Unit III: PUBLICATION ETHICS

Publication ethics: definition, introduction and importance - Best practices / standards

setting initiatives and guidelines: COPE, WAME, etc. - Conflicts of interest -
Publication misconduct: definition, concept, problems that lead to unethical behaviour
and vice versa, types - Violation of publication ethics, authorship and contributor ship -
Identification of publication misconduct, complaints and appeals - Predatory publisher
and journals.
1. Publication Ethics
Definition
Publication ethics may be defined as a self-regulator mechanism insisting on integrity
on the part of authors, peer reviewers and publishers to establish higher standards of editorial
processing for the scholarly articles.
Introduction
Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications,
public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their work and ideas.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) is an international forum for editors
and publishers of peer-reviewed journals that provide the code of conduct and best practice
guidelines that define publication ethics and advises editors on how to handle cases of
research and publication misconduct. In this editorial, we introduce concepts collectively
called publication ethics including statutory and ethics approval, informed consent, data
manipulation and research fraud, plagiarism, simultaneous submission, duplicate publication,
self-citation, consent to reproduce published material, ethics of authorship, and conflicts of
interest. It is important to avoid the following
1. Data fabrication and falsification:
a. Data fabrication means the researcher did not actually do the study, but faked
the data.
b. Data falsification means the researcher did the experiment, but then changed
some of the data.
2. Plagiarism:
a. 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, or even one of your own that has previously been published,
without proper citation is considered plagiarism—use your own words instead.
3. Multiple submissions:
a. 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.
4. Redundant publications (or ‘salami’ publications):
a. 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.
5. Improper author contribution or attribution:
 a. All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the
research in the manuscript and approved all its claims.
b. Don’t forget to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution,
including students and laboratory technicians.
c. Do not “gift” authorship to those who did not contribute to the paper.
d. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has detailed
guidelines on authorship that are useful for scientists in all fields.
Many journals have tools and processes in place to identify researchers that engage in
unethical behaviour. If the journal caught the unethical manuscript then it may be rejected
without review and journal informed to authors’ institution.
Publication Ethics Checklist
1. Approval and consent
a. Do you have approval of relevant Regulatory Authorities, Institutional
Review Board and Ethics Committee?
b. Have you registered your clinical trail?
c. Have you documented informed consent?
2. Data accuracy
a. Is there manipulation of material, equipment, process or data?
b. Have you double-checked data for accuracy?
3. Falsification and fabrication
a. Is there any lurking fake data?
4. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism
a. Have you used your own prior work or copied others’ work?
b. Is so, have you cited these correctly?
c. Do you have written permission for reproduced material, figures or tables?
5. Submission fraud
a. Is there simultaneous submission to two journals?
b. Have you published the entire work or part of it (salami slicing) already?
c. Have you excessively cited your own publications?
6. Ethics of authorship
a. Have you included all the authors in a specific pre-agreed order?
b. Do you have an agreement with co-authors?
c. Are the co-authors aware of the contents of the publication?
d. Have they had access to, and hold themselves responsible for the data and
its interpretation?
e. Is there is any Ghost Author or a “Guest Author”?
7. Conflict of interest
a. Have you declared relevant interests and relationships that could be seen
as influencing your findings (whether financial or scientific)?
Importance of Ethics
There are several reasons why it is important to adhere to ethical norms in research.
1. promote the aims of research, such as knowledge, truth, and avoidance of error. For
example, prohibitions against fabricating, falsifying, or misrepresenting research data
promote the truth and minimize error.
 2. since research often involves a great deal of cooperation and coordination among
many different people in different disciplines and institutions, ethical standards
promote the values that are essential to collaborative work, such as trust,
accountability, mutual respect, and fairness. For example, many ethical norms in
research, such as guidelines for authorship, copyright and patenting policies, data
sharing policies, and confidentiality rules in peer review, are designed to protect
intellectual property interests while encouraging collaboration. Most researchers want
to receive credit for their contributions and do not want to have their ideas stolen or
disclosed prematurely.
3. many of the ethical norms help to ensure that researchers can be held accountable to
the public. For instance, federal policies on research misconduct, conflicts of interest,
the human subjects protections, and animal care and use are necessary in order to
make sure that researchers who are funded by public money can be held accountable
to the public.
4. ethical norms in research also help to build public support for research. People are
more likely to fund a research project if they can trust the quality and integrity of
research.
5. many of the norms of research promote a variety of other important moral and social
values, such as social responsibility, human rights, animal welfare, compliance with
the law, and public health and safety. Ethical lapses in research can significantly harm
human and animal subjects, students, and the public. For example, a researcher who
fabricates data in a clinical trial may harm or even kill patients, and a researcher who
fails to abide by regulations and guidelines relating to radiation or biological safety
may jeopardize his health and safety or the health and safety of staff and students.
Ethical Principles
 Honesty
 Objectivity
 Integrity
 Carefulness
 Openness
 Transparency
 Accountability
 Intellectual property
 Confidentiality
 Social Responsibility
 Non-discrimination
 Competence
2. Best practices / standards setting initiatives and guidelines: COPE & WAME
a) COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION ETHICS (COPE)
Guidelines on Good Publication Practice’
Need of Guidelines
COPE was founded in 1997 to address breaches of research and publication ethics. A
voluntary body providing a discussion forum and advice for scientific editors, it aims to find
practical ways of dealing with the issues, and to develop good practice. These guidelines
should be useful for authors, editors, editorial board member, readers, owners of journals, and
publishers.
Intellectual honesty should be actively encouraged in all medical and scientific
courses of study, and used to inform publication ethics and prevent misconduct. It is with that
in mind that these guidelines have been produced.
Steps for developing Guidelines
The guidelines were developed from a preliminary version drafted by individual
members of the committee, which was then submitted to extensive consultation. They
address: study design and ethical approval, data analysis, authorship, conflict of interests, the
peer review process, redundant publication, plagiarism, duties of editors, media relations,
advertising, and how to deal with misconduct.
b) WAME – World Association of Medical Editors
Purpose of policy on Ethical Principles
Medical journals aspire to select, through peer review, the highest quality science. To achieve
this, the entire peer review and publication process must be thorough, objective, and fair.
Almost every aspect of this process involves important ethical principles and decisions,
which are seldom explicitly stated and even less often shared with the readership. Journals'
reputations depend on the trust of readers, authors, researchers, reviewers, editors, patients,
research subjects, funding agencies, and administrators of public health policy. This trust is
enhanced by describing as explicitly as possible the journal's policies to ensure the ethical
treatment of all participants in the publication process.
A comprehensive policy on publication ethics, which addresses all the major areas of
ethics we believe contemporary science journals should consider. Aim of the policy is to
encourage editors of journals to use these to develop such policies for their journals and make
them accessible to their constituents by publishing them in print or on the web. The document
makes recommendations on what we consider to be the best solutions to address these ethical
problems, but we expect individual journals to customize the policies to best fit their own
situations.
Recommended Policies
 Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals Conflict Journals
 Study Design and Ethics Study Ethics
 Authorship
 Peer Review
 Editorial Decisions
 Originality, Prior Publication, and Media Relations Originality, Relations
 Plagiarism
  Advertising
 Responding to Allegations of Possible Misconduct Responding Misconduct
 Relation of the Journal to the Sponsoring Society (if applicable)
Guidelines of COPE and WAME
These guidelines are intended to be advisory rather than prescriptive, and to evolve over time.
We hope that they will be disseminated widely, endorsed by editors, and refined by those
who use them.
1. Study design and ethical approval
 Good research should be well justified, well planned, appropriately designed,
and ethically approved. To conduct research to a lower standard may
constitute misconduct.
2. Data analysis
 Data should be appropriately analysed, but inappropriate analysis does not
necessarily amount to misconduct. Fabrication and falsification of data do
constitute misconduct.
3. Authorship
 There is no universally agreed definition of authorship, although attempts have
been made. As a minimum, authors should take responsibility for a particular
section of the study.
4. Conflicts of interest
 Conflicts of interest comprise those which may not be fully apparent and
which may influence the judgment of author, reviewers, and editors. They
have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a
reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.
 They may be personal, commercial, political, academic or financial.
 “Financial” interests may include employment, research funding, stock or
share ownership, payment for lectures or travel, consultancies and company
support for staff.
5. Peer review
 Peer reviewers are external experts chosen by editors to provide written
opinions, with the aim of improving the study.
 Working methods vary from journal to journal, but some use open procedures
in which the name of the reviewer is disclosed, together with the full or
“edited” report.
6. Redundant publication
 Redundant publication occurs when two or more papers, without full cross
reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points, or conclusions.
7. Plagiarism
 Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others published and
unpublished ideas, including research grant applications to submission under
“new” authorship of a complete paper, sometimes in a different language.
 It may occur at any stage of planning, research, writing, or publication: it
applies to print and electronic versions.
 8. Duties of editors
 Editors are the stewards of journals. They usually take over their journal from
the previous editor(s) and always want to hand over the journal in good shape.
 Most editors provide direction for the journal and build a strong management
team.
 They must consider and balance the interests of many constituents, including
readers, authors, staff, owners, editorial board members, advertisers and the
media.
9. Media relations
 Medical research findings are of increasing interest to the print and broadcast
media. Journalists may attend scientific meetings at which preliminary
research findings are presented, leading to their premature publication in the
mass media.
10. Advertising
 Many scientific journals and meetings derive significant income from
advertising.
 Reprints may also be lucrative.
Dealing with Misconduct
 Principles – general principle confirming misconduct is intention to
cause others to regard as true that which is not true
 Investigating misconduct
 Serious misconduct
 Less serious misconduct
 sanctions
3. Conflict of Interest
Introduction
COI is defined as anything that can create a divided loyalty—or the appearance of one—
between the researcher, the institution, and the individuals enrolled in the research. A
Declaration of Conflicting Interests policy refers to a formal policy a journal may have to
require a conflict of interest statement or conflict of interest disclosure from a submitting or
publishing author.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) states in its Guidelines on Good Publication
Practice (2003) that:
‘Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that
are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments on what is
published. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would
make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.’
Many scholars, researchers and professionals may have potential conflicts of interest, that
could have an effect on – or could be seen to – have an effect on their research.  As a result,
journals require a formal declaration of conflicting interests enabling a statement to be carried
within the paginated published article.
A potential conflicting interest might arise from relationships, allegiances or
hostilities to particular groups, organizations or interests, which may influence excessively
one’s judgments or actions. The issue is particularly sensitive when such interests are private
and/or may result in personal gain.
Examples of conflicts of interest might include the following, although it is not an exhaustive
list:
 Having received fees for consulting.
 Having received research funding.
 Having been employed by a related company.
 Holding stocks or shares in a company which might be affected by the publication of
your paper.
 Having received funds reimbursing you for attending a related symposium, or talk.
If there are other interests which the reasonable reader might feel has affected your research
you may also wish to declare them.
Types of COI
Interests are broadly characterized into two types: financial, and conflicts of commitment.
Financial Interest:
 A financial interest is anything of monetary value, including but not limited to salary
and other payments for services, equity interests, and intellectual property rights from
companies and/or institutions that are sponsoring research.
 Financial interests include consulting fees and honoraria, stock, stock options and
other interests, patents, copyrights, and royalty rights.
 Financial interests are further separated by identifying significant financial interests.
Conflict of commitment
 A conflict of commitment occurs when a divided loyalty exists because of
nonfinancial ties.
 For example, this would exist if a researcher was conducting research with an
investigational agent, and at the same time was sitting on the scientific advisory board
of the agent’s manufacturer, even if the researcher did so without pay.
 Although a number of institutions address conflicts of commitment in research, COI
policies generally focus on financial gain because it is a relatively objective, fungible,
and quantifiable construct, as opposed to conflicts of commitment, which may not be.
Authors facing Problem for without submitting declaration form of COI
A judgment that a researcher has a COI does not imply that the individual is unethical
or has committed a wrongdoing. Such judgments assume only that some situations are
generally recognized to pose an unacceptable risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by
considerations that should be irrelevant. After having been identified, institutions manage or
eliminate these situations in order to preserve the integrity of the research process.
Problems can arise, however, when a COI exists and the conflict is not declared and
dealt with in some way by the institution to which the individual owes primary allegiance. In
addition to actually or potentially harming research subjects, as well as calling into question
research results, the COI and resulting inherently negative publicity have put both the
individual researchers involved, and their home institutions, in an unwelcome spotlight. Two
examples illustrate this:
• Harvard University child psychiatrist Joseph Biederman, MD, earned at least
$1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007 but did
 not report much of this income to Harvard officials, which may have violated
internal university policy, as well as federal regulations.
• Between 2000 and 2007, Emory University psychiatrist Charles Nemeroff,
MD, the principal investigator on an NIH study of five GlaxoSmithKline
antidepressives, received at least $2.8 million in consulting fees from
pharmaceutical companies, including GlaxoSmithKline. He failed to report a
third of these fees to Emory.
From an ethical point of view, it is essential that any involvement a researcher or
his/her immediate family may have with sponsors must be transparent and declared.
Compliance with federal regulations and institutional policies concerning COI is essential to
avoid the type of damage that occurred at Harvard, Emory.
Author obligations regarding conflicting interests
Journal Publishing Contributor Agreement asked to certify that:
1. All forms of financial support, including pharmaceutical company support, are
acknowledged in your Contribution.
2. Any commercial or financial involvements that might present an appearance of a
conflict of interest related to the Contribution are disclosed in a covering letter
accompanying the Contribution and all such potential conflicts of interest will be
discussed with the Editor as to whether disclosure of this information with the
published Contribution is to be made in the journal.
3. That you have not signed an agreement with any sponsor of the research reported in
the Contribution that prevents you from publishing both positive and negative results
or that forbids you from publishing this research without the prior approval of the
sponsor.
4. That you have checked the manuscript submission guidelines to see whether the
journal requires a Declaration of Conflicting Interests and have complied with the
requirements specified where such a policy exists.
4.Publication misconduct
Definition:
Publication misconduct includes plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate
authorship, duplicate submission/multiple submissions, overlapping publication, and salami
publication.
problems that lead to unethical behaviour
Causing Factors
 Desire to see voluminous curriculum vitae
 Promotions & academic advancement
 Desire of grant sanctioning
 Competition among the colleagues
 To prove professional supremacy
 To become guide /internal or external-examiners
Types of Publication Misconduct
1.Plagiarism: Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's thoughts, ideas, data,
figures, research methods, or words without giving appropriate credit, or the over-citation of
another person's published work.
2. Fabrication: Fabrication is the practice of making up data or results without having
performed relevant research.
3. Falsification: Falsification is the practice of changing data or results intentionally such
that misleading conclusion is drawn.
4. Inappropriate authorship: Authorship is not appropriately assigned based on the author's
contributions.
5. Duplicate submission/multiple submissions: Duplicate submission/multiple submissions
refer to practice of submitting the same manuscript or several manuscripts with minor
differences (e.g., differences only in title, keywords, abstract, author order, author affiliations,
or a small amount of text) to two or more journals at the same time, or submitting to another
journal within an agreed or stipulated period.
6. Overlapping publication: Overlapping publication refers to the practice of publishing a
paper overlaps substantially with one already published.
7. Salami publication: Salami publication refers to the practice of slicing data from a large
study, could have been reported in a single paper, into different pieces and publishing them in
two or more articles, all of which cover the same population, methods, and question.
8. Gift Authorship: Gift authorship is defined as co-authorship awarded to a person who has
not contributed significantly to the study.
9. Ghost Authorship: Ghost authorship occurs when an individual makes a substantial
contribution to the research or the writing of the report, but is not listed as an author.
Researchers, statisticians and writers (e.g. medical writers or technical writers) become ghost
authors when they meet authorship criteria but are not named as an author. Writers who work
in this capacity are called ghost writers.
10. Breach of Confidentiality: A breach of confidentiality occurs when data or information
provided in confidence to you by a client is disclosed to a third party without your client's
consent.
11. Non-Disclosure Conflict of Interest: Individuals may also have access to certain
confidential information not generally known to the public that shall not be 1) disclosed to
any third party or 2) used for their own personal, professional or financial benefit. 
Journal Taking action for publication misconduct
Once the journal find that papers associated with any of the above publication misconduct,
editor will:
 Reject the manuscript or withdraw the published paper.
 Not accept manuscripts submitted to all journals by the same research team within
two years.
 Inform the institution the corresponding author is affiliated with and the funder(s)
about such misconduct.
 Release all penalty documents on the Publisher site;

5.Violation of Publication ethics

Publication ethics is the code of conduct & regulatory mechanism being developed for the
publication process of scholarly journals. Its aim is to establish and maintain higher standards
and scientific integrity. Publication ethics are violated by all those activities which threaten
the integrity of the research publication process. These include authors dispute, fake
affiliations, conflicts of interest, dual submissions, duplicate publication, plagiarism, salami
slicing, fabrication and falsification. It affects the scientific community, journal editors, peer
reviewers but the ultimate victims are the patients.
Definition
Violation of publication ethics is a global problem which includes duplicate submission,
multiple submissions, plagiarism, gift authorship, fake affiliation, ghost authorship, pressured
authorship, salami publication and fraud (fabrication and falsification) but excludes the
honest errors committed by the authors. 
Issues faced by authors and Journal Editors
Plagiarism, multiple submission (submission of the same article to more than one
journal) and duplicate submission (single manuscript submitted more than once to the same
journal) are a few of the major issues faced by the authors of this article as the editors of
journals. When a considerable amount of time is spent tackling these issues, there is a
waste of human resources and increase in office expenses. Apart from being unethical,
multiple submissions can exaggerate the research findings, if the same article is published in
different journals. Violation of publication ethics corrodes the integrity of science.
The authors when came to know that their manuscript is accepted by journal X, they
withdraw it from journal Y. On top of that, they try to appear innocent and gave the reason
that the processing time of journal Y is quite long and it’s difficult for them to wait that much
longer. To further complicate the matters, if unknowingly both the journals published that
same article, it will result in research inflation without adding anything substantial to the
existing scientific knowledge.
What happens when ethical violations are detected in research?
As an editor, simply rejecting the manuscript based on misconduct is not enough.
The author may submit it to another journal. Though we cannot police the authors but editors
should ensure that the matter is appropriately pursued in the ways laid down for promoting
research integrity. It may include retraction of manuscript, notification of employer,
placing the author on a “watch list” & publication ban for specified time. Journal
editors are marked the author paper as retracted papers on the journal’s website and
the retraction notices are issued in print issue of the journal as well
Retraction
 A retraction is when a published paper is withdrawn from a journal.
 Retractions are issued publicly.
 Retractions that are a result of ethical violations can harm a researcher’s publication
record.
 In severe cases, researchers may lose their job and even have to stop doing research.

6.Authorship and Contributorship

Introduction
Naming authors on a scientific paper ensures that the appropriate individuals get
credit, and are accountable, for the research. Deliberately misrepresenting a scientist's
relationship to their work is considered to be a form of misconduct that undermines
confidence in the reporting of the work itself.
While there is no universal definition of authorship, an “author” is generally
considered to be an individual who has made a significant intellectual contribution to the
study.
Definition
According to the guidelines for authorship established by the International Committee
of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), "All persons designated as authors should qualify for
authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed."
(1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and
interpretation of data;
(2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and
(3) final approval of the version to be published.
(4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work related to the accuracy or
integrity of any part of the work.
Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4. All contributors who do not meet the criteria
for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgment section.
Guidelines for Authorship
The following are some general guidelines, which may vary from field to field:
 The order of authorship should be "a joint decision of the co-authors".
 Individuals who are involved in a study but don't satisfy the journal's criteria
for authorship, should be listed as "Contributors" or "Acknowledged
Individuals". Examples include: assisting the research by providing advice,
providing research space, departmental oversight, and obtaining financial
support.
 For large, multi-center trials, the list of clinicians and centers is typically
published, along with a statement of the individual contributions made. Some
groups list authors alphabetically, sometimes with a note to explain that all
authors made equal contributions to the study and the publication.
Types of Authorship
Inappropriate types of authorship include guest authorship, honorary or gift authorship,
and ghost authorship.
1. Gift / Honorary Authorship
 Gift authorship is defined as co-authorship awarded to a person who has not
contributed significantly to the study.
 Naming the head of the department where the study is carried out as an author of a
paper when he/she has made no significant contribution to the study.
 This practice may be more prevalent in cultures where supervisors and seniors are
treated with respect and it is considered appropriate to include them in the by-line.
Reasons for gift authorship is an unethical behaviour
1. a publication that is not genuinely earned may falsely represent the individual’s
expertise.
2. due to gift authorship, the person is perceived as being more skilled than his
colleague who has not published. This gives the person an unfair advantage
professionally over his colleague while applying for jobs or appearing for an
interview or for promotion.
3. such an individual is perceived to have a false level of competence and will be
expected to accomplish tasks that may be outside the range of his expertise.
2. Guest Authorship
  Guest authorship has been defined as authorship based solely on an
expectation that inclusion of a particular name will improve the chances that
the study will be published or increase the perceived status of the
publication. The “guest” author makes no discernible contributions to the
study, so this person meets none of the criteria for authorship.
 Naming a certain person (generally a senior, well-known researcher) an author in
the hope that it will boost the chances of a paper being published, although his/her
role in the research may be insignificant.
3. Ghost authorship
 Ghost authors participate in the research, data analysis, and/or writing of a
manuscript but are not named or disclosed in the author byline or
Acknowledgments.
 Examples of ghost authors include undisclosed contributors who are
employees of pharmaceutical or device companies, medical writers,
marketing and public relations writers, and junior staff writing for elected or
appointed officials.
 Any person who makes a substantial contribution to a manuscript should be
listed in the author byline, if appropriate, or in the Acknowledgments, along
with the individuals’ institutional affiliations, if relevant.
 This usually refers to professional writers (often paid by commercial sponsors)
whose role is not acknowledged. Unattributed contributions to data analyses may
also constitute ghost authorship.
 It is an unethical behaviour since is not acknowledging a writer’s contribution, so
it is considered dishonest.
4. Authorship for Sale. 
 Some instances have been reported in which non-authors have attempted to
buy authorship from an author of a paper, often after the paper has been
invited for revision or provisionally accepted.
 Editors should be aware of changes made in the author byline during the
review process.
 If a change is requested, the corresponding author of the paper should
provide an explanation for the request, and all authors on a paper should
approve any author changes.
5. Anonymous Authorship. 
 Because authorship should be transparent and requires public
accountability, it is not appropriate to use pseudonyms or to publish
scientific reports anonymously.
 In extremely rare cases, when the author can make a credible claim that
attaching his or her name to the document could cause serious hardship
(e.g., threat to personal safety or loss of employment), a journal editor
may decide to publish anonymous content.
Other categories of authorship that may be acceptable in certain circumstances include
group authorship and the inclusion of deceased or incapacitated authors.
6. Group Authorship. 
  Group authorship may be appropriate when a group of researchers has
collaborated on a project, such as a multicenter trial, a consensus document,
or an expert panel.
 Because it can be inaccurate and impossible to list all collaborators (some
would not meet a journal’s authorship criteria, and byline space may
preclude such a listing), authors need to think about how to communicate
credit and responsibility for content.
 Editors have outlined 2 group authorship models:
o Authorship in which each person in the group meets authorship criteria, in
which case the group is listed as the author, with at least 1 co-author
assuming the role of content guarantor.
o Authorship in which a select subgroup of the whole is listed in the byline
on behalf of the whole.
7. Deceased or Incapacitated Authors. 
 For cases in which a co-author dies or is incapacitated during the writing,
submission, or peer-review process, co-authors should obtain disclosure and
copyright documentation from a familial or legal proxy.
Contributorship
 To list the contributors in two ways:
o Firstly, we publish a list of authors' names at the beginning of the paper
and,
o secondly, we list contributors (some of whom may not be included as
authors) at the end of the paper, giving details of who did what in
planning, conducting, and reporting the work.
 This is a good place to include contributions by patients or members of the public
who have assisted as research volunteers, giving their names and specific roles.
We encourage authors to fully acknowledge the contribution of patients and the
public to their research where appropriate.
 One or more of these contributors are listed as guarantors of the paper. The
guarantor accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study,
had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish. Contributorship and
guarantorship are concepts that were applied first to original research papers, and
are sometimes hard to define for other articles.
 Each Contributorship statement should make clear who has contributed what to
the planning, conduct, and reporting of the work described in the article, and
should identify one, or occasionally more, contributor(s) as being responsible for
the overall content as guarantor(s).

7.Identification of Publication Misconduct – Complaints and Appeals

Reviewer Misconduct
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.
Complaints
Kinds of Complaints will the journal consider
Complaints may relate to a failure of process (e.g. lengthy delays) or a severe misjudgement
(e.g. an improperly applied retraction notice). They may also relate to author or reviewer
misconduct. Complaints may be made by anyone, including authors, reviewers and readers.
All complaints must be within the scope of the journal – i.e. related to the content, policies or
processes of the journal. Journal will not consider complaints where the complainant simply
disagrees with a decision taken by the Editorial team.
The Journal handle complaints
Aim of the journal is to formally acknowledge all complaints within five working
days. If it is possible journal will provide a full response within four weeks. Where this is not
possible, journal will provide regular interim communications, at least every four weeks.
Complaints will be dealt with by the editorial staff wherever possible, with reference to
journal policies and guidelines, but will be escalated to the Editor where necessary. The
Editor has the right to then consult with any third party over the issue, and make a final
decision. That final decision shall be binding, and the matter shall be deemed closed.
Where a serious complaint is made about an Editor, it will be independently
investigated by two members of the Editorial Board. The purpose of the investigation is to
establish that correct procedures have been followed, that decisions have been reached based
on academic criteria and that personal prejudice or bias has not influenced the outcome.
complaints or concerns about author or reviewer misconduct
If author wish to complain or raise a concern about suspected author or reviewer
misconduct, they refer to journal editorial policy for more detail about journal processes for
dealing with allegations and the kind of evidence they might require. The process for raising
these complaints and concerns is the same as above. Concerns may include, but are not
limited to:
 Suspicion of an ethical problem with a manuscript (including undeclared conflicts of
interest, false ethical declarations, use of identifiable images without consent or use of
copyright images without permission)
 Suspicion of unethical image manipulation in a published article
 Suspected manipulation of the publication process (including practices such as
duplicate publication, self-plagiarism, salami-slicing or excessive self-citation)
 Journal take allegations of misconduct very seriously.
Appeals
Journal will consider appeals against the Editor’s decision only under highly specific
circumstances and usually only where a clear breach of policy can be demonstrated.
1. Rejected manuscripts
The most common reasons for rejecting manuscripts are:
 The article content is not within the scope of the journal;
 The article is not written in clear and intelligible English;
 Authors have not completed the relevant declarations relating to ethics and
funding;
 The article does not conform to journal ‘Guidelines for Authors’ in terms of
content, style and/or formatting.
Articles will not usually pass initial editorial screening until the first three of these
have been addressed. In the last two instances, articles are usually reopened to authors
to allow changes to be made within a 6-week window. Failure to meet this deadline
will result in automatic rejection of the manuscript. Where an article has been
 accepted by the editors and the article processing charge (APC) has been paid, but
authors subsequently fail to make required changes within the 6-week period, the
article will be rejected and the APC will be non-refundable. 
If the article has been accepted but serious legal or ethical issues come to light
after payment of the APC, e.g. relating to research ethics, copyright, or conflicts of
interest which render the article unpublishable, and which journal could not
reasonably have foreseen, the article will be rejected and the APC will not be
refunded.
  Journal will not consider appeals against the Editor’s decision under any of
these circumstances.
It is the authors’ responsibility to provide the correct contact details, to
monitor correspondence from journal office, to respond promptly using the correct
email address, and to comply with journal requirements. Where a manuscript has been
rejected because authors have failed to meet the revision deadline, resubmission is
possible but standard fees will be payable.
2. Rejection of revised articles
Revised articles will not usually be rejected provided they conform to
journal guidelines for revised versions. The journal will not consider appeals against
the Editor’s decision to reject a revised article if it does not meet the journal
requirements.
Authors whose manuscript has been rejected on other grounds may follow the appeals
process. If they wish to make an appeal, but note that Editors are unlikely to reverse
their original decision unless significant new information is supplied or it can be
demonstrated that their processes were at fault.
3. Retracted articles
Editors do not take the decision to retract articles lightly and will usually have
conducted an extensive investigation before doing so. Journal will only consider
appeals against retractions if substantial evidence can be provided to demonstrate that
the decision was unjust.
4. Appeals process
Any appeals against the Editor’s decision must be made by email to
journal within two weeks of the decision. author will need to provide a detailed
explanation of why they disagree with the decision and include supporting
information. They should also include the article title and DOI if they are appealing a
decision to retract a published article and the manuscript ID number, they are
appealing a decision to reject an unpublished manuscript.
Journal will acknowledge receipt of author appeal within five working days
and it will be passed to the Editors for consideration. Wherever possible, the appeal
will be considered by an Associate Editor who was not involved in the original
decision. The handling Editor will make a recommendation to reject the appeal,
request further information or uphold the appeal. We aim to resolve all appeals within
four weeks. The Editor’s decision on these matters is final and journal will not
consider further appeals on the same grounds.
8.Predatory publishers and journal
Meaning of Predatory Journal
 A predatory journal is a publication that actively asks researchers for manuscripts.
 They have no peer review system and no true editorial board and are often found to
publish mediocre or even worthless papers.
 They also ask for huge publication charges.
Why do academics publish in such journals?
 In research environments, there is usually more value for quantity over quality.
 Hiring and promotion of academics is based largely on their number of publications.
Predatory journals has helped many pseudo-researchers to prosper.
What is the harm caused by predatory journals?
 Predatory and low-quality journals corrupt the literature.
 Medical science has been particularly hit hard, with journals now devoted to
unscientific medicine.
 “Peer review is at the heart of academic evaluation. Publishing without peer review
[while pretending that peer review was done] gives poor and mediocre academics a
chance for jobs and promotions which should go to better qualified researchers,”
How does one find out if a given journal is predatory or not?
 some people think any journal from an unknown publisher, or a journal that charges
for publication, is necessarily predatory.
 That is not necessarily correct. The important thing is to dig deeper and find the
quality of submitted manuscripts and its standards,”
Beall’s criteria for identification of predatory journals
 Here is a curated list Beall’s criterion for identification of predatory journals and
publishers
 No single individual is identified as specific journal’s editor with no formal
editorial/revie board or the same editorial board for more than one journal.
 The editor and/or review board members do not have academic expertise in the
journal’s field.
 Provides insufficient information or hides information about author fees, offering to
publish an author’s paper and later sending an unanticipated ‘surprise’ invoice.
 No proper indexing.
 The name of a journal is unrelated with the journal’s mission.
 The name of a journal does not adequately reflect its origin (e.g. a journal with the
word ‘Canadian’ or ‘Swiss’ in its name when neither the publisher, editor, nor any
purported institutional affiliate relates whatsoever to Canada or Switzerland).
Checklist to Identify Fake Journal
 Do you or your colleagues know the journal?
 Can you easily identify and contact the publisher?
 Is the journal clear about the type of peer review it uses?
 Are articles indexed in services that you use?
 Is it clear what fees will be charged?
  Do you recognise the editorial board?
 Is the publisher a member of a recognised industry initiative (COPE,DOAJ,OASPA)?
 The publisher has poorly maintained websites, including dead links, prominent
misspellings and grammatical errors on the website.
 The publisher makes unauthorised use of licensed images on their website, taken from
the open web, without permission or licensing from the copyright owners.
 Re-publish papers already published in other venues/outlets without providing
appropriate credits.
 Use boastful language claiming to be a ‘leading publisher’ even though the publisher
may only be a start-up or a novice organisation.
 Provide minimal or no copyediting or proofreading of submissions.
 Publish papers that are not academic at all, e.g. essays by lay people, polemical
editorials, or pseudo-science.
 Have a ‘contact us’ page that only includes a web form or an email address, and the
publisher hides or does not reveal its location.
 The publisher publishes journals that are excessively broad (e.g. Journal of Education)
or combine two or more fields not normally treated together (e.g. International Journal
of Business, Humanities and Technology) in order to attract more articles and gain
more revenue from author fees.
Characteristics of Predatory Journals
• Accepting articles quickly with little or no peer review or quality control, including
hoax and nonsensical papers.
• Notifying academics of article fees only after papers are accepted.
• Aggressively campaigning for academics to submit articles or serve on editorial
boards.
• Listing academics as members of editorial boards without their permission, and not
allowing academics to resign from editorial boards.
• Appointing fake academics to editorial boards.
• Mimicking the name or web site style of more established journals.
• Making misleading claims about the publishing operation, such as a false location.
• Using ISSNs improperly.
• Citing fake or non-existent impact factors.
Predatory Open Access Publishing
 Predatory open-access publishing is an exploitative open-access academic publishing
business model that involve charging publication fees to authors without providing
the editorial and publishing services associated with legitimate journals (open access
or not).
 The idea that they are "predatory" is based on the view that academics are tricked into
publishing with them, though some authors may be aware that the journal is poor
quality or even fraudulent.
 New scholars from developing countries are said to be especially at risk of being
misled by predatory practices.
Growth and Structure
  Predatory journals have rapidly increased their publication volumes from 53,000 in
2010 to an estimated 420,000 articles in 2014, published by around 8,000 active
journals.
 Early on, publishers with more than 100 journals dominated the market, but since
2012 publishers in the 10–99 journal size category have captured the largest market
share.
 The regional distribution of both the publisher's country and authorship is highly
skewed, with three quarters of authors hailing from Asia or Africa. Authors paid an
average fee of 178 USD per article for articles typically published within 2 to 3
months of submission
Efforts to reduce predatory journal
 More transparent peer review, such as open peer review and post-publication peer
review, has been advocated to combat predatory journals.
 In an effort to "set apart legitimate journals and publishers from non-legitimate
ones", principles of transparency and best practice have been identified and issued
collectively by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the DOAJ, the, and the World
Association of Medical Editors.
 Open Access Scholarly Publishers journal review websites (crowd-sourced or
expert-run) have been started, some focusing on the quality of the peer review
process and extending to non-OA publications. A group of libraries and publishers
launched an awareness campaign.
 A number of measures have been suggested to further combat predatory journals.
 Others have called on research institutions to improve the publication literacy
notably among junior researchers in developing countries.
 Some organisations have also developed criteria in which predatory publishers could
be spotted through providing tips that include avoiding fast publishers
 Unit IV: OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING (4 Hrs.)
Open access publications and initiatives - SHERPA/RoMEO online resource to check
publisher copyright & self-archiving policies - Software tool to identify predatory
publications developed by SPPU - Journal finger / journal suggestion tools viz. JANE,
Elsevier Journal Finder, Springer, Journal Suggester, etc.

1.Open Access Publication and Initiatives:

Introduction
An old tradition and a new technology have converged to make possible an
unprecedented public good. The old tradition is the willingness of scientists and scholars to
publish the fruits of their research in scholarly journals without payment, for the sake of
inquiry and knowledge. The new technology is the internet. The public, they make possible is
the world-wide electronic distribution of the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely
free and unrestricted access to it by all scientists, scholars, teachers, students, and other
curious minds.
Important developments to be noted in this regard are the Budapest Open Access
Initiative of 2002, Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and
Humanities of 2003, Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing of 2003, and the
Salvador Declaration on Open Access of 2005. All these developments have focused on the
role that Open Access initiative. Participants from all around the world, representing
researchers, publishers, universities, libraries, journals, institutions, learned societies, and
other related Open Access initiatives attended these meetings to examine the issues
surrounding Open Access movement. They discussed many points of view on the most
affordable and effective policies to implement the Open Access movement across the
scientific world. They also explored the different strategies to unite all Open Access
initiatives under one roof and work together to achieve faster, in-depth success.
The Open Access initiative has also been supported by UNESCO for the benefit of
global science and the progress of mankind. A clear mandate has been given by UNESCO,
stating that UNESCO should 'maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge, by assuring the
conservation and protection of the world's inheritance of books, works of art and monuments
of history and science.
Definition:
By open access to the literature, mean its free availability on the public internet,
permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts
of these articles, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose,
without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access
to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role
for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work
and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.
Types of Open access Journal
 Open access journal: All journal content is available for researchers to read,
 print, download, distribute, or link to without fees.
 Hybrid journal: Some content is open access, typically via publication or author
fees.
 Embargoed open access: Also called delayed open access. This is a subscription
model that provides open access to content after an embargo period expires.
For example, the most current content may only be available to subscribers,
while the archived issues are open access.
Open Access Journal is Compatible with Copyright
The copyright law gives the copyright holder the right to make access open or
restricted, and the BOAI seeks to put copyright in the hands of authors or institutions that will
consent to make access open. It depends on whether we are talking about self-archiving or
open access journals.
Self - Archiving
Authors of preprints hold the copyright to them and may post them to open access
archives with no copyright problems whatever. If the preprint is later accepted for publication
in a journal that requires authors to transfer copyright to the publisher, then the journal may
or may not give permission for the refereed postprint to be posted to an open access archive.
If permission is granted, then again there is no copyright problem. If permission is denied,
then the preprint may remain in the open access archive because it is a different work from
the postprint and the author never transferred the copyright on the preprint. Moreover, the
author may post to the archive a list of corrigenda, or differences between the preprint and
postprint. This is not quite as convenient for readers as seeing the whole postprint online, but
it provides them with the equivalent of the full text of the postprint and is infinitely more
useful than no free access at all.
Journals
Open access journals will either let authors retain copyright or ask authors to transfer
copyright to the publisher. In either case, the copyright holder will consent to open access for
the published work. When the publisher holds the copyright, it will consent to open access
directly. When authors hold the copyright, they will ensure open access by signing a license
to the publisher authorizing open access. Publishers of open access journals will have such
licenses already prepared for authors. There are many ways to write such a license.
Launching a new open-access journal
Launching an open-access journal has much in common with launching a print
journal. Apart from the people and the funding, there is the niche to fill, its size, its coverage
by other journals, and the risk of failing to attract enough authors or readers. But if you have
decided to move forward, and have competent, experienced, and energetic people ready to
serve as editor and editorial board, and committed to open access, then you should examine
the software packages available to automate most of the tasks of operating an online journal.
Some offer a turn-key solution.

Different ways of Open Access:

 DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journal) and Open J-Gate (OJ).
 DOAJ is a free Portal and OJ is a Subscription based one.
 Subject areas covered are almost same in both Portals except addition of Library and
Information Science in OJ.
  Number of Journals listed are slightly high in case of OJ when compare to DOAJ.
 Peer-reviewed Journals are more in DOAJ when compare to OJ.
 Number of Journals covered for indexing are very high in OJ when compare to DOAJ.
 Number of Articles indexed are very high in OJ when compare to DOAJ.
 Popular and Trade-press Journals are covered by OJ but not by DOAJ.

Issues and Challenges of Open Access in Developing Countries

Researchers and institutions in developing countries are the most likely to benefit from
the open access initiative. This is not surprising, considering the limited financial resources
available in these countries to carter for subscription charges for research and academic
journals. With less funding available to libraries and educational institution in the
developing world, the benefit of open access cannot be over-emphasized. This unrestricted
access made possible by the open access initiative helps researchers in the developing world
who have to struggle with limited resources to undertake and published their research. It will
help ensure stable development in these countries as well as curb the ‘brain drain’ syndrome
which has resulted from the migration of many scholars and academics from the developing
countries to other developed countries. Most of these scholars move to institutions in
developed countries because the adequate research opportunities as well as prospect for
research funding available there. The success of the open access initiative coupled with
adequate research funding in developing countries will help check this trend.
Open Access Publishers
A selected list of Open Access Publishers is given below:
 Bentham Open Access
 BioMed Central
 Hindawi
 Indian Academy of Sciences
 Ivy spring International Publisher
 Libertas Academica
 Medknow Publications
 MDPI (Molecular Diversity Preservation International)
 Public Library of Science
 Scholarly
 Exchange.

2. SHERPA/RoMEO online resource to check publisher copyright & self-archiving

policies
There are tools available to help researchers comply with their funders Open Access
mandates:
 SHERPA/RoMEO and
 SHERPA/FACT

SHERPA/RoMEO:
 SHERPA/RoMEO is for searching publisher or individual journal Open Access
policies.
  Sometimes publishers might have an overall Open Access policy for all their journals.
 Sometimes individual journals belonging to the same publisher might have different
Open Access policies.
 SHERPA/RoMEO can be searched for either publisher or journal information.
 RoMEO is a  searchable database of publisher's default copyright policies regarding
the self-archiving of journal articles on the web and in Open Access repositories, such
as DiVA.

Usage of Sherpa/Romeo
 The database uses a colour‐coding scheme to classify publishers according to their
self‐archiving policy. 
 This shows authors whether the journal allows pre-print or post-print archiving in
their copyright transfer agreements.
RoMEO Archiving policy
Colour
Green Can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
Blue Can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or
publisher's version/PDF
Yellow Can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
White Archiving not formally supported
How can SHERPA help researchers?
 SHERPA offers many services to the research community.
 RoMEO is one of these services.
 It provides information on publisher’s copyright and archiving policies.
 SHERPA also offers a new service that combines RoMEO and JULIET.
 It is SHERPA/FACT. Sherpa Fact checks if compliance with funder open access
policies can be achieved through a particular journal. 
 SHERPA/FACT pulls in data from RoMEO and JULIET, providing information on
publishers’ copyright and archiving policies based on funder mandate SHERPA/FACT
is available in beta version.
 Fact uses the DOAJ to determine whether a journal is open access. DOAJ has established
standards and best practices for open access journal publishers and is a recognized, reliable
source for such information. 
The improvements to the Romeo data model mean that are now able to provide more
sophisticated processing of the funder and publisher policies, enabling to provide users with a
more specific recommendation. This development will enable to roll out compliance services
as required for other funding agencies. 

The database will provide you with the journal’s Open Access compliance status
based on what the Open Access mandate of the funder.
As the tool is in its beta version, it is always a good idea to check the website of the
publication too to confirm compliance; it is also a good idea to contact the publisher directly
if statements are not clear and further information is required.

3. Softw are tool to id en tify p redatory publications d evelop ed b y SPPU

R efer Unit III – Predatory journal and publications

HRD ministry to remove all bogus journals

  A requirement that scholars get at least two research papers published in a University
Grants Commission-approved journal before submitting their doctoral theses, coupled
with pressure on university teachers to get their research published regularly in
academic periodicals, has produced an unexpected side-effect: It has led to a
proliferation of dubious journals.
 For the study titled “A critical analysis of the ‘UGC-approved list of journals’, a team
of six researchers, in association with the human resource development (HRD)
ministry, analysed 1,336 academic periodicals randomly selected from a list of 5,699
journals in the so-called university-source component.
 Their conclusion: “Over 88% of non-indexed journals in the university source
component of UGC-approved list could be of low quality.”
 While the UGC website lists 32,659 journals, university-source journals (5,699) are
those which are recommended by various universities in the country, the paper notes.
 UGC has admitted that it received several complaints about the inclusion of low-
quality journals soon after the release of its approved list of journals on June 2, 2017.
The UGC has removed a few journals after an evaluation, the paper said.
 The dubious publications were identified by the team of researchers that included
Bhushan Patwardhan, a professor at the Savitribai Phule Pune University (SPPU), a
special invitee member on the UGC Standing Committee for Notification of Journals
and former vice-chancellor of Symbiosis International University
 Out of the 1,336 journals studied, 897 were disqualified from the UGC- approved list
of journals by the human resource development ministry for providing false
information such as an incorrect ISSN (International Standard Serial Number),
making false claims about the impact getting published in their pages would have,
indexing in dubious databases, poor credentials of editors and non-availability of
information such as an address, website details a name of editors. Papers published in
the disqualified journals will not be considered valid.
 “It is an alarming situation that such a huge percentage of the journals are bogus.
Globally, it hampers the image of our country,” Patwardan said.
 The HRD ministry has adopted a very positive approach to dealing with the issue
“and has decided to remove all the bogus journals from the UGC list shortly,”
Patwardhan said.

4. Jou rn al find er/ journal sugges tion tools viz. JAN E, Elsevier Journal
Fin der, Sprin ger, Jou rn al Su gges ter, etc.

Journal Finder / Journal Suggestion tools will show how to use Scopus and Web of Science to
identify journals aligned to research topic. This can use the technique to identify potential
journal outlets and their metrics when publishing your research.
Steps
 From the Library website select, A-Z Databases
 Select S, then Scopus
 Enter your UOW username and password
  Example topic is: Fostering collaboration in online learning at university At the search
screen, enter search strategy.
 It has used quotation marks for common phrases, asterisk to find variations in word
endings and OR to include synonyms. Click search. Results are done.
 To identify potential journals, limit the results by Document Type, then select Articles
and Review Articles, then select Limit To.
 First browse source titles to see the range of journals in the search results; click onto a
journal title to view its metrics.
 The journal, Computers & Education has a CiteScore of 5.88. It is placed into 2
subject categories and is ranked 7 out of 979 in the subject Education.
 Repeat the search in Web of Science. Click search. Under Document type, select
Article and Review to refine the search. Select View all Options to examine the
source titles in the result list. Click onto a journal title view its Impact factor, Rank
and Quartile.
 If needs more help, contact the Library.

Journal Selection Tools

 Scopus Journal Analyzer - Compare up to 10 journal titles. Gives a range of metrics
including whether they're well cited and if they publish many review articles
 Elsevier Journal Finder - Paste in the title and/or abstract of the paper to match with
suitable journals
 Springer Journal Suggester - Enter the details of the paper to get suggested journal
matches.
 Manuscript matcher - Accessed via a free EndNote Online account. Use the
manuscript details to find relevant journals.
 Open Journal Matcher - Paste details of the abstract to find relevant Open Access
journals
 IEEE Publication Recommender - Finds recommended IEEE publications based on
keywords from the paper.
 JANE - Journal/Author Name Estimator. Compare the paper's title and/or abstract
with millions of others in PubMed to find matching articles, authors and journals.

1. JA NE (Jou rn al/A uthor Name Estimator)

The Journal/Author Name Estimator (JANE) is a free online bibliographic journal
selection tool. Journal selection tools, also known as journal matching or journal comparison
tools, are popular resources that help authors determine the most appropriate in scope journal
to publish their manuscripts. JANE is one of the earliest journal selection tools, debuting in
2007. The resource is web-based and allows users to input keywords, abstract text, or author
names and view related articles based on user-supplied terms. At the time of this writing, no
formal mobile app or browser extension has been developed to utilize the resource. There is
an application programming interface (API) freely available in beta version that is available
to users who want to integrate JANE into their own applications.
JANE does not search categories that are not viewed as original research. For
example, editorials, newspaper articles, comments, conferences, directories, retractions,
errata, and so on are omitted. During a search, JANE uses the Lucene open-source search
engine to search for the most similar fifty articles based on user input and assigns similarity
and confidence scores, which determine the search result order.

2. Elsevier Journal Finder:

 Getting a research paper published can be a challenge. It's even more challenging
when considering the risk of rejection that comes from submitting a paper to a
journal that's not the right fit. That's where Elsevier's Journal Finder tool comes in.
 Helps inexperienced authors to select the correct journals for their papers
 Helps authors working in multidisciplinary fields identify possible journals
 Highlights journals that offer open-access options
 Keyword search: The tool generates a list of Elsevier journals that match the topic
of their abstract. They can then order the results based on their priorities, such as
highest CiteScore or shortest editorial time. It can filter the results to those
journals that have open-access options.
 Elsevier's Journal Finder tool is helpful for authors in doubt of which journal fits
their data. This can occur when it involves an intermediate field of research
subjects or when authors are in the early stages of their research career, trying to
locate the right journal to publish their manuscript.
3. Springer Journal Finder:
 Select the journal that suits research best from over 2,600 Springer publications.
The Springer Journal Selector uses semantic technology to help quickly choose
the Springer journal that is right for paper.
 Enter the abstract, description of research, or a sample text and the Springer
Journal Selector provides a list of relevant journals.
 It can refine the results based on requirements for Impact Factor or publishing
model, including an option to match to journals that are fully open access or have
open access options.
 Keyword search:
o Find them listed by subject area and then alphabetically. Detailed
instructions for authors, information about the aims and scope and the
types of papers that are published in a specific journal can be found on that
journal’s homepage.
 Unit V: PUBLICATION MISCONDUCT (4Hrs.)

Group Discussion(2Hrs): a) Subject specific ethical issues, FFP, authorship b) Conflicts

of interest c) Complaints and appeals: examples and fraud from India and abroad d)
Software tools (2 Hrs.): Use of plagiarism software like Turnitin, Urkund and other
open source tools

a) Subject Specific Ethical issues, FFP : Refer Unit II

Authorship : Refer Unit III
B) Conflicts of Interest : Refer Unit III
c) Complaints and Appeals : Refer Unit III
d) Software Tools
Plagiarism
 “Plagiarism” means the practice of taking someone else’s work or idea and passing
them as one’s own.
 Without giving necessary credits make use of others thought.
 Plagiarism is a serious academic offence.
Importance of Plagiarism Detection
 In some of the academic enterprises like universities, schools, and institutions,
plagiarism detection and prevention became one of the educational challenges,
because most of the students or researchers are cheating when they do the assigned
tasks and projects. This is because a lot of resources can be found on the internet. It is
so easy for them to use one of the search engines to search for any topic and to cheat
from it without citing the owner of the document. So, it is better and must all
academic fields should have to use plagiarism detection software/tools to stop or to
eliminate students cheating, copying, and modifying documents when they know that
they will be found.
 Some types of plagiarism acts can be detected easily by using some of the recent
plagiarism detection tools available on the market or over the internet.
 Copyrights and legal aspects for use of published documents also can be covered by
using plagiarism software, so it can show whether this person has legally or illegally
copied the documents or not and it also show the whether this person has permission
from the owner to use this document or not.
Similarity checks for exclusion from Plagiarism
 All quoted work reproduced with all necessary permission and/or attribution.
 All references, bibliography, table of content, preface and acknowledgements.
 All generic terms, laws, standard symbols and standards equations.
Plagiarism Detection Methods
1. Manual Detection
  done manually by human, its suitable for lectures and teachers in checking
student’s assignments but it is not effective and impractical for a large number of
documents and not economical also need highly effort and wasting time.
2. Automatic Detection
 there is many software used in automatic plagiarism detection, like Turnitin,
iThenticate, PlagAware, PlagScan, Check for Plagiarism, Grammarly, blackboard,
PlagiarismDetect.org, Academic Plagiarism, The Plagiarism Checker etc.
Anti-Plagiarism Tool
 “Software that searches the Web for duplicate textual content. It may be a stand-alone
program installed in the user's computer or a function of a website, such as
www.turnitin.com.
 Universities increasingly use anti-plagiarism software to determine if students have
copied someone else's prose, and writers use it to see if others are using their
copyrighted work in full or in part”
 Anti-plagiarism software/tool cannot stop or prevent the plagiarism.
 Find/detect the sources of contents which are matching.
Plagiarism Detection Tools by Subscription (Not free)
1. Turnitin
 Turnitin is an Internet-based plagiarism-prevention service created by iParadigms,
LLC, first launched in 1997.
 For instructors to check students' work in a classroom setting.
 Turnitin checks web pages, other content, scholarly journals, student paper
database.
 Features of Turnitin
o Prevents Plagiarism
o Engages students (high SI engages the students to make concerted efforts to
improve the report)
o Provides better and faster feedback to students
o Peer review (Teachers can let their student anonymously critique and evaluate
each other papers)
o Identifies the different words which have been added, deleted, or substituted
o Does citation verifications
o Instructors as well as students can upload papers
o Turnitin support MS Word, Word XML, WordPerfect, PostScript, PDF,
HTML, RTF, HWP, plain text and MS PowerPoint.
 Limitation of Turnitin
o Turnitin only support 100 pages or less, 20 MB or less.
o Turnitin only instructors to check students' work in a classroom setting.
o Turnitin only compares with 45+ billion web pages, 337+ million student
papers and 130+ million articles from academic books and publications.
o Cannot identify plagiarism from a non-online source
o Has problems with mathematical formulae (latex files)
 o Distorts the format of the original document’s tables, graphs and images don't
appear.
o Does not differentiate between quoted materials and original writing at times
2. iThenticate
 iThenticate is produced by iParadigms, a company founded by graduate student
instructors at UC Berkeley launched in 2004.
 To ensure the originality of written manuscript for post graduate students and
academic staff/researchers before submitting it for publication.
 Salient Feature of iThenticate
o iThenticate helps editors, authors and researchers prevent misconduct by
comparing manuscripts against its database.
o iThenticate checks Web pages, other content, scholarly journals, ProQuest
(The iThenticate database includes 300,000 theses and dissertations from
ProQuest)
o iThenticate support MS Word, Word XML, WordPerfect, PostScript, PDF,
HTML, RTF, HWP, plain text and OpenOffice (ODT).
o After user submit their document once, user may resubmit it a maximum
of five times.
o iThenticate does not store, share or resell uploaded files.
o iThenticate gives the document to the user personal account so that user
can check for plagiarism privately
o The CrossCheck service offers publishers a way to compare documents
against the largest comparison database of scientific, technical and medical
content in the world.
 Limitation of iThenticate
o Cannot exceed 400 pages.
o Files cannot exceed 40MBs.
o Files cannot exceed 2MB of raw text.
o A single file can be up to 25,000 words, which accommodates the average
length of a research paper
o iThenticate offers document to document comparison.
o iThenticate interface currently supports the following languages: English,
Korean, and Japanese.
3. PLAGTRACKER
 PlagTracker was launched in 2011 by Devellar
 PlagTracker is a web-based tool that scans content for plagiarism.
 PlagTracker finds any content that has been plagiarized, with a list of all the
sources, from where the text is copied.
 Students can use PlagTracker to check their papers for plagiarism before they turn
them in and receive suggestions on information to change or advice on what needs
to be cited.
 Salient Features
 o Student: Detect plagiarism, fix grammar mistakes, and even proofread the
paper before turning it in
o Teachers: Find problems with the students’ papers
o Publishers: Verify that submitted articles and manuscripts are completely
original before publishing them
o Site owners: Check if the site content is unique
o Simply upload a paper, let PlagTracker scan it for plagiarism and review
the plagiarism report.
o The checker compares the content of the paper to the content of over 14
billion webpages and 5 million academic papers to see if any content has
been plagiarized.
o PlagTracker only takes a couple of minutes to check a paper
 Limitation of PlagTracker
o PlagTracker only compares the content of the paper to the content of over
14 billion webpages and 5 million academic papers to see if any content
has been plagiarized.
o Side by side comparison not available in the PlagTracker
o The online scanner did not identify the website which contained material
that had been plagiarised.
4. URKUND
 In 2000, Urkund was started by the idea of teachers and gradually grown with
partnership of leading information providers like DIVA (Digital Scientific
Archive), Iustus, Nationalencyklopedin and ProQuest.
 Urkund is owned and developed by PrioInfo AB
 URKUND compares submitted documents with material from three central
sources: The Internet, publisher material, and student material.
 Salient Features
o URKUND does not require any software installation
o No use of complex interfaces and no login to any website
o It is important to differentiate between URKUND's e-mail based system
and other tools, where by the teacher needs to log in to a website and
upload the students' documents for checking.
o URKUND supports the 12 most common word processing formats: DOC.
DOCX. SXW. PPT. PPTX. PDF. TXT. RTF. Html. Htm. WPS. ODT
 Limitations
o URKUND working with help of web resource
o Has problems with mathematical formulae
o URKUND does not currently support the iWorks format .pages
o Teachers has to depend on Urkund to create account or appoint an
administrator
o Every document treated as a separate document (“4,00,000 characters” is
one document if 4,00,001 character there it is considered two documents)
5. PLAGSCAN
  Plagiarism detection tool for both individuals and businesses that checks texts
against online content, scientific journals and the user’s documents as well.
 Pros
o Fully Online - No download required.
o 3 Ways to do Plagiarism Checks
 user can select from:
 directly pasting the text into the appropriate field,
 importing the file from the web by entering its URL at the
indicated area, or uploading it from a cloud storage area
such as Dropbox, Google Drive, or OneDrive,
 uploading a file from user desktop.
o No Subscriptions for Private Users - The user pays on-demand
according to their respective needs.
o Integration Features - Businesses can integrate Plagscan into several
Content and Learning Management Systems (CMS/LMS).
 Cons
o Relatively Complicated Interface - As opposed to competitive platforms
the interface seems quite advanced.
 Plans and Pricing
o Private Users - Starts from $5,99 per month with online storage time for
up to 6 months.
o Organizations - Accounts for schools, universities or companies start
from $19,99 per month with unlimited online storage time along with a
variety of administration and cloud features.
Open Access Plagiarism Detecting Tool
1. DUPLI CHECKER
 This is one of the most effective free plagiarism detection tools on the Internet.
While it doesn’t have a fancy interface, it certainly gets the job done well.
 Pros
o Free of Charge - User don’t have to pay anything. Whether user is a one-time
user or plan to make the most of this free plagiarism detection tool on a daily
basis, they are not required to pay for subscription.
o Ease of Use - user are presented with a very basic, functional layout that does
not require for any previous experience with plagiarism detection tools.
o 2 Ways to Check for Plagiarism
o Duplichecker enables user to either copy and paste your text in the
field and then check it for plagiarisms, or
o upload a Docx or Text file from user computer.
o 50 Plagiarism Scans Per Day for Registered Users - If user sign up for free,
Duplichecker allows them to do 50 plagiarism checks in a single day.
 Cons
o 1 Search Per Day for Unregistered Users - If user choose not to indulge in a
free sign-up then they are limited to only 1 plagiarism check per day.
  Plans and Pricing
o No paid version is available.
2. PLAGIARISMA
 Basic and easy-to-use, multi-purpose plagiarism detection tool that is used by
students, teachers, writers, as well as various members of the literary industry.
 Pros
o 190+ Languages Supported - There is virtually no language excluded
from the list.
o Plagiarism Check By URL, Online or File Upload –
 Copy and Paste or Τype your text in the appropriate field, provide a
URL, or upload a file from your computer.
 Supported file types include: TXT, HTML, RTF, DOC, DOCX,
XLS, XLSX, PDF, ODT, EPUB, FB2, PDB.
o Firefox And Chrome Extensions - Have your text quickly checked by
downloading the add-ons.
 Cons
o Limited Plagiarism Checks Per Day - If user is looking for a tool for
extensive use then look somewhere else. The free version has a limited
number of plagiarism checks.
 Plans and Pricing
o Variety of Plans
o Free version of Plagiarisma offers all the aforementioned benefits. If
registered, you can upgrade to Premium Members hip.
o Pricing plans start from $5 for one day for up to 100 searches. For
unlimited searches, there is a $25 or $30 subscription for 3 or 6 months,
respectively.
o For up to 25 users, there is a fixed monthly subscription of $25 for
unlimited number of searches.
3. PLAGIARISMA CHECKER
 User-friendly, entirely free plagiarism detection tool to check whether content is
plagiarized.
 Pros
o Detailed Guidelines - One of the easiest to use free plagiarism detection
tools due to its step-by-step approach on how to use it.
o Check If Others Have Plagiarized Your Online Content –
 Click on the “For authors” option to check whether they have
plagiarized user content and posted it on the Internet. They may
also get a notification by email.
o Entirely Online - No downloads required.
 Cons
o Supports Only Google Or Yahoo Browsers - If user is using none of
those 2 browsers then they might want to look elsewhere
 Plans and Pricing
 o Free of charge.

4. PLAGIUM
 Basic but fully functional free plagiarism detection tool with different levels of
search.
 Pros
o Easy to use – User basically copy-paste text. It features 2 types of searches,
quick search and deep search.
o Free for Up To 5,000 Characters Each Time - For up to 5,000 characters
per search, user don't have to pay any fee.
 Cons
o Limited Free Features - Only if they sign up, then they can upload the file,
have it checked, and receive a word usage report on it.
 Plans and Pricing
o Quick Search and Deep Search Offers
 If author is a frequent user of the platform, Plagium urges author to pay
for subscription. For $9,99 per month, author can do 287 Quick
Searches and 143 Deep Searches. For $24,99 per month, author can do
699 Quick Searches and 349 Deep Searches. The last option is a
$99,99 per month subscription which offers 2,949 Quick Searches and
1,474 Deep Searches.
5. CitePlag
 CitePlag is a web-based tool to assist users in efficiently examining academic
documents for suspicious text and citation similarities, which may point to
potential plagiarism.
 The algorithms used by CitePlag are based on the Citation-based Plagiarism
Detection concept, a novel approach developed by the Information Science Group
at the University of Konstanz.
 Identifies plagiarism by analysing citation pattern matches between documents to
detect both local and global document similarities at the semantic level.
 The underlying idea of the system is to evaluate the citations of academic
documents as language independent markers to detect plagiarism.
 Specialization of CitePlag:
a. Existing plagiarism detection software only examines literal text
similarity, and thus typically fails to detect disguised plagiarism forms,
including paraphrases, translations, or idea plagiarism.
b. CbPD addresses this shortcoming by additionally analysing the citation
placement in the full-text of documents to form a language-independent
semantic “fingerprint” of document similarity.
 Features of CitePlag:
o CitePlag provides a customizable side-by-side visualization 1 of text and
citation similarities to detect potential plagiarism.
o The suspicious document appears on the left and the potential source
document is displayed on the right.
 o The browser schematically compares the two documents using the CbPD
algorithm selected 4 and draws connecting lines between matching
citations.
o Document sections highlighted in darker red represent stronger citation-
based document similarities.
 Limitation of CitePlag:
o Works finely with documents having citations and lots of them but faces
problem when have a handful of citations.
o It also won’t work well, in cases where citation overlap is expected, such
as cases where there are a limited number of sources.
o Finally, it also can’t help much in cases of “verbatim” plagiarism.
Unit VI: DATABASES AND RESEARCH METRICS(7Hrs.)
Databases (4 Hrs): Indexing databases, Citation databases: Web of Science, Scopus, etc.
Research Metrics (3 Hrs.): Impact Factor of journal as per Journal Citations Report,
SNIP, SJR, IPP, Cite Score - Metrics: h-index, g index, i10 Index, altmetrics

1. Indexing databases:
Academic journal articles are only as impactful are discoverable, and online discovery hinges
almost entirely on one thing — indexing. Without proper indexing by discovery services,
researchers will be hard-pressed to find even the most groundbreaking scholarly articles.
From general search engines to discipline-specific databases and aggregators, there are
numerous indexing options that journals can pursue, all with different benefits. Each index a
journal
1. General search engines
Another benefit of search-engine indexing is that any journal can be added to a search engine
index regardless of its publication history, citation count, or other time-bound specifications
academic databases may require. Since journals can be added to search engines right away,
they are great indexing starting points.
There are two layers of search engine indexing to consider to make journals more
discoverable:
 Being indexed by general search engines like Google and Bing
 Being included in mainstream scholarly search engines, the big two being Google
Scholar and Microsoft Academic
2. Scholarly search engines
3. General and discipline-specific scholarly indexing databases
 Ulrichsweb: A general database for periodicals across disciplines.
 Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ): A community-curated online directory of
peer-reviewed open access journals
 Scopus: The largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature.
 Web of Science: One of the largest global citation databases
 Academic Search (EBSCO): A full-text coverage database of scholarly journal,
magazine, and newspaper articles.
Some important criteria for the Journals are
 International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)
  Digital Object Identifiers for all articles (DOIs)
 Editorial board page with names and titles
 Clearly stated peer review policy
 Established publishing schedule
 Established copyright policy
 At least basic article-level metadata
The Indexed Journal may include requirement such as follows
 Publication scope: While many indexes accept journals in all disciplines or journals
within a broad set of disciplinary areas, such as the humanities and social sciences,
some indexes only accept journals that publish within a particular subject area(s).
 Minimum publication history length: For example, MEDLINE only accepts
applications from organizations that have been publishing scholarly content for a
minimum of two years.
 A certain level of publishing professionalization: For example, some indexes look at
the readability of published articles and production quality.
 Geographic diversity: Some indexes look to see that journals have geographically
diverse editorial boards and authors.
 Adequate citations: Some indexes will not accept journals unless meet a certain
citation-level threshold, to demonstrate impact.
2. Citation databases:
Citation databases compile the citations in the reference lists (bibliographies) of
scholarly publications. Citation database records also include bibliographic content that
identify a publication: article title, journal name, author, abstract, etc.
Citation databases enable to find newer papers that reference a paper or author already
know about. Citation Index used in order to:
 find more papers on a topic
 trace how an idea has been confirmed, applied, extended or corrected in later
publications
 see which other researchers are citing your work or the work of your labmates
 find citation numbers and metrics to report on job or grant applications, evaluations,
etc.
Three major databases allow interdisciplinary citation searching: 
1.Web of Science (WoS)
2. SciVerse Scopus
3. Google Scholar

Some other databases, such as SciFinder Scholar (chemistry), PsycInfo and PubMed, allow
citation searching of smaller sets of journals and/or journals focused on specific disciplines.
 WoS provides complete citation data back to 1900, making it the most accurate for
identifying core or classic articles published before 1996.
 The Journal Impact Factor has been used as a benchmark in the biomedical sciences
for several decades. Although research benchmarks are evolving. It is likely that most
research scientists will be asked at some point to report the Journal Impact Factor of
the journals in which they publish.
 The concepts taught about citation searching and analysis in this tutorial are applicable to
all citation databases. However, since the databases vary in what they cover, search features
and citation analysis tools, the best database to choose depends on personal preferences and
needs.

Web of science:
Web of Science is described as a unifying research tool which enables the user to
acquire, analyze, and disseminate database information in a timely manner. This is
accomplished because of the creation of a common vocabulary, called ontology, for varied
search terms and varied data. Moreover, search terms generate related information across
categories.
Acceptable content for Web of Science is determined by an evaluation and selection
process based on the following criteria: impact, influence, timeliness, peer review, and
geographic representation.
Web of Science employs various search and analysis capabilities. First, citation
indexing is employed, which is enhanced by the capability to search for results across
disciplines. The influence, impact, history, and methodology of an idea can be followed from
its first instance, notice, or referral to the present day. This technology points to a deficiency
with the keyword-only method of searching.
Second, subtle trends and patterns relevant to the literature or research of interest,
become apparent. Broad trends indicate significant topics of the day, as well as the history
relevant to both the work at hand, and particular areas of study.
Scopus:
Scopus is Elsevier’s abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers
nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 inactive titles) from approximately
11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life
sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences. It covers three types of
sources: book series, journals, and trade journals. All journals covered in the Scopus
database, regardless of who they are published under, are reviewed each year to ensure high
quality standards are maintained. Searches in Scopus also incorporate searches of patent
databases. Scopus gives four types of quality measure for each title; those are h-
Index, CiteScore, SJR (SCImago Journal Rank) and SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per
Paper).
4. Research metrics:
Research metrics are the fundamental tools used across the publishing industry to
measure performance, both at journal- and author-level. Now there are a range of
different research metrics available. This “basket of metrics” is growing every day, from
the traditional Impact Factor to Altmetrics, h-index, and beyond.
Research metrics are the fundamental tools used across the publishing industry to
measure performance, both at journal- and author-level. For a long time, the only tool for
assessing journal performance was the Impact Factor – more on that in a moment. Now there
are a range of different research metrics available. This “basket of metrics” is growing every
day, from the traditional Impact Factor to Altmetrics, h-index, and beyond.
The different Research metrics available are
a) Impact Factor of journal as per Journal Citations Report
 b) SNIP
c) SJR
d) IPP
e) Cite Score metrics: h-index, g-index, i10 Index, Altmetrics
What is Impact Factor?
The impact factor (IF) is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in
a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the importance or rank of a
journal by calculating the times it's articles are cited.
How Impact Factor is Calculated?
The calculation is based on a two-year period and involves dividing the number of times
articles were cited by the number of articles that are citable.
Tools to Measure Journal Impact (Impact Factor)
 Journal Citation Reports 
 SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 
 SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper)

Journal Citation Report:

Journal Citation Reports provides ranking for journals in the areas of science, technology,
and social sciences. For every journal covered, the following information is collected or
calculated: Citation and article counts, Impact factor, Immediacy index, cited half-life, citing
half-life, Source data listing, citing journal listing, cited journal listing, Subject categories,
Publisher information.
Limited to the citation data of Journals indexed in Web of Science
 Process to determine journals included in the tool 
 Indexes over 12,000 journals in arts, humanities, sciences, and social sciences

You can enter a journal title in the Search box under "Go to Journal Profile".  Because impact
factors mean little on their own, it's best to view the journal you are interested in comparison
to the other journals in the same category. To determine the impact factor for a particular
journal, select a JCR edition (Science and/ or Social Science), year, and Categories, found on
the left of the screen. Click Submit.  Scroll the list to find the journal you are interested in.
The list can be resorted by Journal time, Cites, Impact Factor, and Eigenfactor.
Eigenfactor
Eigenfactor scores can be found in the above listed Journal Citation Reports or at
eigenfactor.org.  Journal Citation Reports or at eigenfactor.org. Eigenfactor scores are
intended to give a measure of how likely a journal is to be used, and are thought to reflect
how frequently an average researcher would access content from that journal.
Scopus (Elsevier)
 The Scopus Journal Analyzer Scopus (Elsevier) provides a view of journal
performance, and includes three journal metrics - CiteScore, SJR (SCImago Journal
Rank) and SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper).
 Over 22,000 active journals from over 4,000 international publishers Process to
determine journals included in the tools.
SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)   (Elsevier)
“The SCImago Journal & Country Rank is a portal that includes the journals and country
scientific indicators developed from the information contained in the Scopus® database
(Elsevier B.V.).” Scopus contains more than 15,000 journals from over 4,000 international
publishers as well as over 1000 open access journals.  SCImago's "evaluation of scholarly
journals is to assign weights to bibliographic citations based on the importance of the journals
that issued them, so that citations issued by more important journals will be more valuable
than those issued by less important ones." (SJR indicator).
SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper) 
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) measures contextual citation impact by
weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field. The impact of a
single citation is given higher value in subject areas where citations are less likely, and vice
versa.  Unlike the well-known journal impact factor, SNIP corrects for differences in citation
practices between scientific fields, thereby allowing for more accurate between-field
comparisons of citation impact. CWTS Journal Indicators also provides stability intervals that
indicate the reliability of the SNIP value of a journal.  
CWTS Journal Indicators currently provides four indicators:
 P. The number of publications of a source in the past three years.
 IPP. The impact per publication, calculated as the number of citations given in the
present year to publications in the past three years divided by the total number of
publications in the past three years. IPP is fairly similar to the well-known journal
impact factor. Like the journal impact factor, IPP does not correct for differences in
citation practices between scientific fields. IPP was previously known as RIP (raw
impact per publication).
 SNIP. The source normalized impact per publication, calculated as the number of
citations given in the present year to publications in the past three years divided by the
total number of publications in the past three years. The difference with IPP is that in
the case of SNIP citations are normalized in order to correct for differences in citation
practices between scientific fields. Essentially, the longer the reference list of a citing
publication, the lower the value of a citation originating from that publication. A
detailed explanation is offered in our scientific paper.
 % self cit. The percentage of self-citations of a source, calculated as the percentage of
all citations given in the present year to publications in the past three years that
originate from the source itself

IPP - Impact Per Publication: Also known as RIP (raw impact per publication), the IPP is
used to calculate SNIP. IPP is a number of current-year citations to papers from the previous
3 years, divided by the total number of papers in those 3 previous years.

Cite Score – Metrics

1.h-index :
The h-index is defined as the maximum value of h such that the given author/journal
has published h papers that have each been cited at least h times. The index is designed to
improve upon simpler measures such as the total number of citations or publications.  “A
scientist has index h if h of his or her Np papers have at least h citations each and the other
(Np – h) papers have ≤h citations each.”
How Calculated: Number of papers (h) that have received at least h citations. 
As an example, an h index of 10 means that among all publications by one author, 10 of these
publications have received at least 10 citations each.  
Hirsch argues that the h index is preferable to other single-number criteria, such as the total
number of papers, the total number of citations and citations per paper. 
2.g- index:
The g-index gives more weight to highly-cited articles. To calculate the g-index:
"[Given a set of articles] ranked in decreasing order of the number of citations that they
received, the g-index is the (unique) largest number such that the top g articles received
(together) at least g² citations." G-Index is calculated this way: "[Given a set of articles]
ranked in decreasing order of the number of citations that they received, the G-Index is the
(unique) largest number such that the top g articles received (together) at least g^2 citations."

Advantages of the G-Index:

 Accounts for the performance of author's top articles
 Helps to make more apparent the difference between authors' respective impacts.  The
inflated values of the G-Index help to give credit to lowly-cited or non-cited papers
while giving credit for highly-cited papers.  
Disadvantages of the G-Index:
 Introduced in 2006. and debate continues whether G-Index is superior to H-Index.
Might not be as widely accepted as H-Index.  
3. i10 Index :
i10-Index = the number of publications with at least 10 citations. This very simple
measure is only used by Google Scholar, and is another way to help gauge the productivity
of a scholar. Advantages of i10-Index. Very simple and straightforward to calculate. i10-
Index = the number of publications with at least 10 citations.  
This very simple measure is only used by Google Scholar, and is another way to help
gauge the productivity of a scholar.  
Advantages of i10-Index
 Very simple and straightforward to calculate
 My Citations in Google Scholar is free and easy to use
Disadvantages of i10-Index
 Used only in Google Scholar
Here is a screenshot of a Google Scholar My Citations page for Charles Darwin (you can see
the i10-Index highlighted in the small table):
4.Altmetrics:
Altmetrics are metrics and qualitative data that are complementary to traditional,
citation-based metrics. ... Sourced from the Web, altmetrics can tell you a lot about how
often journal articles and other scholarly outputs like datasets are used.