Home page

About HSR

House of Scientific Research is a forum to publish scientific research works of all deciplines. The organisation is inviting scientist, academicians to join in this forum as Author, member of Editorial board and Editor-in-Chief. For any question mail to hsr.inf@gmail.com or to info@researchmathsci.org

Ethics & Review Policy

All the journals of House of Scientific Research follow guidelines of the publication ethics of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Publisher is committed to publish original research works and follow COPE guidelines to deal with misconduct and misrepresenting research results. Following Ethics topics are considered to publish a paper:

The manuscript must be submitted to only one journal at a time. Simultaneous submission to more than one journal is non-ethical.

Previously published work cannot be considered for publication. However, the major extension of the published paper can be considered with proper citation and acknowledgement.

The outcomes obtained by a single research is not break up into several parts to increase the number of papers and submitted to multiple journals or to the same journal in several times.

Original data must be used during the research. Fabrication or manipulation (including images) of data is non-ethical.

If the author(s) usages any theories, definition, data or text from others documents, proper acknowledgements must be given ('plagiarism'). Quotation marks are used for verbatim copying of material. Permissions is required for copyrighted material from appropriate authority.

The corresponding author will collect the consent from all authors and from the responsible authorities prior submission of the paper.

It is assumed that all the authors have sufficient contribution in the submitted work and hence all are responsible and accountable for the results.

The corresponding author, and order of authors cannot be changed after acceptance of the paper. But, such changes may be considered at revision stage with proper justification. A letter of justification must be submitted along with the revised version.

If needed, for verification of the data or results, the authors should agree to send relevant document or data. This may be raw data, samples, records, etc. The confidential data may be excluded.

Malpractice Statement

In case of misconduct, the journal will investigate as per COPE guidelines. After thorough investigation, if it is found that the allegation has some valid concerns, then the author must be inform to address the issue. If misconduct has been proved without any doubt, then either Editor-in-Chief or publisher will take the following measures:

If the article is still under process, it must be rejected and returned to the author.

If the article has already been published online, then either an erratum will be placed with the article or a complete retraction of the article will occur with reason.

The author’s institution may be informed.

Review Policy & Guidelines

Peer review policy ensures that the journal will publish correct and good scientific work for the benefit of the whole scientific community. This policy also helps the authors to improve the quality of the work presented by them. Note that revisions and improvement are part of the publication process. If the manuscript is rejected, then the authors will find the reason behind it.

Benefit of peer review:

The reviewers may point out the missing part in the paper. They can suggest the need or type of explanation or theory or data or additional experiments.

Sometimes it is seen that the work presented in the paper is very good, but due to the lack of good presentation it becomes very difficult to understand the work. The reviewers can suggest the way to present the work so that you can improve your presentation.

The expert reviewers can verify the originality and correctness of the work and consider the importance of your paper to others in the same field.

Peer review also ensures that the published papers are of correct and good quality.

All the papers submitted in our journals are reviewed by sincere and expert reviewers to maintain the standard of the manuscript by the following procedure.

Initial evaluation.

The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor first evaluates the paper. If it is found that the manuscript has insufficiently original, serious scientific flaws, poor writing, or is outside the aims and scope of the journal, then the paper return back to the authors. If all these criteria are fulfilled then the paper send to the at least two experts for review.

Type of review.

We follow the double blind review. In this case neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.

Selection of reviewers.

Depending the nature of the manuscript, the reviewers are selected for our database which is continuously updated and from the list of references of the submitted paper.

Referee reports.

Normally the following issues are checked by the referees. (i) Originality, (ii) scientifically correct, (iii) follows ethical guidelines, (iv) clear presentation, (v) correct citation of previous works.

Review time.

Normally it takes 4 to 6 weeks, but actually depends on the reviewer's response. If all the reviewers accept the manuscript, then the process become fast. If there is contradiction among the referees, then a further expert opinion will be sought. If major revision is required then delayed the review process.

Final report.

Based on the reviewers report, the Editor will take the decision. The manuscript may be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees for revision or Editor can accept the paper. Revised manuscripts might be forwarded to the original referees for final recommendation.