<div class="span9">
          <!-- start article 1 -->
          <article class="blog-post">
            <div class="post-heading">
              <h3 style="color:#94C045">Ethics Malpractice </a></h3>
            </div>
            <div class="row">
            <div class="span8">
            
<h5>Network Participation & Sustainability</h5>
      <p>The referee process is dependent on each person who submits an article for peer review to also participate in the review of other articles. The sustainability of our journals is based on this model. This collaboration of authors/reviewers is what allows authors to receive academic critique of their submitted articles without requiring a submission fee or a review fee. Our approach to peer review seeks to be inclusive. Those who write for SSRG's academic journals and/or participate as presenters at SSRG's academic conferences also serve as peer reviewers, creating a sustainable cycle of high-quality feedback. SSRG Research Networks uses a two way anonymous peer review system. The publisher, editors, reviewers, and authors all agree upon the standards of expected ethical behavior as based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Codes of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines.</p>
<h5>Qualifications & Reviewer Selection</h5>
      <p>Peer reviewers are selected from a list of qualified volunteers or from a list of qualified authors. Volunteer reviewers with the appropriate credentials, skills, and expertise are carefully selected by our editorial staff to review appropriately fitting assignments. Authors of article submissions which have qualified to enter the peer review process also qualify to be selected as reviewers for other articles currently in peer review. All reviewers are carefully selected by the editorial staff to properly match areas of expertise to appropriate submissions. Reviewers are assigned on the basis of subject matter and disciplinary expertise. If a peer reviewer feels unqualified to review a particular assigned article, the reviewer must notify a member of SSRG Research Networks' editorial team to be withdrawn from the assignment.</p>
      <h5>Reviewer Responsibilities & Expectations</h5>
      <p>Firstly, you should assess your own potential conflicts. If you have recently coauthored with the author of the manuscript, you could be perceived to be influenced by your relationship. Similarly, if you have recently shared an affiliation or employment history with the author, it could also be seen to be inappropriate for you to handle their work. SSRG aims to avoid assigning papers to Editors who might have conflicts, but we also expect our Editors to declare any conflicts. If you believe a conflict exists, you should refuse to handle the manuscript.</p>
      <p>The peer review system is structured upon a basic principle of reciprocity. It is dependent on qualified authors reviewing article submissions from their peers. Authors participate as peer reviews out of respect for those who have reviewed (or will review) their own article submissions. Authors should expect to review at least three articles each per article submission. While authors should expect to receive three assignments, the need for reviewers within particular can vary and it is possible that fewer than three articles will be assigned. Assignments will not always be from the same Research Network as your own submission. The complete details of reviewer responsibilities are listed under the Duties of Reviewers section in the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.</p>
      
          		</div>  <!-- span end -->
              </div> <!-- row end -->
              
              <div id="menu-mobile">
     				<a href="<?php echo site_url("ssrg-journals");?>"><h4 style="color:#94C045">Click here to visit all the journals</h4></a>
           </div>
           <!--<div class="gcse-search" style="width:200"></div>-->
		</article>
       </div>	<!-- span8 end -->
    </div>
  </div>  
</section>