Journal Policies and Ethics

     To achieve high quality of science, 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, funding agencies, and administrators. 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.

 Study Design and Ethics

 Research should be well justified, well planned, and appropriately designed, so that it can properly address the research question. Statistical issues, including power calculations, should be considered early in study design, to avoid futile studies that produce subject risk without enrollment sufficient to answer the research question. Outcomes should be specified at the start of the study. Research should be conducted to high standards of quality control and data analysis. Data and records must be retained and produced for review upon request. Fabrication, falsification, concealment, deceptive reporting, or misrepresentation of data constitutes scientific misconduct.

 Documented review and approval from a formally constituted review board (Institutional Review Board or Ethics committee) should be required for all studies involving people, medical records, and human tissues. For those investigators who do not have access to formal ethics review committees, the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki should be followed. If the study is judged exempt from review, a statement from the committee should be required. Informed consent by participants should always be sought. If not possible, an institutional review board must decide if this is ethically acceptable. Journals should have explicit policies as to whether these review board approvals must be documented by the authors, or simply attested to in their cover letter, and how they should be described in the manuscript itself.

 Animal experiments should require full compliance with local, national ethical, and regulatory principles, and local licensing arrangements. Fulfillment of this requirement must be explicitly stated in the manuscript.


 Authorship implies a significant intellectual contribution to the work, some role in writing the manuscript and reviewing the final draft of the manuscript, but authorship roles can vary. Who will be an author, and in what sequence, should be determined by the participants early in the research process, to avoid disputes and misunderstandings which can delay or prevent publication of a paper.

 For all manuscripts, the corresponding author should be required to provide information on the specific contributions each author has made to the article. (Alternatively, since authors may differ on the nature and magnitude of contributions, each author may be asked to describe their own.) All authors are responsible for the quality, accuracy, and ethics of the work, but one author must be identified who will reply if questions arise or more information is needed, and who will take responsibility for the work as a whole. This description of author contributions should be printed with the article. The authors are responsible for creating all components of the manuscript. If writers/article editors are provided by the sponsoring or funding institution or corporation to draft or revise the article, the name of the writer and their sponsoring organization must be provided. Their names and contributions will be provided with the acknowledgments. Journals should discourage "honorary" authorship (when authorship is granted as a favor to someone powerful or prestigious who would not have qualified for it otherwise) and should also try to ensure that all those who qualify as authors are listed.

 All authors must take responsibility in writing for the accuracy of the manuscript. 

Peer Review

 Peer review is fundamental to the scientific publication process and the dissemination of sound science. Peer reviewers are experts chosen by editors to provide written assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of written research, with the aim of improving the reporting of research and identifying the most appropriate and highest quality material for the journal. Regular reviewers selected for the journal will be required to meet minimum standards (as determined and promulgated by each journal) regarding their background in original research, publication of articles, formal training, and previous critical appraisal of manuscripts.

 Peer reviewers shall be experts in the scientific topic addressed in the articles they review, and selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge. Individuals who have major competing interest in the subject of the article (e.g., those working for a company whose product was tested, its competitors, those with special political or ideological agendas, etc.) shall not be asked to be the reviewers, and if one is done, the designated reviewer shall declare the same and decline the offer on that ground.

 Reviews will be expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt, and constructive. The desired major elements of a high-quality review should be as follows:

  • The reviewer will be identified and commented on major strengths and weaknesses of study design and methodology
  • The reviewer shall comment accurately and constructively upon the quality of the author's interpretation of the data, including acknowledgment of its limitations.
  • The reviewer shall comment on major strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript as a written communication, independent of the design, methodology, results, and interpretation of the study.
  • The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct.
  • The reviewer shall provide the author with useful suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
  • The reviewer's comments to the author shall be constructive and professional
  • The review shall provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.

All reviewers will be informed of the journal's expectations and editors should make an effort to educate them and suggest educational materials (such as articles on how to peer review:

The editors shall routinely assess all reviews for quality; they may also edit reviews before sending them to authors, or simply not send them if they feel they are not constructive or appropriate. Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics of reviewers shall be periodically assessed to assure optimal journal performance, and must contribute to decisions on reappointment or ongoing review requests (for journals that do not formally appoint reviewers). Individual performance data will be kept confidential. Performance measures such as review completion times shall be used to assess changes in process that might improve journal performance.

 The type of review process shall be stated, such as the number of reviewers, blinded as to author or institution or not, authors blinded as to reviewer identity or not, etc. Any policy on suggesting reviewers or on requests to not use certain reviewers shall be described.

 The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication; reviewers must treat it as confidential. It should not be retained or copied. Also, reviewers must not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers and editors must not make any personal or professional use of the data, arguments, or interpretations (other than those directly involved in its peer review) prior to publication unless they have the authors' specific permission or are writing an editorial or commentary to accompany the article.

 If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should notify the editor in confidence, and should not share their concerns with other parties unless officially notified by the journal that they may do so.

 High-quality review is important, but equally important is that readers be able to readily determine which contents of the journal are peer reviewed. The journal should describe which types of articles are peer reviewed, and by whom (i.e., only by editorial board members, by outside expert reviewers, or both). Wherever relevant, the Editor shall strongly consider having a statistician review reports of original research that are being considered for publication. 

Editorial Decisions

Decisions about a manuscript shall be based only on its importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal's scope and content. Studies with negative results despite adequate power, or those challenging previously published work, shall receive equal consideration.

 There shall be an explicit written policy on the procedure that will be followed if an author appeals a decision.

 If a published paper is subsequently found to have errors or major flaws, the Editor shall take responsibility for promptly correcting the written record in the journal. The specific content of the correction may address whether the errors originated with the author or the journal. The correction should be listed in the table of contents to ensure that it is linked to the article to which it pertains in public databases.

 Ratings of review quality and other performance characteristics of editors shall be periodically assessed to assure optimal journal performance, and must contribute to decisions on reappointment. Individual performance data will be confidential. These performance measures shall also be used to assess changes in process that might improve journal performance.

 Originality, Prior Publication, and Media Relations

 The journal shall generally seek original work that has not been previously published. Web and other electronic publication shall be considered the same as print publication for this purpose. Redundant publication occurs when multiple papers, without full cross reference in the text, share the same data, or results. Republication of a paper in another language, or simultaneously in multiple journals with different audience may be acceptable, provided that there is full and prominent disclosure of its original source at the time of submission of the manuscript. At the time of submission, authors should disclose details of related papers they have authored, even if in a different language, similar papers in press, and any closely related papers previously published or currently under review at another journal.


 Plagiarism is the use of others' published and unpublished ideas or words (or other intellectual property) without attribution or permission, and presenting them as new and original rather than derived from an existing source. The intent and effect of plagiarism is to mislead the reader as to the contributions of the plagiarizer. This applies whether the ideas or words are taken from abstracts, research grant applications, Institutional Review Board applications, or unpublished or published manuscripts in any publication format (print or electronic).

 Plagiarism is scientific misconduct and should be addressed as such.

 Self-plagiarism refers to the practice of an author using portions of their previous writings on the same topic in another of their publications, without specifically citing it formally in quotes. This practice is widespread and sometimes unintentional, as there are only so many ways to say the same thing on many occasions, particularly when writing the Methods section of an article. Although this usually violates the copyright that has been assigned to the publisher, there is no consensus as to whether this is a form of scientific misconduct, or how many of one's own words one can use before it is truly "plagiarism." Probably for this reason self-plagiarism is not regarded in the same light as plagiarism of the ideas and words of other individuals. If journals have developed a policy on this matter, it should be clearly stated for authors.

 Responding to Allegations of Possible Misconduct

 The journal has a clear policy on handling concerns or allegations about misconduct, which can arise regarding authors, reviewers, editors, and others. The journal does not have the resources or authority to conduct a formal judicial inquiry or arrive at a formal conclusion regarding misconduct. That process is the role of the individual's employer, university, granting agency, or regulatory body. However, the journal does have a responsibility to help protect the integrity of the public scientific record by sharing reasonable concerns with authorities who can conduct such an investigation.

 Deception may be deliberate, by reckless disregard of possible consequences, or by ignorance. Since the underlying goal of misconduct is to deliberately deceive others as to the truth, the journal's preliminary investigation of potential misconduct must take into account not only the particular act or omission, but also the apparent intention (as best it can be determined) of the person involved. Misconduct does not include unintentional error.

 Falsification of data

It ranges from fabrication to deceptive selective reporting of findings and omission of conflicting data, or willful suppression and/or distortion of data.

  • Plagiarism: The appropriation of the language, ideas, or thoughts of another without crediting their true source, and representation of them as one's own original work.
  • Improprieties of authorship: Improper assignment of credit, such as excluding others, misrepresentation of the same material as original in more than one publication, inclusion of individuals as authors who have not made a definite contribution to the work published; or submission of multi-authored publications without the concurrence of all authors.
  • Misappropriation of the ideas of others: an important aspect of scholarly activity is the exchange of ideas among colleagues. Scholars can acquire novel ideas from others during the process of reviewing grant applications and manuscripts. However, improper use of such information can constitute fraud. Wholesale appropriation of such material constitutes misconduct.
  • Violation of generally accepted research practices: Serious deviation from accepted practices in proposing or carrying out research, improper manipulation of experiments to obtain biased results, deceptive statistical or analytical manipulations, or improper reporting of results.
  • Material failure to comply with legislative and regulatory requirements affecting research: Including but not limited to serious or substantial, repeated, willful violations of applicable local regulations and law involving the use of funds, care of animals, human subjects, investigational drugs, recombinant products, new devices, or radioactive, biologic, or chemical materials.
  • Inappropriate behavior in relation to misconduct: this includes unfounded or knowingly false accusations of misconduct, failure to report known or suspected misconduct, withholding or destruction of information relevant to a claim of misconduct and retaliation against persons involved in the allegation or investigation.

The journal has an obligation to readers to ensure that their published research is both accurate and adheres to the highest ethical standard. Therefore, if an inquiry concludes there is a reasonable possibility of misconduct, responses shall be undertaken, chosen in accordance with the apparent magnitude of the misconduct. Responses may be applied separately or combined, and their implementation should depend on the circumstances of the case as well as the responses of the participating parties and institutions. The following options are ranked in approximate order of severity:

  • A letter of explanation (and education) sent only to the person against whom the complaint is made, where there appears to be a genuine and innocent misunderstanding of principles or procedure.
  • A letter of reprimand to the same party, warning of the consequences of future such instances, where the misunderstanding appears to be not entirely innocent.
  • A formal letter as above, including a written request to the supervising institution that a investigation be carried out and the findings of that inquiry reported in writing to the journal.
  • Publication of a notice of redundant or duplicate publication or plagiarism, if appropriate (and unequivocally documented). Such publication will not require approval of authors, and should be reported to their institution.
  • Formal withdrawal or retraction of the paper from the scientific literature, published in the journal, informing readers and the indexing authorities (National Library of Medicine, etc), if there is a formal finding of misconduct by an institution. Such publication will not require approval of authors, should be reported to their institution, and should be readily visible and identifiable in the journal.
  • Editors or reviewers who are found to have engaged in scientific misconduct shall be removed from further association with the journal, and this fact reported to their institution.

Archiving Policy

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 Relation of the Journal to the Sponsoring Society

 The journal has an explicit policy describing its governance and relationship to the sponsoring society. Editor-in-chief and the owners of their journals both want the journals to succeed, but they have different roles. The primary responsibilities of the editor-in-chief are to inform and educate readers, with attention to the accuracy and importance of journal articles, and to protect and strengthen the integrity and quality of the journal and its processes. Owners are ultimately responsible for all aspects of publishing the journal, including its staff, budget, and business policies. The relationship between owners and editor-in-chief shall be based on mutual respect and trust, and recognition of each other's authority and responsibilities, because conflicts can damage the intellectual integrity and reputation of the journal and its financial success.


Peer-review Policy

All the manuscripts submitted to Journal of Natural Remedies will be subjected to double blind peer review process;

  • The manuscript will be reviewed by two suitable experts in respective subject area. The reports of both the reviewers will be considered while deciding on acceptance/revision or rejection of a manuscript.
  • Editor-In-Chief (EIC) will make the final decision, based on reviewer’s comments.
  • EIC can ask one or more advisory board members for their suggestions upon a manuscript, before making the final decision.
  • Associate editor and review editors provide the administrative support to maintain the integrity of peer review process.
  • In case, authors challenge editor's negative decision with suitable arguments, the manuscript can be sent to one more reviewer and the final decision will be made based upon his recommendations.
  • Review Period: Average time taken for Review is 45 days.

Publication Time

Submission to Review: After clearing plagiarism check, the article will be Peer-Reviewed. Average time taken is 45 days.

Acceptance to Publishing: After acceptance and Article Processing Charge payment, the average time taken to complete the pre-publishing activities- Editing, Layout preparation, Proof Checking by author, Proof checking by Editorial Team, DOI insertion is 15 days.

Digital Archiving and Preservation Policy

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...


Journal of Endocrinology and Reproduction Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is based, in large part, on the guidelines and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). 

The Journal of Endocrinology and Reproduction is an electronic Double Blind peer reviewed journal upholding the highest standards. Articles not in accordance with publication ethics and malpractices will be removed from publication if detected at any time. Plagiarism and research fabrication such as making up of data, manipulation of existing data, tables etc. and ethical clearance on the use of humans or animals for the study will also be checked. The journal reserves the right to use plagiarism detecting software to screen submitted papers at any time and suspected plagiarism or duplicate publishing will be reported immediately.

Authors must ensure that

  • Their work is original
  • Must not have been published elsewhere
  • Other authors, contributors or sources should be appropriately credited
  • They are responsible for language editing before submission
  • Their work has not been copied or plagiarized in whole or part from any other work
  • The financial support and conflict of interest for the project / research work if any should be disclosed
  • They are obliged to notify the editor if any error or inaccuracy is discovered and co-operate with the editor to correct the same

Articles should be submitted using online procedures. Simultaneous publication in more than one publication is a breach of publication ethics.

Editor must ensure that

  • The submitted manuscript undergoes Double- blind peer review before publishing
  • They will strive to prevent any conflict of interest between the author and editorial and review personnel
  • All the information related to the submitted manuscript is kept confidential prior to publishing

Reviewers should ensure that

  • Reviews the manuscript and provides suitable comments for improvement
  • Promptness in notifying the editor about his inability to review the manuscript
  • Maintains confidentiality about the manuscript obtained for review, by not discussing with others
  • Standards of Objectivity preserved by reviewing the manuscripts objectively with clear views and supporting arguments and without any personal criticism
  • Acknowledgement of Sources
    • All References not cited by author should be removed. All citations should be accompanied with any previously reported observation, derivation or argument.
    • The editors should be intimated for any overlap of the reviewed manuscript with any other published paper.
  • Disclosures and Conflict of Interest– manuscripts having conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or any other relationships or connections with institutions connected to the paper will not be considered.

Human & Animal Rights:

While reporting experiments on human subjects, you should indicate whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional or regional) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975 that was revised in 2000.

  • Do not use names or initials of patients or hospitals and/or hospital telephone numbers especially in illustrative material.
  • While reporting experiments on animals, indicate whether you adhered to the guidelines of an institution or national research council governing the care and use of laboratory animals.

Studies based on clinical trials:

Authors should register all the clinical trials in a Primary Clinical Trial Registry. The Registration number must be given in Materials and Methods section. Authors can register in following trial register:

Reporting Guidelines for Specific Study Designs

Type of Study

Registration Initiative


Randomized controlled trials


Studies of diagnostic accuracy


Systematic reviews and meta-analyses


Observational studies in epidemiology


Meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology 


Plagiarism Policy:

The Journal of Natural Remedies would like to ensure that all published articles are well within the accepted level of plagiarism. The Journal uses the very well and widely accepted Plagiarism Detection tool, iThenticate. All submitted Manuscripts are first subjected to Plagiarism check and then the Publishing cycle begins.

In case, plagiarism is detected during review/editorial process, such manuscript(s) will be rejected immediately and we can also consider other steps depending upon the seriousness of the case. If the plagiarism is proven after publication, such manuscript(s) will be Retracted from our website and appropriate announcement will be placed in this regard.

Further, “Journal of Endocrinology and Reproduction” can bring such instants to the notice of author's funding agencies, author's institutes (where they work) and to the original authors whose work has been plagiarized. Please report the plagiarism cases to

The threshold of plagiarism acceptance is <20%.


The author(s) publishing their articles in this Journal is/are solely responsible for the content thereof; neither the Journal of Endocrinology and Reproduction nor its editors or publisher or anyone else involved in creating, producing or distribution assumes any liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information provided in the article, nor shall they be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential or punitive damages arising out of the use of the Journal of Endocrinology and Reproduction.

Copyright and Licensing policies

All the articles published in Journal of Endocrinology and Reproduction are distributed under a creative commons license. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright of their work (all usages allowed except for commercial purpose). Copyright statement and license information will be permanently attached to published content, ensuring that this data will not change in the case of a journal changing policies for new submissions. Please contact us at for permissions related to commercial use of the article(s).


I/We, the undersigned author(s) of the manuscript
entitled-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- hereby declare that the above manuscript which is submitted for publication in the "Journal of Endocrinology and Reproduction"

  • Is NOT under consideration elsewhere.
  • The manuscript is NOT published already in part or whole (except in the form of abstract) in any journal or magazine for private or public circulation.
  • No part of this manuscript (referenced or otherwise) has been copied from any source.
  • I/we give consent for publication in the "Journal of Endocrinology and Reproduction" in any media (print, electronic or any other) and transfer copyright to the "Journal of Endocrinology and Reproduction" in the event of its publication in the "Journal of Endocrinology and Reproduciton".
  • I/we do not have any conflict of interest. I/we have read the final version of the manuscript and am/are responsible for what is said in it.
  • The work described in the manuscript is my/our own and my/our individual contribution to this work is significant enough to qualify for authorship.
  • The author(s) of each article appearing in this Journal is/are solely responsible for the content and "Journal of Endocrinology and Reproduction" or the publisher is not responsible.
  • I/We hereby acknowledge health line conflict of interest policy requirement to scrupulously avoid direct and indirect conflicts of interest and, accordingly, hereby agree to promptly inform the editor or editor's designee of any business, commercial, or other proprietary support, relationships, or interests that I/We may have which relate directly or indirectly to the subject of the work (For Medical Journals).
  • No one who has contributed significantly to the work has been denied authorship and those who helped have been duly acknowledged. I/we also agree to the authorship of the article in the following sequence. (All authors are required to sign this form).

Author's Name & Signature

1.______________________________ _____________________________
2.______________________________ _____________________________
3.______________________________ _____________________________
4.______________________________ _____________________________
5.______________________________ _____________________________

Please download above Declaration and copyright form from here. Submit scanned copy to  editor2@informaticsglobal.comafter acceptance of your article.