International Research Publishing Group

We publish with integrity — clear rules, fair process, and transparent remedies.

Peer Review Policies
Submit Manuscript

Report ethical concerns: editorial@irpublishinggroup.com

Publication Ethics Statement — COPE adherence

International Research Publishing Group (IRPG) is committed to the highest standards of publication ethics. We follow the principles and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and apply them consistently across our portfolio. All authors, editors, reviewers, and staff are expected to act honestly, transparently, and respectfully. Misconduct undermines scholarship; when concerns arise we investigate promptly, fairly, and confidentially. (See For Authors · Peer Review Policies)

Key principles we uphold

  1. Honesty: accurate reporting of methods, data, results, and authorship.
  2. Transparency: full disclosure of sources of funding, competing interests, and data availability.
  3. Accountability: authors take responsibility for their contributions and corrections when errors are identified.
  4. Fairness: impartial peer review and due process in investigations.
  5. Confidentiality: protection of whistleblowers, reviewers, and subjects during inquiries.

Plagiarism & Similarity Check Policy

IRPG requires originality. All submissions are screened for textual overlap and image manipulation before peer review. Screening tools identify similarity; editorial judgement determines intent and severity.

What we check

  1. Textual overlap with published and unpublished sources.
  2. Self-plagiarism / redundant publication.
  3. Re-used figures, tables, or images without proper attribution or permission.
  4. Manipulated images (fabrication, inappropriate enhancement, undisclosed splicing).

How screening is used

  1. Initial screen: every submission is scanned for similarity. Editors review the similarity report in context (methods sections, references, and boilerplate text are treated differently).
  2. Minor overlap: acceptable when properly cited and unavoidable (e.g., methods). Authors may be asked to revise phrasing or add attribution.
  3. Problematic overlap or duplicate publication: may lead to rejection, request for revision with proper citation, or investigation under misconduct procedures.
  4. Severe cases (plagiarism, fabrication): editors will seek explanations from authors and, if necessary, contact institutions. Outcomes may include rejection, retraction of published work, notification to employers/funders, and prohibition from future submission for a defined period.

Author responsibilities

  1. Declare any closely related or overlapping submissions or prior publications at submission.
  2. Provide appropriate citations and permissions for reused material.
  3. Ensure figures and data are original or correctly licensed/attributed.

Note: similarity percentages alone do not determine action; editorial judgment and context guide outcomes.

Conflicts of Interest Policy

IRPG requires full disclosure of any financial or non-financial interests that could be perceived to influence the research, its interpretation, or editorial decisions.

Who must disclose

  1. All authors at submission.
  2. Editors and reviewers at the point of handling or reviewing a manuscript.

What to disclose (examples)

  1. Funding sources, grant numbers, and sponsor roles.
  2. Employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, or patent ownership.
  3. Personal relationships or rivalries that could affect objectivity.
  4. Institutional affiliations or competing commitments.

How disclosures are handled

  1. Author conflict statements are published on the article landing page and included in metadata.
  2. Editors with a conflict are recused from handling the manuscript; an alternate editor is assigned.
  3. Reviewers must declare conflicts and recuse themselves when appropriate.

Failure to disclose

  • Undisclosed conflicts discovered post-publication may prompt correction notices, editorial expressions of concern, or retraction depending on severity.

Retraction, Correction & Expression of Concern Policy

IRPG maintains transparent correction mechanisms to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record. We follow COPE best practices when issuing corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions.

Types of post-publication notices

  1. Correction (Erratum/ Corrigendum): for honest errors that do not invalidate the article’s main findings (author or publisher corrected content). A correction is linked to the original article and indexed.
  2. Expression of Concern: issued when an unresolved but serious concern exists and an investigation is ongoing; signals readers that there may be an issue.
  3. Retraction: for proven cases of serious misconduct (fabrication, falsification, plagiarism) or major errors that invalidate findings. Retraction notices explain reasons without defamatory language and are linked to the original record, which remains marked as retracted.

Retraction process (summary)

  1. Initial assessment: Editor evaluates evidence or allegations.
  2. Author response: Authors are invited to respond to allegations.
  3. Investigation: If needed, the author’s institution or funder may be contacted to assist.
  4. Decision: Based on findings, the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher decide corrective action.
  5. Notice: A formal notice (correction, expression of concern, or retraction) is published, linked to the article, and indexed in metadata. Indexing services and readers are notified where appropriate.

Principles for notices

  • Notices should be prompt, transparent, factual, and avoid defamatory statements.
  • The original article stays available and plainly labelled (e.g., “Retracted”) to preserve the scholarly record.
  • Metadata deposits will reflect corrections/retractions to inform indexers.

Example retraction notice text (template)

“This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor-in-Chief following an investigation that found evidence of [brief reason: e.g., image manipulation / data fabrication / plagiarism]. The authors have been informed of this decision. The retraction notice explains the reason for the action and is linked to the original article.”

Complaints & Appeals Procedure

IRPG provides fair, timely procedures for authors, reviewers, and readers to appeal editorial decisions or complain about process or conduct.

Who may appeal or complain

  1. Authors (about editorial decisions or procedural irregularities)
  2. Reviewers or editors (about misconduct allegations or process concerns)
  3. Readers (about published content or ethical issues)

Appeal submission & timeline

  1. Submit appeals/complaints to editorial@irpublishinggroup.com within 30 days of the decision or discovery of the issue. Include manuscript ID, decision date, and grounds for appeal. (See How to report below.)
  2. A senior editor or an independent adjudication panel (not involved in the original decision) reviews appeals.
  3. Expected initial acknowledgement within 7 business days; a substantive response within 30 calendar days where possible. Complex investigations may take longer; progress updates are provided.

Grounds for appeal

  1. Procedural error (e.g., conflict of interest not declared, review misconduct).
  2. New, material evidence that was not available at the time of decision.
  3. Factual errors in the assessment of the manuscript or reviewer reports.

Appeal outcomes

  1. Uphold original decision.
  2. Order a re-review by independent reviewers.
  3. Reverse the decision (rare).
  4. Recommend remedial action (clarification, correction of record).
  5. If appeal alleges misconduct, trigger formal investigation under the Publication Ethics procedures (see Retraction, Correction & Expression of Concern Policy).

Confidentiality & non-retaliation

  • Complaints and appeals are handled confidentially. IRPG prohibits retaliation against whistleblowers and will protect identities where requested and practicable.

How to report (practical: what to send)

To report suspected misconduct, email editorial@irpublishinggroup.com with the subject line: Ethics Report — [Journal name] — [Manuscript ID or article title] and include as many of the following items as possible:

Required basic information

  1. Journal name and manuscript ID (or article DOI and title if published).
  2. Your name and contact details (you may request confidentiality / anonymous reporting — include reasons).
  3. A clear description of the concern (what, where, when).
  4. Evidence (similarity reports, annotated images, links to alleged duplicate publications, screenshots, DOIs, or file attachments).

Helpful additional information

  1. Correspondence or dates relevant to the concern.
  2. Names of authors, reviewers, or editors involved (if known).
  3. Any institutional or funder investigations already underway (with contact details).
  4. Suggested outcome you seek (investigation, correction, retraction, clarification).

What we will do

  1. Acknowledge receipt within 7 business days.
  2. Conduct an initial assessment to determine if a full investigation is warranted.
  3. Contact the complainant and the authors as appropriate and maintain confidentiality.
  4. Report outcomes to relevant stakeholders and update the complainant.
  5. Share final decisions publicly via correction/retraction notices where required.

Final notes & links

IRPG treats ethical integrity as central to our mission. Policies in this page are publisher-level standards that apply across journals; individual journals may state additional discipline-specific requirements. For guidance on reviewer conduct, appeals, and COPE flowcharts we follow, consult Peer Review Policies, For Authors, and For Reviewers. To report an ethical concern, contact editorial@irpublishinggroup.com.

Log in

Sign up
Sign up
Scroll to Top