Plagiarism Policy

disply none

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

All parties engaged in the publication process, including the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, and the publisher, must agree on ethical standards. Elsevier's suggestions and COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors serve as the foundation for our ethical declarations.

All journals published by the Seshadripuram Research Foundation (SRF) adhere to the highest standards in terms of ethics, mistakes, and retractions. One of the editorial board's most significant roles is to prevent publication malpractice. Any unethical action is unacceptable, and the Seshadripuram Research Foundation (SRF) does not condone plagiarism in any form.

Authors who submit articles to the Seshadripuram Research Foundation (SRF) Organization Journals certify that the content of the publication is original.

Duties of Editors

Publication decisions:

The editors at Seshadripuram Research Foundation are in charge of determining which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be led by the editorial board's policies and bound by any applicable legal requirements for libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism at the time. In reaching this judgement, the editor may consult with other editors or reviewers.

Fair play:

An editor can review articles at any time for their intellectual value, regardless of the author's colour, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic background, citizenship, or political ideology.


The editor and any editorial staff members must not reveal any information about a submitted manuscript to anybody except the corresponding author, reviewers, and possible publishers.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest:

Unpublished materials provided in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own study without the author's clear written permission.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions:

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.


Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.


Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity:

Reviews should be conducted objectively. It is not appropriate to criticise the author personally. Referees should convey their opinions clearly and with evidence to back them up.

Acknowledgement of Sources:

Reviewers should look for relevant published work that the authors haven't cited. Any claim that an observation, derivation, or argument has previously been published should be accompanied by a citation. Any significant resemblance or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published material about which the reviewer has personal information should be brought to the editor's notice.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:

Confidential information or ideas gained through peer review must be kept confidential and not exploited for personal gain. Reviewers who have conflicts of interest should not evaluate papers.