applicable, should be detailed as well.

If the research is funded by a corporation, the author should issue a public statement that the research is free of bias. The funding agency should be written out in full, followed by the grant number in square brackets, see following example:

  • This work was supported by Name of Funding Agency [grant number xxxx].

Multiple grant numbers should be separated by comma and space. Where the research was supported by more than one agency, the different agencies should be separated by semi-colon, with “and” before the final funder. Thus:

  • This work was supported by the ICRISAT India [grant numbers xxxx]; CIMMYT Nepal [grant number zzzz]; and the Economic and Social Research Council [grant number aaaa].

In some cases, research is not funded by a specific project grant, but rather from the block grant and other resources available to a university, college or other research institution. Where no specific funding has been provided for the research we ask that corresponding authors use the following sentence:

  • This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author Contributions
The contributions of all authors must be described. The author must address below questions;
  • Who did conceive and design the experiments??
  • Who did collect data ??
  • Who did analyze the data and write the paper??
  • Who did revise the article for the final approval of the version to be published??


  • S.H.C. designed and performed experiments, analysed data and wrote the paper; N.C., M.T. and J.M.G. designed and performed experiments; D.R. and M.B.G. developed analytical tools; and C.I.B. designed experiments, analysed data and wrote the paper.
  • A.B. designed and performed the experiments, derived the models and analysed the data. B.C. assisted with XYZ measurements and C.D. helped carry out the XYZ simulations. A.B. and D.E. wrote the manuscript in consultation with C.D., B.C. and E.F..
Conflict of Interest

From 2017, This journal requires declaration of any Conflict of Interest upon submission. This information will be available to the Editors. If your manuscript is published, this information will be communicated in a statement in the published paper.

A Conflict of Interest is actual if a relationship exists, or apparent if the possibility for a relationship could be inferred. In either case, it is the responsibility of journal Editors, Associate Editors, Editorial Board members, authors and reviewers to declare Conflicts of Interest, actual or apparent.

Full disclosure is required when you submit your paper to this journal. This journal requests the author to add a statement in the end before references. The author(s) may write(s)  his/her/their conflicts of interest as any of below sentences;

  • The author(s) declare(s) that there is(are) no conflict(s) of interest.
  • The author(s) declare (s) that he/she (they) has (have) no conflict(s) of interest.
  • The author(s) declare(s) that there is (are) no conflict(s) of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

This is the author’s declaration that guarantees objective and fair research. It implies the research results are not influenced by external factors or misconduct, such as the trade of financial incentives for positive results.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011, March 7). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Retrieved from

This Journal is  licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).