The editorial policy and practices of the
Merit Research Journals (MRJ)
I. Objective of the
Merit Research Journals (MRJ) is an open access publisher. The
mission of Merit Research Journals is to significantly broaden
the knowledge base of its readers and in this sense, MRJ shall
focus on only those papers that fall within its scope.
II. The Editorial
Merit Research Journals is headed by Editors and an Editorial
Board Members. The Editors and Editorial Board is appointed by
the Publication Committee of Merit Research Journals. Both
Editors and Editorial Board members serve a 2 year-term. Board
members are chosen based on the journal’s need for
representation from a particular subject area in conjunction
with the individual’s commitment to maintaining high journal
An Editorial Office Team is also appointed by the publication
committee to directly assist the editors and editorial board
III. The Review
All manuscripts must be submitted using the format outlined in
Instruction to Authors.
Merit Research Journals editorial office policy requires that
each manuscript be reviewed by individuals who are highly
experienced and recognized in the particular field of the
submitted manuscript. The editorial office contacts those
reviewers that have been identified as qualified and/or
recommended by the authors. Authors are encouraged to submit in
their cover letters at least three names of individuals whom
they feel are appropriate and qualified to review their
manuscript. Once potential reviewers agree to read a manuscript
they are given at least 5 working days to complete the review
When the reviews are completed, a decision is made to either
accept the paper or give the authors the opportunity to revise
according to reviewers’ suggestions or to reject the paper based
on the reviewers’ criticisms and the editors’ opinion of the
paper. In some instances it is necessary to seek the opinion of
other reviewers if further comment is necessary to make a final
decision. When an editor has completed his decision on a
manuscript, the decision letter and reviewers’ comments are sent
to the author. Any questions or concerns regarding the editorial
decision on any manuscript must be made directly to Merit
Research Journals editorial office. Revised manuscripts are
evaluated to determine if the author(s) have adequately
addressed and answered the critiques of the reviewers and
editors. Depending upon this evaluation, manuscripts may be
accepted, returned for further revision, or rejected. If a paper
is accepted, the paper is immediately sent to the publication
office and slotted for the next available issue. Merit Research
Journals tries to complete the review cycle in two weeks. This
time, however, may vary depending on the amount of revision work
that needs to be completed before the manuscript is acceptable.
IV. Grounds for
Declining a Manuscript
Merit Research Journals may decline a manuscript after it has
completed the review process. Manuscripts that do not meet the
standards of the journal are returned to authors with
substantial comments describing the basis for the decision.
Manuscripts may be rejected if it is felt that the findings are
not sufficiently novel, do not provide sufficient new insights,
do not contain enough new information, or are too preliminary to
A. Obligations of an
>The editor should give unbiased consideration to all
manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits
without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin,
citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
> The editor should process manuscripts promptly.
> The editor has complete responsibility and authority to accept
a submitted paper for publication or to reject it. The editor
may confer with reviewers for an evaluation to use in making
> The editor and the editorial staff should not disclose any
information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone
other than reviewers and potential reviewers.
> The editor should respect the intellectual independence of
> Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript
authored by the editor and submitted to the journal should be
delegated to some other qualified person. The editor should
avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. If
the editor chooses to participate in an ongoing scientific
debate within his journal, the editor should arrange for some
other qualified person to take editorial responsibility.
> The editor should avoid situations of real or perceived
conflicts of interest. Such conflicts include, but are not
limited to, handling papers from present and former students,
from colleagues with whom the editor has recently collaborated,
and from those in the same institution.
> Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations
disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an
editor's own research except with the consent of the author.
> If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the
main substance or conclusions of a paper published in the
journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication
of an appropriate paper pointing out the error and, if possible,
Obligations of Authors
> An author's central obligation is to present a concise,
accurate account of the research performed as well as an
objective discussion of its significance.
> A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to
public sources of information to permit the author's peers to
repeat the work.
> An author should cite those publications that have been
influential in determining the nature of the reported work and
that will guide the reader quickly to the earlier work that is
essential for understanding the present investigation.
Information obtained privately, as in conversation,
correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be
used or reported in the author's work without explicit
permission from the investigator with whom the information
originated. Information obtained in the course of confidential
services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications,
cannot be used without permission of the author of the work
> Fragmentation of research papers should be avoided. A
scientist who has done extensive work on a system or group of
related systems should organize publication so that each paper
gives a complete account of a particular aspect of the general
> It is unethical for an author to publish manuscripts
describing essentially the same research in more than one
journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript
to more than one journal concurrently is unethical and
> An author should make no changes to a paper after it has been
accepted. If there is a compelling reason to make changes, the
author is obligated to inform the editor directly of the nature
of the desired change. Only the editor has the final authority
to approve any such requested changes.
> A criticism of a published paper may be justified; however, in
no case is personal criticism considered acceptable.
> Only persons who have significantly contributed to the
research should be listed as authors. The corresponding author
attests that any others named as authors have seen the final
version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for
publication. Deceased persons who meet the criterion for
co-authorship should be included, with a footnote reporting date
of death. No fictitious name should be listed as authors or
co-authors. The author who submits a manuscript for publication
accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all
persons appropriate and none inappropriate.
C. Obligations of
Reviewers of Manuscripts
> Every scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of
> A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified or lacks
the time to judge the research reported in a manuscript should
return it promptly to the editor.
> A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the
quality of the manuscript and respect the intellectual
independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism
> A reviewer should be sensitive even to the appearance of a
conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely
related to the reviewer's work in progress or published. If in
doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly
without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest
> A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or
co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or
professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment
of the manuscript.
> A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a
confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor
discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from
whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the
identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
> Reviewers should explain and support their judgments
adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis
of their comments. Any statement that an observation,
derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be
accompanied by the relevant citation.
> A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite
relevant work by other scientists. A reviewer should call to the
editor's attention any substantial similarity between the
manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any
manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
> Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information,
arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under
consideration, except with the consent of the author
Reviewers should respond promptly, usually within seven (7) days
of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, they
contact the editor promptly so that authors can be kept informed
and, if necessary, assign alternate reviewers