- Journals by Multimedia University (MMU) follow guidelines from The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). COPE publishes a code of practice for editors of scientific, technical, and medical journals: http://www.publicationethics.org. MMU Journals abide by its Code of Conduct and aim to adhere to its Best Practice Guidelines that supports the development of, and practical application of consistent ethical standards throughout the scholarly publishing community.
- For the purpose of the statement, the following terms are defined as such:
- ‘Journal’ refers to a collection of scholarly articles that is published regularly throughout the year.
- ‘Editor-in-Chief’ refers to the principal editor of a publication that takes the leadership and managerial role of the journals.
- ‘Editorial’ refers to the Editor-in-Chief and members under the Editorial Structure of a journal.
- ‘Authors’ refers to the individual or group that sends scholarly articles to be published in journals.
- ‘Reviewers’ refers to the individual who evaluate article submissions to journals based on the requirements of that journal, predefined criteria, and the quality, completeness and accuracy of the research presented.
- ‘MMU Press’ refers to Multimedia University (MMU)’s publishing house specialising in scholarly publications.
- Submitted manuscripts are evaluated solely on the basis of their academic merit and relevance to the journal’s scope. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
- Editors and editorial team are responsible to ensure that any information about a submitted manuscript will not be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, editorial team, and the publisher, as appropriate.
- Editors and editorial team will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes.
- The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
- Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. It is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour.
- Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
- Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.
- Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
- Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
- Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
- Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
- Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.
- The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
- When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper.
- In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, MMU Press, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question.
- MMU Press is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive.
Peer Review Policy
- This journal uses double-blind peer review process, which means that both the reviewer(s) and author(s) identities are concealed from the reviewer(s), and vice versa, throughout the review process. Peer review helps validate research and establish a method by which it can be evaluated.
- All submitted papers will be reviewed by double blind peer review process which may take between 3 to 4 weeks from the date of submission.
- IJOMFA is committed to prompt evaluation and publication of fully accepted papers. To maintain a high-quality publication, all submissions undergo the following rigorous review process.
- No simultaneous submissions of the same manuscript to different journals.
- Manuscripts with contents outside the scope will not be considered for review.
- Papers will be refereed by at least 2 experts (reviewers) as suggested by the editorial board.
- All publication decisions are made by the journal’s Editor-in-chief on the basis of the reviewers’ report.
- Authors of papers that are not accepted are notified promptly.
- All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents.
- All manuscripts submitted for publication in this journal are cross-checked for plagiarism. Manuscripts found to have similarity index of more than 10% during initial stages of review are out-rightly rejected and not considered for publication in the journal.
Plagiarism is the unethical act of copying someone else’s prior ideas, processes, results or words without explicit acknowledgement of the original author and source. Self-plagiarism occurs when an author utilizes large part of his/her own previously published work without using appropriate references. This journal is strictly against any unethical act of copying or plagiarism in any form.