Publication Ethics

GJPB adheres to the COPE Best Practice guidelines and this statement is based on the guidelines and standards published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Refer to the Journal Policies when considering this statement.

Duties of Editors and Reviewers

  • It is the responsibility of the Editor-in-chief or Commissioning Editor of the GJPB to make decisions on the publication of articles submitted for consideration. The Editor holds the right to consider the decision after evaluating the reviewer's opinion.  The author is given assistance in improving his/her manuscript through editorial discussions.

  • There should be no consideration of the authors' ethnicity or nationality when evaluating their articles. They should be judged entirely on their academic merits.

  • A manuscript submitted to a journal must be kept confidential by the Editor and editorial staff, who must not reveal any information about the article to anyone except the corresponding author, reviewers and other editorial consultants. Peer review must be conducted in a blinded manner, and the editor is responsible for making sure that neither the authors of a paper nor the reviewers themselves know who is doing the reviewing.

  • Unpublished materials in a submitted manuscript must not be used by the editor or reviewer or anyone else who has a view of the manuscript in their own research without the author's written consent.

  • The Editor-in-Chief/ Commissioning Editor should be notified if a reviewer feels unqualified to review an article and should not participate in the review process. Reviewers are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, prompt & constructive, and objective.

  • Reviewers are obligated to maintain strict confidentiality with regard to any manuscripts they are given to evaluate. It is forbidden to discuss the manuscript(s) with anybody who has not been given permission to do so by the Editor in Chief. The manuscript(s) may not even be shown to anyone else.

  • Analyses must be carried out with objectivity. All criticism of the author will be objective and non-personal. The opinions of reviewers should be stated clearly and backed up by evidence.

  • For conflicts of Interest, please refer to the Journal Policies.


Data fabrication and falsification

Both data fabrication and data falsification are unethical research practices. Fabrication of data and data falsification are two different practices. Data fabrication indicates that the researcher did not carry out the study but faked the data. When a researcher conducts an experiment but then modifies part of the results, this is known as "data falsification."



Copying other scientists' ideas and work and failing to give them credit is unethical. Without proper citation, even a single sentence is taken from another author's manuscript, or even one of your own that has already been published is plagiarism. GJPB uses Crossref Similarity Check (iThenticate) to find duplicate submissions. Refer to the GJPB Plagiarism Policies for more information. 


Multiple/Duplicate submissions and Redundant publication (salami-slicing)

Authors should not submit the same work to multiple journals at once. Editors and peer reviewers lose valuable time, while the author's and publications' reputations lose if their work is published in multiple journals and then withdrawn. When a manuscript is being reviewed by the GJPB, it is not permitted to be submitted somewhere else; the manuscript needs to be withdrawn before it may be submitted anywhere else.

In other words, a large number of articles based on the same experiment will be published. Publishing in a high-quality journal is easier if you combine your results into a single, well-supported paper. If an editor suspects that an article is the result of salami-slicing, they are likely to reject it.


Corrections and Retraction

When inaccuracies in published articles are found, the journal will take necessary action and may consult with the editor(s), author(s), and the authors' institution (s). A corrigendum can be used to correct errors by the authors, and an erratum can be used to fix errors by the publisher.

If there are flaws that have a major impact on the conclusions or if there is proof of misconduct, a retraction or an expression of concern may be required. GJPB follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) retraction rules in such circumstances.

COPE Retraction Guidelines are available here: Retraction guidelines


Misconduct and Sanctions

Suspected violations of our publication ethics policies, both before and after publication, should be reported to the journal as concerns regarding research ethics. If asked, claimants will be kept anonymous.

Our editors will begin a thorough inquiry as soon as we get details regarding the misconduct. The underlying data, images, and other supplemental information may be requested from the authors. The journal will communicate with editors and request an investigation from institutions or employers.

The journal will reject an article if it is deemed to breach its ethical publishing criteria, such as duplicate submission, fraudulent data, plagiarism, citation manipulation, false claim of authorship, etc.

If the article is accepted and is still in the 'Online first' stage, the journal will remove it from the website and add an appropriate note about the withdrawal. After review and preliminary acceptance, the paper is considered withdrawn if the authors do not respond to journal correspondence. If the article has already been published, it will be withdrawn promptly in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

GJPB follows COPE flow charts ( for handling the misconduct.

In addition, depending on the seriousness of the violation, we may take the following actions:

  • For the next 1–3 years, no submissions will be accepted.
  • The ability to serve as an editor or reviewer is prohibited.
  • Notifying the author's institutions, employers, and funding organizations about the misbehaviour.


Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors

In order to be included on the list of authors, a person must have made a substantial scientific contribution to the study presented in the publication and given their approval to all of its claims. Make sure that you include students and those who work in the lab as you compile the list of those who made significant contributions to the scientific community. Do not give "authorship" to people who did not contribute to the paper and do not consider them to be authors. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has developed comprehensive authorship rules that are applicable to all areas of scientific research and may be found here: International Committee of Medical Journals Editors


Complaints and appeals

Authors and readers can send their complaints/appeals to A unique complaint number will be assigned to all the complaints and will be handled by the respective person/board member. Authors or readers can use the assigned complaint number for further follow-up.