Publication Ethics

The Gul-o-Berg Research Journal (English) is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and accountability in scholarly publishing. Our ethical framework is guided by the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and international best practices for academic journals.

  1. Responsibilities of Authors
  • Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their work is original and free from plagiarism. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others is mandatory.
  • Authorship Criteria: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study.
  • Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships that could influence their research.
  • Data Accuracy: Authors are responsible for the accuracy of data and must provide access to raw data if requested for verification.
  • Multiple or Redundant Publication: Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is considered unethical.
  1. Responsibilities of Editors
  • Fair Evaluation: Editors evaluate manuscripts solely on academic merit, without discrimination based on race, gender, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs.
  • Confidentiality: Editors must maintain confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts and not disclose information to anyone other than the editorial team and reviewers.
  • Conflict of Interest: Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist.
  • Integrity of the Record: Editors are responsible for correcting, retracting, or clarifying published work when necessary.
  1. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

  • Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively, with constructive feedback provided to improve the manuscript.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must decline assignments where conflicts of interest may compromise impartiality.
  • Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by the authors.
  1. Responsibilities of the Publisher
  • Ethical Oversight: The publisher supports editors in maintaining ethical standards and addressing misconduct.
  • Corrections and Retractions: The publisher ensures that corrections, clarifications, and retractions are issued promptly when errors or ethical breaches are identified.
  • Accessibility: The journal is committed to open access publishing, ensuring that research is freely available to the global academic community.
  1. Handling Misconduct
  • Allegations of misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication, unethical research practices) will be investigated thoroughly.
  • If misconduct is confirmed, appropriate actions will be taken, including rejection of the manuscript, retraction of published work, and notification of relevant institutions.

 

Peer Review Policy

The Gul-o-Berg Research Journal (English) follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the integrity, quality, and originality of all published work. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process to promote fairness and impartiality.

  1. Initial Screening
  • All submissions are first assessed by the editorial team for relevance, originality, and adherence to the journal’s scope and formatting guidelines.
  • Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be returned to authors without external review.
  1. Double-Blind Review
  • Eligible manuscripts are sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
  • Reviewers evaluate submissions based on scholarly merit, methodological rigor, clarity of argument, and contribution to the field of English language and literature.
  • Recommendations may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
  1. Editorial Decision
  • The editorial board makes the final decision based on reviewers’ reports and the overall quality of the manuscript.
  • Authors are notified promptly of the decision and, where applicable, provided with constructive feedback to improve their work.
  1. Revision Process
  • Authors invited to revise must address reviewers’ comments systematically and resubmit within the specified timeframe.
  • Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers or additional experts if necessary.
  1. Ethical Oversight
  • Reviewers and editors are required to disclose any conflicts of interest.
  • Manuscripts suspected of plagiarism, data fabrication, or other ethical breaches will be investigated in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics policy.
  1. Transparency and Accountability
  • The journal is committed to maintaining transparency in the peer review process while safeguarding confidentiality.
  • Appeals against editorial decisions may be considered if supported by strong evidence of bias or error