TechMind Research society marches forward with an aim to provide a common platform for sharing quality work. Besides journals, TMR also publishes Conference Proceedings for a no fee. These are intended to serve the community as a means of sharing the most recent work-in-progress in respective areas of research. Conference organisers have to declare that the proceedings will not be shared with or published in any other journal. To ensure quality, TMR has laid down a framework of policies for the under-mentioned roles:
The editor of the journals reserves the right to accept or reject a submitted paper. The editor may confer with co-editors and peer-reviewers while making a decision. The editor must ensure initial check of manuscript for plagiarism before forwarding for peer review.
The editors should give an unbiased decision based on the merit of the work irrespective of any other factors. The editorial team should not disclose any information about a submitted paper under consideration other than to reviewers. Situations that may lead to conflicts of interest should be avoided.
Authors should submit their original research work in the prescribed format of the journal. The information should be accurate, referring to recent research articles and contain sufficient details for future replication.
Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and unfailingly cite publications that have influenced the research work. Plagiarism in any form, including copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without citing), and claiming results from research conducted by others is unethical and completely unacceptable. Authors are required to present a copyright form stating they are the copyright owners or they have taken the copyright owners’ permission before submitting the research report. Any breach of copyright is unacceptable.
Author has to declare that the manuscript has previously not been published and is not under consideration in any other journal concurrently. Author should also disclose the sources of financial support to the work if any.
Authorship/Co-authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.
A reviewer should provide a critique that is positive, critical yet objective, balanced, contains no personally offensive comments, and is returned promptly. When specific criticisms are made, the reviewer should indicate precisely what the problems are and how they may be overcome. If the reviewer disputes a point made by the authors, he/she should provide explicit justification for his/her argument (e.g., literature citations). A reviewer also has a responsibility to familiarize him/herself with all aspects of the manuscript unless directed by the editor to focus on a specific area. This may entail reading previous, related articles from the authors or other papers in the field. It is fair to assume that the authors of the submitted manuscript are passionate about their work and that they have made a legitimate effort to perform and interpret their experiments carefully.
Conflicts of Interest
Conflict of interest for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process—author, reviewer, and editor—has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, regardless of whether judgment is, in fact, affected. Financial relationships with industry (for example, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family, are usually considered the most important conflicts of interest. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion. External peer reviewers should disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they believe it appropriate. The editors must be made aware of reviewers' conflict of interest to interpret the reviews and judge for themselves whether the reviewer should be disqualified.