●  Hort. Res. J. is committed to maintaining high standards through rigorous peer review combined with strict ethical policies to ensure the production of high-quality scholarly publications in the journal.

Authors commitments:    

It is important to avoid:

- Data fabrication and falsification:

Data fabrication means the researcher did not actually do the study, but faked the data. Data falsification means the researcher did the experiment but then changed some of the data.

- Plagiarism:

Taking the ideas and work of other scientists without giving them credit is unfair and dishonest. Copying even one sentence from someone else’s manuscript without proper citation is considered plagiarism so, use your own words instead.

- Multiple submissions:

It is unethical to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Doing this wastes the time of editors and peer reviewers, and can damage the reputation of the authors and the journals if published in more than one journal as the later publication will have to be retracted.

- Redundant publications (or ‘salami’ publications):

This means publishing many very similar manuscripts based on the same experiment. Combining your results into one very robust paper is more likely to be of interest to a selective journal. Editors are likely to reject a weak paper that they suspect is a result of salami slicing.

- Improper author contribution or attribution:

All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript and approved all its claims.

If a researcher is found to be engaging in unethical behavior, the manuscript may be rejected without review and notification to his or her institution.

Responsibilities of Reviewers:

Confidentiality: Reviewers should not share any information from an assigned manuscript with outsiders without prior permission from the Editor or preserve the data from an assigned manuscript.

Competence: Reviewer with fair expertise should complete the review. The assigned Reviewer with inadequate expertise should feel responsible and may decline the review as it is presumed that the reviewer will be an expert in the respective field.

Constructive assessment: Reviewer comments should appreciate positive aspects of the work, identify negative aspects constructively, and indicate the enhancement needed. A reviewer should explain and support his or her judgment clearly enough that   Editors and Authors can understand the basis of the comments. The reviewer should ensure that an observation or argument that has been previously reported is accompanied by a relevant citation and should immediately alert the Editor when he or she becomes aware of a duplicate publication. A reviewer should not use any kind of abusive language while commenting on an article. Judgment of each article should be done without any bias and personal interest by the assigned reviewer.

Impartiality and Integrity: Reviewer’s decision should solely depend on scientific merit, relevance to the subject, scope of the journal rather than financial, racial, ethnic origin etc., of the authors.

Disclosure of conflict of interest: To the extent feasible, the reviewer should minimize the conflict of interest. In such a situation, the reviewer should notify the editor describing the conflict of interest.

Timeliness and responsiveness: Reviewers should morally abide to provide the review comments within the stipulated time and be active enough in responding to the queries raised by the editor if any Responsibilities of the Editor and Editorial Board.