Policies – Journal Riphah College of Rehabilitation Sciences

JRCRS Publisher and Editorial Freedom Policy:
Open Access Copyrights/licensed Policy:
Author fees or charges:
JRCRS Publication Ethics and Misconduct Policy:
JRCRS Disclosure and Conflicts of interest Policy:
JRCRS Advertising policy:
JRCRS Archiving Policy:
JRCRS Repository Policy:
JRCRS Article Correction-Appeal-withdrawal policy:
JRCRS Peer Review Policy:
JRCRS Sponsor & Partnership policy:
Language of JRCRS content and What Editor Wants:

– JRCRS Publisher and Editorial Freedom Policy:

Ownership/Publisher:

Publisher of Journal Riphah college of Rehabilitation (JRCRS) is “Faculty of Rehabilitation & Allied health sciences, Riphah International University”.

Most respected Research scientists and clinicians have joined the Board of trustees of JRCRS. We have undertaken to the Board of trustees that we will continue a policy of unconditional open access for research articles and that any new owner/editor/managing editor of JRCRS would have to also guarantee to continue these policy. The Board of trustees have the right to enforce these undertakings.

Hassan Muhammad Khan, Chancellor, Riphah International University, Pakistan
Prof Dr. Anis Ahmad, Vice Chancellor, Riphah International University, Pakistan
Dr. Asghar Khan, Dean, Faculty of Rehabilitation & Allied Health Sciences
Riphah International University, Pakistan.

Editorial Freedom: Editor has full authority over the editorial content of the journal. There is no interference by the journal owners in the evaluation; selection or editing of individual articles either directly or by creating an environment that strongly influences decisions.

– Open Access Copyrights/licensed Policy:

The work published by JRCRS is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

The work published in JRCRS may be “Shared copied and redistributed in any medium or format” and “Adapt remix, transform, and build upon the material.” Authors retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means including twitter, scholarly collaboration networks like Google Scholar, LinkedIn, Academia.edu, ResearchGate, Twitter, Facebook and any other professional or academic networking site.

– Author fees or charges:

All articles published in JRCRS journal are open access (Open Access Copyrights Policy under common creative: CC BY-NC 4.0) and freely available online, immediately upon publication. JRCRS offers free full text downloading of its online contents to the readers. No subscription or payment is required to download full text online articles. For Submission to Publication fees or charges are as follows:

SUBMISSION AND PUBLICATION FEES

(Article Submission Charges: Zero = 0 Pakistan Rupee (No Submission charges)
Article Processing Charges: Zero = 0 Pakistan Rupee (No processing charges)
Article Publication Charges: Zero = 0 Pakistan Rupee (No Publication charges))

– JRCRS Publication Ethics and Misconduct Policy:

Ethics and Consent:

Journal Ethical Oversigt:

The Journal Riphah College of Rehabilitation Sciences JRCRS adheres to the COPE guidelines for ethical oversight, which include policies on consent for publication, protection of vulnerable populations, ethical treatment of animals and human subjects in research, handling confidential information, and responsible business/marketing practices. Research involving human participants, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research. If a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethics approval, this should also be detailed in the manuscript (including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption). Further information and documentation to support this should be made available to the Editor on request. Manuscripts may be rejected if the Editor considers that the research has not been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. In rare cases, the Editor may contact the ethics committee for further information. When submitting an article, authors must provide signed proof of this approval, including the name of the institution and ethics committee, and the permit number(s). Also must provide the signed Letter of Undertaking at the start of submiting the manuscript.

Consent to participate:

For all research involving human participants, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or legal guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript.

Misconduct policy:

JRCRS follows the Guidelines provided for journals by the Higher Education Commission, Pakistan (HEC), ICMJE, WAME and COPE (Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and COPE’s Core Practices). These guidelines are regarding Plagiarism, overlapping, authorship, Fabrication and Falsification and etc. Any kind of issue regarding these guideline will be consider as misconduct by the journal.

JRCRS Policy on Plagiarism and Data Fabrication:

Journal Riphah College of Rehabilitation Sciences is equipped with Turnitin (text matching/anti-plagiarism software) follows Plagiarism Policy by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan. This is used to check the plagiarism and redundancy in the submitted manuscripts. All submitted manuscripts are checked for similarity index on Turnitin and manuscripts with similarity index above 19 % will be automatically rejected and sent back to the authors.

Plagiarism detection: Submissions will be analyzed by the Editor for their scientific quality, originality and content verification. Text similarity will be checked by the Content verification mode in Turnitin. Content acceptance will be based on the similarity index that must be less than 19% and from a single source it should be less than 5%.

Note: The authors are requested not check plagiarism themselves from unauthorized softwares of plagiarism detection.

Manuscript extracted by an author from his/her M.Phil. or Ph.D. thesis must have to declare the title of the thesis, supervisor name, department and university name, and year of submission on the original letter pad and submit during the submission process.

Self-Plagiarism: Self-plagiarism is not a tolerated practice. Manuscripts containing high-levels of self-plagiarism will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief for originality. Authors found to have self-plagiarised content will be asked to rewrite the selected portions of their accepted manuscripts and/or to quote the exact content and cite the original source. Journal management team will investigate any allegations of publication misconduct and may contact the authors’ institutions or funders if necessary. If proof of misconduct is found, appropriate action will be taken to correct or retract/withdraw the publication. The editors of JRCRS consider such distributing, publishing, and ethical issues very seriously, and are well trained and committed to continue such cases with a zero-tolerance policy.

Data fabrication and falsification: Fabrication is “making up data or results.” Falsification is “manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.”

Any suspected cases of covert duplicate manuscript submission will be handled as outlined in the COPE guidelines and the Editor may contact the authors’ institution. JRCRS follows the policies of the ICMJE in relation to overlapping publications.

– JRCRS Disclosure and Conflicts of interest Policy:

Conflicts of interest, also known as competing interests, arise when external factors could be perceived as affecting the impartiality or objectivity of research or its evaluation. By openly disclosing potential conflicts, others can make informed judgments about the research and its review process. Common types of conflicts of interest include:

Financial
Affiliations
Intellectual property
Personal
Ideological
Academic

Journal follows COPE’s guidelines on the “Code of conduct for journal editors”. For more information in this regard please see: https://publicationethics.org/files/2008%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf

Potential Cources of Conflict: The Journal of Riphah College of Rehabilitation Sciences JRCRS recognizes and takes into consideration the following potential sources of conflict when evaluating and publishing articles: personal conflicts, financial conflicts, non-financial conflicts, submission by an editor, submission from the same institution, personal relationships, political or religious beliefs, submission by a family member of the editor(s), or by an author whose relationship with the editor(s) may give rise to the appearance of bias. Our publisher and editors are committed to publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies as necessary.

– JRCRS Advertising policy:

JRCRS does not publish any advertisements from pharmaceutical or any other organizations. For further information or inquiries, please contact us at [email protected]

– JRCRS Archiving Policy:

JRCRS publications are deposited in and available from digital archive. To guarantee long-term digital preservation, content published in JRCRS journal are deposited in the PKP PN. by using OJS system we put request for PKP PN on OJS. PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN) is to digitally preserve OJS journals.

Keepers registry link: https://portal.issn.org/resource/ISSN/2410-888X

– JRCRS Repository Policy:

The Journal Riphah College of Rehabilitation Sciences has a policy that allows authors to submit all versions of their articles to any repository they choose. The open-access options allowed by the journal’s policy are listed below based on the version of the article.

Published Version
Embargo	No Embargo
License:	CC By 4.0
Location:	Any Repository Author’s homepage or any social media
Conditions	Published source must be acknowledged with citation

– JRCRS Article Correction Appeal withdrawal Policy:

Corrections and retractions:

Rarely, it may be necessary for JRCRS to publish corrections to, or retractions of, articles published in its journals, so as to maintain the integrity of the academic record.

Publishing a Correction or a Retraction note bidirectionally linked to the original article. Any alterations to the original article will be described in the note. The original article remains in the public domain and the subsequent Correction or Retraction will be widely indexed. In the exceptional event that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory, we may have to remove that material from our site and archive sites.

Authors, readers or organizations who become aware of errors or ethics issues in a published article are encouraged to contact the individual journal in the first instance via the contact details available on the journal website. All reports will be considered by the Editors; additional expert advice may be sought when deciding on the most appropriate course of action. Journal follows publication ethics issues as guided by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)-compliant manner.

Complaints and Appeal:

For complaints about publication ethics or scientific content, the Editor will follow guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics. The Editor will then decides on a course of action and provides feedback to the complainant.

If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, it will be escalated to the journal’s editorial and publishing management team for investigation. Send your query with subject : “ETHICAL CONCERN along with Article no.” via email to [email protected]

For complaints about processes, such as time taken for review, the Editor will review and respond to the complainant’s concerns. This feedback will be provided to relevant stakeholders to guide improvements to processes and procedures. Send your query with subject : “ARTICLE PROCESS TIME LONG along with Article no.” via email to [email protected]

For Appeal against a rejection:

Only one appeal is permitted for each manuscript. Final decisions on appeals will be made by the Editorial Board Member handling the paper or the Editor. Appeal must address:

the authors can demonstrate that an error that determined the final decision has been made – by a referee or the Editors – during review
or

if important additional data can be provided
or

if a convincing case of bias in the process can be demonstrated

Send your query with subject : “APPEAL ON REJECTION with Article no.” via email to [email protected]

JRCRS policy on Withdrawal:

Authors are not allowed to submit their manuscripts anywhere else without this confirmation email from JRCRS. In case of any such misconduct authors will be included in the black list for future correspondence. Submitted manuscripts to JRCRS can be withdrawn at any stage of evaluation process without any penalty imposed but the authors are bound to inform the Editor via email or using OJS system with reason of withdrawing the manuscript. With subject “WITHDRAWL along with ARTICLE no.” send your email to [email protected]

– JRCRS Peer Review Policy:

Peer Review Policy:

The Journal Riphah College of Rehabilitation Science uses “double-blind peer review” whereby both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the process. Submitted manuscripts are screened by the editors to check the scope, suitability and formatting. Rejected manuscripts will be sent back to the authors. Potentially suitable manuscripts are then sent to potential reviewers who are asked to respond within two weeks and then given 2-3 weeks to review. If reviewers fail to respond within the given time, they may be replaced with alternates to keep the review process moving along. Should the referees’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. Manuscripts may also be sent out for statistical review. The entire manuscript workflow was done on OJS system; author article submission, review assigning, reviewer reports, editorial staff recommendations based on reviewer comments (reject, minor revision, major revision publish) and editor decision. Detail Graphical presentation of the overall flow of peer review process can be seen https://jrcrs.riphah.edu.pk/peer-review-process/ .

Decision and number of Reviewers:

Based on the feedback from at least 2 external reviewers and editorial staff recommendations, the Editors’ judgment a decision is given on the manuscript. The editors and reviewers of JRCRS treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents, which means they will not disclose information about a manuscript to anyone without the authors’ permission. During the process of manuscript review, the following people may have access to manuscripts: Editors and editorial staff and the external peer reviewers.

Interested Reviewers:

Interested reviewers email their CV to the Editor of JRCRS: [email protected]
Following information must be along with cv should be included:

            Name:
            Affiliation:
            Specialty:
            Subspecialty:
            City:
            Country:
            Contact No.

Reviewer Guidelines for Reviewers:

ETHICAL GUIDELINES for Reviewer:

NOTE: These guidelines are retrieved from Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan manual for “Ethical Guidelines for Journals”

FOR REVIEWERS [EXPLANATION]:

The peer reviewer is responsible for critically reading and evaluating a manuscript in their specialty field, and then providing respectful, constructive, and honest feedback to authors about their submission. It is appropriate for the Peer Reviewer to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the article, ways to improve the strength and quality of the work, and evaluate the relevance and originality of the manuscript. Review of the manuscript by reviewers is not only an essential component of formal scholarly engagement, but is also a fundamental step in the publication process as it aids Editor in the editorial decision making. It also allows author(s) improve their manuscript through editorial communications. Scholars accepting to review a research paper have an ethical responsibility to complete this assignment professionally. The quality, credibility and reputation of a journal also depend on the peer review process. The peer review process depends on the trust, and demands that a reviewer is supposed to fulfill ethically. These professionals are the momentum arm of the review process, but they may be performing this job without any formal training. As a consequence, they may be (especially young professionals) unaware of their ethical obligations. The Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan wants to list down ‘Ethical Guidelines for Reviewers’ so that all reviewers provide their valuable services in a standardized manner.

CONDUCTING A REVIEW

INITIAL STEPS:

Read the manuscript, supplementary data files and ancillary material thoroughly (e.g., reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements), getting back to the journal if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items you need. Do not contact the authors directly without the permission of the journal. It is important to understand the scope of the review before commencing (i.e., is a review of raw data expected?).

CONFIDENTIALITY:

Reviewers should consider the research paper as a confidential document and must not discuss its content on any platform except in cases where professional advice is being sought with the authorization of the Editor, and
Reviewers are professionally and ethically bound not to disclose the details of any research paper prior to its publication without the prior approval of the Editor.

Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others . Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring), without first obtaining permission from the journal . The names of any individuals who have helped with the review should be included so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due recognition for their efforts.

FAVORITISM AND COMPETING INTERESTS:

It is important to remain unbiased by considerations related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, origins of a manuscript or by commercial considerations. If you discover a competing interest that might prevent you from providing a fair and unbiased review, notify the journal and seek advice . While waiting for a response, refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material in case the request to review is rescinded. Similarly, notify the journal as soon as possible if you find you do not have the necessary expertise to assess the relevant aspects of a manuscript so as not to unduly delay the review process. In the case of double-blind review, if you suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential competing or conflict of interest.

SUSPICION OF ETHICS VIOLATIONS: CONSIDERATIONS:

If the reviewer suspects that the research paper is almost the same as someone else’s work, s/he will ethically inform the Editor and provide its citation as a reference.
If the reviewer suspects that results in the research paper to be untrue/unrealistic/fake, s/he will share it with the Editor,
If there has been an indication of violating ethical norms in the treatment of human beings (e.g. children, female, poor people, disabled, elderly, etc), then this should be identified to the Editor, and

If the research paper is based on any previous research study or is replica of an earlier work, or the work is plagiarized for e.g. the author has not acknowledged/referenced others’ work appropriately, then this should

If you come across any irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics do let the journal know. For example, you may have concerns that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, or you may notice substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article. In the case of these or any other ethical concerns, contact the editor directly and do not attempt to investigate on your own. It is appropriate to cooperate, in confidence, with the journal, but not to personally investigate further unless the journal asks for additional information or advice.

TRANSFERABILITY OF PEER REVIEW:

Publishers may have policies related to transferring peer reviews to other journals in the publisher’s portfolio (sometimes referred to as portable or cascading peer review). Reviewers may be asked to give permission for the transfer of their reviews if that is journal policy. If a manuscript is rejected from one journal and submitted to another, and you are asked to review that same manuscript, you should be prepared to review the manuscript afresh as it may have changed between the two submissions and the journal’s criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different. In the interests of transparency and efficiency it may be appropriate to provide your original review for the new journal (with permission to do so from the original journal), explaining that you had reviewed the submission previously and noting any changes.

SUITABILITY AND RAPIDITY:

The Reviewers should:

Inform the Editor, if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review and s/he should inform the Editor immediately after receiving a request.
Be responsible to act promptly and submit review report on time.
Immediately inform the Editor of any possible delays and suggest another date of submission for a review report, and
Not unnecessarily delay the review process, either by prolonged delay in submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional data/information from the Editor or author(s).

STANDARDS OF OBJECTIVITY:

The reviews should be objectively carried out with a consideration of high academic, scholarly and scientific standards.
All judgments should be meticulously established and maintained in order to ensure the full comprehension of the reviewer’s comments by the editors and the author(s).
Both reviewers and author(s) in rebuttal should avoid unsupported assertions,
The reviewer may justifiably criticize a manuscript but it would be inappropriate to resort to personal criticism on the author(s), and
The reviewers should ensure that their decision is purely based on the quality of the research paper and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual bias.

DISCLOSURE AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

A reviewer should not, for the purpose of his/her own research, use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript, without the approval of the Editor.
The data included in the research paper is confidential and the reviewer shall not be allowed to use if for his/her personal study,
A reviewer must declare any potentially conflicting interests (e.g. personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious). In such situation, s/he will be required to follow the journal’s policies.
A reviewer should be honest enough to declare conflicts of interest, if, the research paper under review is the same as to his/her presently conducted study.
If the reviewer feels unqualified to separate his/her bias, s/he should immediately return the manuscript to the Editor without review, and justify to him/her about the situation.
Without the prior approval of the Editor.
then this should be brought in the Editor’s knowledge.

CONTENT QUALITY AND ORIGINALITY:

Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication?
Does the article adhere to the journal’s standards?
Is the research question an important one?
In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in?
Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field?

You might wish to do a quick literature search using tools such as Scopus to see if there are any reviews of the area. If the research has been covered previously, pass on references of those works to the editor. As for as evaluating originality, the reviewers should consider the following elements:

? Does the research paper add to existing knowledge?

? Are the research questions and/or hypotheses in line with the objective of the research work?

ORGANIZATION AND CLARITY:

Title: Does it clearly describe the article?

Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?

Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what other authors’ findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis and the general experimental design or method.

Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?

Results: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

PREPARING A REPORT

FORMAT:

Follow journal’s instructions for writing and posting the review. If a particular format or scoring rubric is required, use the tools supplied by the journal. Be objective and constructive in your review, providing feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. For example, be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements, to help editors in their evaluation. Be professional and refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.

APPROPRIATE FEEDBACK:

Bear in mind that the editor requires a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Most journals allow reviewers to provide confidential comments to the editor as well as comments to be read by the authors. The journal may also ask for a recommendation to accept/revise/reject; any recommendation should be congruent with the comments provided in the review. If you have not reviewed the whole manuscript, do indicate which aspects of the manuscript you have assessed. Ensure your comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with your report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report that the authors will see. Confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see your comments.

LANGUAGE AND STYLE:

Remember it is the authors’ paper, so do not attempt to rewrite it to your own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important. In addition, be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their first or most proficient language, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER WORK:

It is the job of the peer reviewer to comment on the quality and rigor of the work they receive. If the work is not clear because of missing analyses, the reviewer should comment and explain what additional analyses would clarify the work submitted. It is not the job of the reviewer to extend the work beyond its current scope. Be clear which (if any) suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

ACCOUNTABILITY:

Prepare the report by yourself, unless you have permission from the journal to involve another person. Refrain from making unfair negative comments or including unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript. Refrain from suggesting that authors include citations to your (or an associate’s) work merely to increase citation counts or to enhance the visibility of your or your associate’s work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons. Do not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of your review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.

– JRCRS Sponsor & Partnership policy:

Main sponsor: Faculty of Rehabilitation & Allied health Sciences, Riphah International University, Pakistan: https://www.riphah.edu.pk/

Sources of Support:
Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, Pakistan: Higher Education Commission (HEC), Islamabad.

Annual Subscription of Printed Journal:

Online access to full text is free to all readers. JRCRS is published on controlled circulation basis and distributed among the faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences and all Physical Therapy Colleges of Pakistan. Limited number of complimentary copies are sent to HEC, universities, medical colleges, libraries and general practitioners of Pakistan.

Reprint services for authors and are available for those requiring professional quality reproductions of articles. Reprints are produced from the final PDF of the article.

Annual subscription of print form of JRCRS for the institutions/individuals: FREE in Pakistan. For Oversea: Request for quotation.

For this, Please contact: [email protected]

Note: All subscription request will be evaluated, editor has the full right to subscribe it or any discontinuation.

– Language of JRCRS content and What Editor Wants:

English Language?

It is the language scientists used among different countries in the world use to communicate with each other, publishing in English allows you to increase the possible audience. This will help you achieve the goal that led you to publish in the first place: To add to our understanding and readable to the world by informing other scientists about your research.

What Editor Wants:

Following things editor wants that research should be :

Grammarly well written and in simple professional language which describes research that advances the field,
document should be prepared carefully and
formatted according to journal guidelines and
must follows ethical standards.

JRCRS Open Access Copyrights/licensed Policy:
The work published by JRCRS is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). Copyrights on any open access article published by Journal Riphah college of Rehabilitation Science (JRCRS) are retained by the author(s). Authors retain the rights of free downloading/unlimited e-print of full text and sharing/disseminating the article without any restriction, by any means; provided the article is correctly cited.