MARK YOUR PRESENCE IN THE ACADEMIC WORLD. JOIN PERMANENT BLUE TO FULFIL YOUR INTELLECTUAL PURSUIT.

Journal publication at Permanent Blue is not a job but a passion. We favor publishing the authors' papers as soon as possible but cannot keep the basic publishing principles on hold. The Permanent Blue has prepared a manual of publishing etiquette, which has to be followed by every stakeholder. This manual of Permanent Blue applies to its online publication and the printed edition.

1. Before uploading his/her manuscript to Permanent Blue's website, the author should ensure coherence between the journal's scope and his/her paper's content; otherwise, the uploaded paper will be rejected at first sight (Benos, Fabres, Farmer, Gutierrez, et al., 2005).
2. Authors are advised to adopt the protocol of Microsoft Word for uploading their papers. They are also advised not to use fancy but common fonts such as Callibri and Times New Roman. 
3. Open Access has turned from a necessity into a movement. Under this, intellectuals worldwide demand all kinds of academic information, such as publications and data, to be provided without financial constraints (Open Access Netherlands, 2023). Permanent Blue takes forward this clarion call of the scholars' community and provides an open-access platform for accessing and publishing the papers (COPE Council, 2019a).  
4. While uploading the paper, the author will make two files; one will reveal his identity and other necessary details, and the second will contain the paper. Permanent Blue adopts this practice to protect the author's identity and interests against the peer reviewers. 
5. The first file will work like a cover letter, which will have the title of the paper, classification information viz., case study, interview, research paper, etc., unique characteristics of the paper and a brief biodata of the author.
6. The author should clarify in the cover letter that the paper is written by himself and that the content of the paper was never published before. 
7. The second file will contain all the information about people, like abstract keywords, main content, references and bibliography.
8. Only an original paper contributes to the academic network, so Permanent Blue always publishes the original papers. The journal's editor decides the originality of the paper. 
9. The academic network is the key to solving the problems of our society. Permanent Blue promotes academic networks at every level, so we document various contemporary events, viz., seminars, symposiums, and conferences.
10. Editors and reviewers in the permanent blue discourage a duplicate paper as it is only the alternative manifestation of an earlier paper. Duplicity breaks the academic rigout as repeated knowledge content corrupts the knowledge domain.
11. Selection of the reviewer is an editorial process, and the publisher does not interfere in this domain. 
12. Usually, reviewing takes 4-8 weeks, and the reviewer sends the reviewed copy to the editor within that timeframe. If s/he cannot review within the stipulated timeframe, s/he informs the editor to change the reviewer. 
13. The editor is the pivot of the publication process in Permanent Blue. S/he coordinates with all the stakeholders of the publications, viz., author, reviewer, publisher, etc.
14. Double-blind peer review needs opacity, so the editor maintains various curtains among authors and reviewers.
15. The double-blind review ensures the author's anonymity and the reviewer, so the paper should be scrutinized for its quality only.
16. The editor receives all the reviewers' reports and evaluates them for the decision to publish that particular manuscript. 
17. If reviewers recommend publishing the manuscript after some corrections, the editor sends the reviewed manuscript to the author, and the author has to accommodate all the corrections within ten days.
18. After getting the correct manuscript from the author, the editor evaluates all the corrections suggested by the reviewers and accommodated by the author. 
19. After his/her satisfaction, the editor sends the correct copy to the reviewers for their satisfaction.
20. The reviewers check all the corrections and send the corrected copy to the editor.
21. The editor sends this manuscript to the publisher for publishing purposes.
22. The publisher publishes the manuscript in the respective journal. 
23. If the reviewer finds that the author has allegedly used unfair means to write the manuscript, they inform the editor, who informs the author. 
24. The author is free to take back his/her manuscript and give it again with proper amendment till the allegation has been made will be corrected. 
25. Permanent Blue follows the COPE guidelines regarding the allegation of misconduct. The publisher and the editor form a committee to enquire about the misconduct, and if the allegations are true, then the manuscript would be retracted (COPE Council, 2019b). 
26. If any error is found in a published paper, its correction will be published in the corrigenda section of the next issue of the same journal. The author will be informed regarding this, and the corrected version will be published only after consulting him.
27. Permanent Blue welcomes any criticism related to the paper. The editor accepts criticisms related to any paper; if they are factual, they are sent to the author for a response. The author's response and original criticism are sent to the reviewer. After review by the reviewers, these criticisms and the author's response are sent to the publisher for publishing. The publisher publishes it in the magazine's next issue (COPE Council, 2021).
28. Accurate knowledge is a right of a global citizen. Permanent Blue ensures accurate knowledge without repetition and regression. 
29. Permanent Blue ensure access to its E-Journals by adopting new technology in this field (Gaur and Tripathi, 2012

References

1. Benos, D. J., Fabres, J., Farmer, J., Gutierrez, J. P. et al. (2005). Ethics and scientific publication. Advance Physiology Education, 29: 59–74; doi:10.1152/advan.00056.2004.591043-4046/05
2. COPE Council. (2019a). COPE Discussion Document: Predatory Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.6
3. COPE Council. (2019b). COPE Retraction guidelines—English. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4
4. COPE Council. (2021). COPE Flowcharts and infographics —Handling of post-publication critiques — English. 2021.
5. Gaur, R.C. and Tripathi, M. (2012). Role of Consortia in Preservation of e-journals, Annals of Library and Information Studies. Vol. 59, September 2012, pp. 204-211. 
6.   Open Access Netherlands (2023). What is Open Access? Website of Open Access,     Netherlands. Accessed on 10 June 2023, 10.30 IST, URL- https://www.openaccess.nl/en/what-is-open-access

Retraction Policy of Permanent Blue 

1. Permanent Blue follows the COPE's guidelines in its retraction policy (COPE Council, 2019). As accurate information is the right of every global citizen, paper with any false information will be retracted.
2.  Paper with wrong, fabricated and plagiarized data will be retracted. The editor of the journal determines the retraction of any paper. 
3. Plagiarism-checking techniques are limited to checking plagiarism, so authors are advised to restrain themselves from plagiarising the paper. If any time plagiarism in the paper is higher than the prescribed limit, the paper will be retracted by the editor.  
4. The prescribed limit of plagiarism will not be implemented retrospectively (Masic, 2013). 
5. The paper, unofficially using data from another scholar, will be retracted. 
6. The paper, infringing the copyright of any contributor to any paper, will be retracted. 
7. Permanent Blue prepares an index of retracted papers per the COPE's guidelines (COPE Council, 2019). The retracted papers of Permanent Blue are listed in the index. 
8. Permanent Blue is not liable for any dispute between the author(s) and the third party.

References

1. Banerjee, T., Partin, K. and Resnik, D. B. (2022). Authorship Issues: When Articles are Retracted Due to Research Misconduct and Then Resubmitted. Science and Engineering Ethics. 7 July; 28(4): 31. Published online 7 July 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-022-00386-1 
2. COPE Council (2019). COPE Retraction guidelines — English. Committee on Publication Ethics. Version 2: November, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4 Masic, I. (2013), The Importance of Proper Citation of References in Biomedical Articles, Acta Informatica Medica; 21(3): 148–155. DOI: 10.5455/aim.2013.21.148-155

1. Permanent Blue journals are freely accessible to authors and other scholars at www.pbjournals.com

1. Permanent Blue owns the copyright of every paper published in its journals. 

1. Permanent Blue offers subscriptions to the printed copies of its online journals. Lifetime members provide revenue to Permanent Blue. Article Processing Charges (APC) are nil in Permanent Blue. 

1. 1. Permanent Blue, as a publisher, knows its responsibilities as the preserver of the scholarly records in the form of online papers. 
   2. COPE's publishing guidelines set the global standards for publishing journals and other academic content. 
   3. Permanent Blue follows COPE's publishing guidelines and core practices. 
   4. Permanent Blue follows a smooth process for ease of publication. 
   5. Permanent Blue restricts itself to the publishing process; it does not infringe the domain of authors, editors and reviewers.
   6. Permanent Blue works hard to maintain the academic integrity of the journals. The editorial board of the journals works freely to choose the reviewers. 
   7. Permanent Blue provides an academic ambience to its stakeholders by providing them with the necessary hardware and software. 
   8. Permanent Blue funds the publication process by subscription to printed copies of the online journals. 
   9. Permanent Blue uses dedicated servers to save archival materials (Brassil et al., 1999).
   10. Permanent Blue practices the highest ethical standards to preserve the integrity of the academic content of its journals. 
   11. Permanent Blue organizes workshops to inform its editors about the COPE's guidelines (COPE Council, 2017). 
   12. Permanent Blue's journals are very specific, and their aims and objectives are provided in the respective journals. 
   13. Permanent Blue provides a grievance redressal mechanism for its stakeholders.

1. 1. COPE Council. (2017). Core Practices. Accessed on 13 June 2023, 05.30 PM, URL- https://publicationethics.org/news/core-practices COPE Council. (2019). COPE Discussion Document: Predatory Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.6
   2. Jack T. Brassil, J. T., Low, S., and Maxemchuk, N. F. (1999). Copyright Protection for the Electronic Distribution of Text Documents. Proceedings of the IEEE. Vol. 87, No. 7, July, 1999.

1. The editors of the Permanent Blue journals should follow the procedure and timeline set by Permanent Blue. 
2. The editors should know the COPE guidelines for publication, editing, reviewing and other relevant matters (COPE Council, 2017; COPE Council, 2019b; Open Access Netherlands, 2023). 
3. The editor's role is most important in deciding the academic content for publication in the Permanent Blue journals. 
4. The editor will not assert his/her ideology in choosing the published papers.
5. All other stakeholders of Permanent Blue will not pressure the publisher to choose a particular paper for publication. 
6. After the preliminary checking of the manuscript, the editor will send it to the reviewer. 
7. The editor will work in a stipulated time and decide the course of action regarding the manuscript. 
8. The manuscript should adhere to the guidelines of the publisher. The editor will decide on the conformity of the guidelines (McKinley and Rose, 2018). 
9. If the manuscript does not confirm the publisher's guidelines, the editor will inform the author by consulting the publisher and the editorial board (Graf et al., 2007). 
10. The editorial board checks the quality of the paper at its level. By his/her scholarship and previous experiences, s/he will check the papers for plagiarism and repetition in the paper.
11. The editor should communicate all his/her decisions to the editorial board and get consent.
12. The editor will take the critiques from the critics and convey them to the author, and in case of substantial critique, s/he will arrange its publication in the next issue of the same journal.
13. Usually, 15 to 20% similarity will qualify the paper for publication, but beyond this will be retracted.
14. The editor will follow the COPE and Permanent Blue guidelines for retracting any paper (COPE Council, 2019a).
15. The editor will not scrutinize any paper with any discriminatory basis, viz., ethnicity, religion, caste, sex, nationality, etc. (COPE, 2022).
16. The editor will scrutinize every manuscript uploaded on the journal website. S/he will not reject any manuscript without scrutinizing it. 
17. In any case, the editor will not reveal the author's identity to the reviewers and of the reviewers to the authors. The editor is supposed to follow the essential protocol of a double-blind peer-review process. 
18. The editor will ensure the quality review of the manuscript. 

References

1. COPE Council. (2017). Core Practices. Accessed on 13 June 2023, 05.30 PM, URL- https://publicationethics.org/news/core-practices
2. COPE Council. (2019a). COPE Retraction guidelines—English. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4
3. COPE Council. (2019b). COPE Guidelines: A Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors.
4. COPE Council. (2021). COPE Flowcharts and infographics —Handling of post-publication critiques — English. 2021.
5. COPE. 2022. COPE advice to editors on Geopolitical intrusions on editorial decisions, Accessed on 12 June 2023, 12.30 IST. URL- https://publicationethics.org/news/cope-advice-editors-geopolitical-intrusionseditorial-decisions
6. Graf, C., Wager, E., Bowman, A., Fiack, S., Scott-Lichter, D., and Robinson, A. (2007). Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: A Publisher's Perspective. International Journal of Clinical Practice. 61 (Suppl. 152), pp. 1–26.  
7. McKinley, J. and Rose, H. (2018). Conceptualisations of Language Errors, Standards, Norms and Nativeness in English for Research Publication Purposes: An Analysis of Journal Submission Guidelines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, (December), Pages 1-11. 
8. Open Access Netherlands (2023). What is Open Access? Website of Open Access, Netherlands. Accessed on 10 June 2023, 10.30 IST, URL- https://www.openaccess.nl/en/what-is-open-access

Authorship Ethics

1. The Authors are suggested to upload the manuscript of their fully updated papers (COPE, 2019). 
2. The papers without clear citations and clarity of idea will be sent back to the authors and should be updated within a stipulated time.
3. The author should be fully updated with the committee's guidelines on publication ethics (COPE) regarding authorship claims, as the author has to follow that process regarding any claim on authorship (COPE, 2019).
4. Any author should not claim false authorship; if another author claims the paper's author as a contributor, they must communicate directly with the author (COPE, 2019).
5. The authors should be acknowledged according to their contribution, not hierarchical relations (COPE, 2019). 
6. The corresponding author is as important as the principal author, so both should communicate with the editor for the paper. 
7. The principal author should not misuse their power relations while communicating with the editorial board. 
8. The authors are advised to use their results and data and desist from false data (Zuur, Ieno and Elphick, 2010). 
9. The author should not propagate negative ideas such as communalism, racism or extremism in his/her paper. 
10. The author's conclusion should not be based on any assumption or propaganda but should a give a full picture of his or her data and experiment. 
11. The paper should be based on an exhaustive survey of the literature. 
12. Copyright issues over any image will be resolved before publication in the Permanent Blue journal. Any such a will not be published without resolving the copyright issue. 
13. Without any humanitarian crisis, the authors should disclose their names (COPE, 2012). 
14. The principal author and corresponding authors should resolve their issues by themselves. The publisher, editors and reviewers have no rule in this dispute. Any such dispute will be resolved during the publishing process by a committee formed by the publisher and the editor. 
15. Authors should not submit their paper to other publications if that is in the publishing process in Permanent Blue. 
16. The authors should be aware of the COPE guidelines for research misconduct.  
17. The author should not pressure the editor to publish a paper; rather, s/he should follow the editor's suggestion regarding updating the paper.  
18. The author should send a cover letter about the details of the paper and him/herself.  
19. S/he should send two files, one with a cover letter and the other with the paper's original manuscript. 
20. The author should use his/her language to describe his/her idea. S/he should not use others' language or ideas as their own. 
22. The authors are liable for their work as they must reply to any question in their paper.  

1. COPE. (2012). Anonymity versus author transparency, Case number: 12-17. Accessed on 13 June 2023, 5.45 IST. URL- https://publicationethics.org/case/anonymity-versus-authortransparency%20?utm_source=website&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=handling-post-publication-rebuttals
2. COPE Council. (2019). COPE Discussion Document: Authorship. September 2019. Version 1: Published 9 June 2014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3
3. Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., and Elphick, C. S. (2010). A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 1, Issue 1, p. 3-14. First published: 23 February 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2009.00001.x

1. 1. The reviewer should be aware of the COPE Core guidelines and its ethics guidelines for the reviewer. S/he should follow them during the review (COPE Council, 2019).
   2. S/he should be updated with the COPE guidelines for a double-blind peer-review process (COPE Council, 2017).
   3. The reviewer is responsible for reviewing the manuscript sent by the editor. S/he has to follow the timeline of Permanent Blue (Rupp, 2011). 
   4. The reviewer will not delay reviewing the manuscript. In case of delay, the reviewer will inform the editor, who will decide the further reviewing process of that particular manuscript. 
   5. The reviewer's ideology should not come to the fore while reviewing the manuscript. S/he will do an unbiased review.
   6. The assigned reviewer should him/herself review the manuscript. No other person should impersonate the reviewer. 
   7. The reviewer will inform the editorial board about any competition between the reviewer and the author, and the editorial board will decide on further action (Rupp, 2011). 
   8. The reviewer should not communicate with the author directly. S/he will communicate via the editor in anonymity. 
   9. The reviewer should not use the idea and data of the author inappropriately in his/her paper. 
   10. The reviewer should not publicly discuss the reviewed paper before its publication. 
   11. While reviewing, the reviewer should confine him/herself to the reviewed paper. S/he should not target the author personally. 

References 

1. COPE Council. (2017). COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers — English. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9. 
2. COPE Council. (2019). COPE Guidelines: A Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors.
3. Lovejoy, T. I., Revenson, T. A., and France, C. R. (2011), Reviewing Manuscripts for Peer-Review Journals: A Primer for Novice and Seasoned Reviewers, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, Vol. 42, pp. 1–13, DOI: 10.1007/s12160-011-9269-x.
4. Rupp, D. E. (2011), Ethical Issues Faced by Editors and Reviewers, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 481–493, DOII: 10.1111/j.1740-8784.2011.00227.x
5. Gasparyan, A. Y., Ayvazyan, L., and Kitas, G. D. (eds). (2012), Authorship Problems in Scholarly Journals: Considerations for Authors, Peer Reviewers and Editors.  Rheumatology International (November 2012). DOI: 10.1007/s00296-012-2582-2