Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour. The ethics statements for Convergence Chronicles (Chronicles) are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Website
The journal’s Web site is available at: https://globalweb1.com/index.php/ojs 

All required ethical and professional standards are available at the https://globalweb1.com/index.php/ojs/EthicalConsideration

Name of Journal, Abbreviation and name Change
The journal title is Convergence Chronicles. The journal abbreviation is “Chronicles”. Formerly known as the Scholars Journal of Science and Technology

Introduction

Welcome to Convergence Chronicles, the premier journal where multidisciplinary synergy meets innovative thought. Formerly known as the Scholars Journal of Science and Technology, we have evolved beyond the traditional confines of singular disciplines to embrace a broader, more integrated approach to research and knowledge. Our pages are not just a collection of articles; they are a testament to the power of collaborative thought, a place where the brightest minds from science, technology, humanities, social sciences, arts, and engineering converge to push the boundaries of what's possible.

At Convergence Chronicles, we believe that the future of innovation lies at the intersections of diverse perspectives and areas of expertise. Our mission is to illuminate these intersections, revealing the unexpected synergies and innovative solutions that emerge from multidisciplinary dialogue. We envision ourselves as a leading voice in showcasing how collaborative research can address the complex global challenges of our time, challenges that single-discipline approaches may not fully encompass.

Through our carefully curated content, including detailed case studies, analysis of emerging trends, vibrant dialogues, and innovation profiles, we aim to inspire, inform, and provoke thought. We are more than just a journal; we are a community of forward-thinkers dedicated to creating an ecosystem of multidisciplinary scholarship.

Join us in this journey of exploration and discovery, as we delve into the rich tapestry of collaborative knowledge and showcase the transformative power of convergence. Welcome to Convergence Chronicles, where your ideas meet the world's challenges.

Editor Responsibilities

Accountability
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Fairness
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues
The editor will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in Convergence Chronicles (Chronicles). Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. The editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer-review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or another member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations
Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Peer-review process

Peer Review Policy

Journals steadfastly implement a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure impartiality and quality. This approach is firmly rooted in the ethical guidelines provided by COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices, alongside the comprehensive ICMJE's Recommendations. These frameworks collectively guide the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work, to uphold the integrity and reliability of academic discourse.

Peer Review Process

The decision to publish a paper is based on an editorial assessment and peer review. Initially all papers are assessed internally by an editorial committee consisting of 2 or more members of the editorial board primarily based on Editor-in-Chief Selection & decision. The prime purpose is to decide about fast rejection or the decision to send the manuscript to external review. Papers which their topics are not relevant to the journal aim & scope or they did not meet basic journal standards and requirements will be rejected at this stage to avoid delays to authors who may wish to seek publication elsewhere. Occasionally a paper will be returned to the author with requests for revisions in order to assist the editors in deciding whether or not send it out for review. Authors can expect a decision from this stage of the review process within 1–2 weeks of submission.
Manuscripts going forward to the review process are reviewed by members of an international expert panel. All such papers will undergo a double-blind peer review by two or more reviewers, under supervision of the journal section editor also the Editor-in-Chief. We take every reasonable step to ensure author identity is concealed during the review process but it is up to authors to ensure that their details of prior publications etc. do not reveal their identity. Authors who reveal their identity in the manuscript will be deemed to have declined anonymity and the review will be single blind (i.e. authors do not know reviewers' identities).
We aim to complete the review process within 4-8 weeks of the decision to review although occasionally delays do happen and authors should allow at least 8 weeks from submissions before contacting the journal. The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to the final decision regarding acceptance.

Reviewers Role

Reviewers are the main members contributing for the benefit of the journal being a double-blind peer review process possible. Double-blind referees are insisted not to disclose their identity in any form.
A reviewer should immediately decline to review an article submitted if he/she feels that the article is technically unqualified or if the timely review cannot be done by him/her or if the article has a conflict of interest.
All submissions will be treated as confidential, editorial approval might be given for any outside person’s advice received.
No reviewer should pass on the article submitted to him/her for review to another reviewer in his own concern, it should be declined immediately.
Reviewers being the base of the whole quality process should ensure that the articles published should be of high quality and original work. He may inform the editor if he finds the article submitted to him for review is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge.
There are no hard and fast rules to analysis an article, this can be done on case-to-case basis considering the worthiness, quality, and originality of the article submitted.
In general, cases the following may be checked in a review Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to author guidelines Purpose and Objective of the article Method of using transitions in the article Introduction given and the conclusion/ suggestions provided References provided to substantiate the content
Grammar, punctuation and spelling Plagiarism issues Suitability of the article to the need A reviewer’s comments decide the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript as a major element in a peer review process. All our reviewers are requested to go through the articles submitted to them for review in details and give the review comments without any bias, conflict of interests which finally will be observed & decided by journal Editor-in-Chief.

Guidance for Peer Reviewers

All manuscripts are double-blind reviewed. We believe that peer review is the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scientific and scholarly research.
As a reviewer you will be advising the editors (Section Editor and Editor in Chief), who make the final decision (aided by an editorial committee for all research articles and most analysis articles). We will let you know our decision. Even if we do not accept an article, we would like to pass on constructive comments that might help the author to improve it.
All unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. If we invite you to review an article, please do not discuss it even with a colleague. When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should fill the journal’s reviewing form. You should try to respond to every peer review invitation you receive. If you feel the paper is outside your area of expertise or you are unable to devote the necessary time, please let the editorial office know as soon as possible so that they can invite an alternative reviewer – it as at this stage you may like to nominate an appropriately qualified colleague. And please remember, if an author's manuscript is sitting with reviewers who have not responded to the peer-review request, the author will not get a timely decision.
Please read the Aims and Scope and the Author Instruction with care. Consideration should be given to whether the paper is suitable for the journal it is submitted to. The journals' aims and scope is available on “Journal Information” menu and pages.
The essential feature of any review is that it is helpful and constructive and we urge reviewers to be robust but polite when making comments to authors. The Peer reviewers should provide an objective critical evaluation of the paper in the broadest terms practicable. Reviewers need to make a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief on deciding the manuscript. Your report must contain your detailed answers on the journal questions in the reviewing form. If you believe the paper needs revisions to be made before it is acceptable, please make suggestions on how to improve the paper. Likewise, if you feel that a paper is not good enough and has no real prospects of being improved sufficiently to be published you should recommend rejection.
You should also:
Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are Treat the author’s work the way you would like your own to be treated Reviewer Score Sheet is seen by the editors only and the comments will be shared with the authors. You should also indicate if the manuscript requires its English grammar, punctuation or spelling to be corrected (there is a prompt for this).

Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor. Convergence Chronicles (Convergence Chronicles) operate double-blind peer review. Reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.

Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

Relations with Publisher

The relationship of editors to Publisher and the owner is based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.
Editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for the journal and without interference from Publisher.
Editors have a written contract(s) setting out their relationship with Publisher.
The terms of this contract is in line with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • communicating regularly with Publisher

Editorial and peer review processes

Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely.
Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • ensuring that people involved with the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and keep abreast of the latest guidelines, recommendations and evidence about peer review and journal management
  • keeping informed about research into peer review and technological advances
  • adopting peer review methods best suited for their journal and the research community it serves
  • reviewing peer review practices periodically to see if improvement is possible
  • referring troubling cases to COPE, especially when questions arise that are not addressed by the COPE flowcharts, or new types of publication misconduct are suspected
  • considering the appointment of an ombudsperson to adjudicate in complaints that cannot be resolved internally

Quality assurance

Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • having systems in place to detect falsified data (e.g. inappropriately manipulated photographic images or plagiarized text) either for routine use or when suspicions are raised
  • basing decisions about journal house style on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of reporting (e.g. adopting structured abstracts, applying guidance) rather than simply on aesthetic grounds or personal preference

Protecting individual data

Editors must obey laws on confidentiality in their own jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, however, they should always protect the confidentiality of individual information obtained in the course of research or professional interactions. It is therefore almost always necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from people who might recognize themselves or be identified by others (e.g. from case reports or photographs). It may be possible to publish individual information without explicit consent if public interest considerations outweigh possible harms, it is impossible to obtain consent and a reasonable individual would be unlikely to object to publication.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • publishing their policy on publishing individual data (e.g. identifiable personal details or images) and explaining this clearly to authors

Note that consent to take part in research or undergo treatment is not the same as consent to publish personal details, images or quotations.
 
Encouraging ethical research (e.g. research involving humans or animals)

Editors should endeavor to ensure that research they publish was carried out according to the relevant internationally Declaration of Helsinki research, and the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research.
Editors should seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate body (e.g. research ethics committee, institutional review board) where one exists. However, editors should recognize that such approval does not guarantee that the research is ethical.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • being prepared to request evidence of ethical research approval and to question authors about ethical aspects (such as how research participant consent was obtained or what methods were employed to minimize animal suffering) if concerns are raised or clarifications are needed
  • ensuring that reports of clinical trials cite compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice.
  • appointing a journal ethics advisor or panel to advise on specific cases and review journal policies periodically

Dealing with possible misconduct

Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers.
Editors should not simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct. They are ethically obliged to pursue alleged cases.
Editors should follow the COPE flowcharts where applicable.
Editors should first seek a response from those suspected of misconduct. If they are not satisfied with the response, they should ask the relevant employers, or institution, or some appropriate body (perhaps a regulatory body or national research integrity organization) to investigate.
Editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that a proper investigation into alleged misconduct is conducted; if this does not happen, editors should make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem. This is an onerous but important duty.

Ensuring the integrity of the academic record

Errors, inaccurate or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and with due prominence.
Editors should follow the COPE guidelines on retractions.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • taking steps to reduce covert redundant publication (e.g. by requiring all clinical trials to be registered)
  • ensuring that published material is securely archived (e.g. via online permanent repositories, such as PubMed Central)
  • having systems in place to give authors the opportunity to make original research articles freely available

Intellectual property

Editors should be alert to intellectual property issues and work with Publisher to handle potential breaches of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • adopting systems for detecting plagiarism (e.g. software, searching for similar titles) in submitted items (either routinely or when suspicions are raised)
  • supporting authors whose copyright has been breached or who have been the victims of plagiarism
  • being prepared to work with Publisher to defend authors’ rights and pursue offenders (e.g. by requesting retractions or removal of material from websites) irrespective of whether their journal holds the copyright

Encouraging debate

Editors should encourage and be willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal.
Authors of criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond.
Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • being open to research that challenges previous work published in the journal

Complaints

Editors should respond promptly to complaints and should ensure there is a way for dissatisfied complainants to take complaints further. This mechanism should be made clear in the journal and should include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE
Editors should follow the procedure set out in the COPE flowchart on complaints.

Commercial considerations

Journals should have policies and systems in place to ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions (e.g. advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments).
Editors should have declared policies on advertising in relation to the content of the journal and on processes for publishing sponsored supplements.
Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction needs to be included in which case it should be clearly identified.
Best practice for editors would include:

  • publishing a general description of their journal’s income sources (e.g. the proportions received from display advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, page charges, etc.)
  • ensuring that the peer review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal
  • ensuring that items in sponsored supplements are accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and decisions about such supplements are not influenced by commercial considerations

Conflicts of interest

Editors should use ICMJE form and procedure for managing the conflicts of interest issues.
Journals should have a declared process for handling submissions from the editors, employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review.

Plagiarism
All authors are strongly recommended to check their manuscripts content before its submission to the journal for publication. The Authors may use trustable valid "Plagiarism Checking software’s" to make sure that their manuscripts are Plagiarism free. Anyway, all submitted papers to the journal will be checked against Plagiarism upon receiving and also before publishing finally using iThenticate & other Plagiarism Detection Software’s. If the Reviewers, Editor-in-Chiefs, Readers or Editorial Staffs suspect or notice any types of plagiarism at any stage of publication process, the manuscript will be rejected and all authors including the corresponding author will be notified then. Self-plagiarism is also considered & managed accordingly.
COPE’s code of conduct and flowcharts will be used if any Plagiarism detected in a submitted manuscript or if it is found in a published paper.
https://www.ithenticate.com

Publishing schedule

The Journal published on a bi-monthly basis.

Author Responsibilities

Reporting standards
Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of a manuscript
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Ghostwriting and guest authorship are strictly forbidden as contradictory to the scientific work rules and ethics. The contribution to the research from financing agencies and other institutions should be shown in Acknowledgments. The statement of the main author about no ghostwriting and guest authorship in the proposed paper has to be included in the submission form.

Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

Local regulations
This list is not exhaustive. Authors should be aware of local laws and standards adopted in scientific publications.

Publisher’s Confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.

Author Fees
As Scholar Indexing Society is supporting most of the publishing costs of Convergence Chronicles, Article Processing Charge (APC) and any other publication fees in the journal are free for authors. There is NO APC charges for this journal.

Ownership and Management

Convergence Chronicles is owned & published by Scholar Indexing Society .

Governing Body
The Journal's Governing Body and their affiliations & contact information are available  https://scholarindexing.com/members/council

Editorial Board
The Journal's Editorial Board and their affiliations & contact information are available at the journal page menu titled: "Editorial Board"

Copyright and Licensing

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
All journal papers are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.

Authors have copyright but license exclusive rights in their article to the publisher*.
Authors have the right to:

  • Share their article according to the "Personal Use rights"** so long as it contains the end user license and the DOI link to the version of record in this journal.
  • Retain intellectual property rights (including research data).
  • Proper attribution and credit for the published work.

* This includes the right to make and authorize commercial use.
** Personal use rights

Authors can use their articles, in full or in part, for scholarly, non-commercial purposes such as:

  • Use by an author in the author’s classroom teaching (including distribution of copies, paper or electronic)
  • Distribution of copies (including through e-mail) to known research colleagues for their personal use (but not for Commercial Use)
  • Inclusion in a thesis or dissertation (provided that this is not to be published commercially)
  • Use in a subsequent compilation of the author’s works
  • Extending the Article to book-length form
  • Preparation of other derivative works (but not for Commercial Use)
  • Otherwise, using or re-using portions or excerpts in other works