Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Our commitment to ethical standards is grounded in the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors outlined by COPE.

Decision-making in Publication

The responsibility for determining the articles suitable for publication lies with the editor. The editor's decisions are influenced by the journal's editorial board policies and compliance with legal obligations concerning defamation, copyright violations, and plagiarism. Consultation with other editors or reviewers may aid the decision-making process.

Equitable Treatment

The evaluation of manuscripts by editors focuses solely on intellectual content, disregarding factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political affiliations of the authors.

Maintaining Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff are obligated to keep information about submitted manuscripts confidential, sharing it only with the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher, as deemed appropriate.

Conflicts of Interest

Any unpublished materials revealed in a submitted manuscript must not be utilized in the editor's own research without explicit written consent from the author.

 

Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer reviews aid editors in making decisions and offer authors insights for paper improvement during the editorial communication process.

Timely Review

Referees unable to promptly review a manuscript or feeling unqualified to assess the research should inform the editor and recuse themselves from the review process.

Maintaining Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat received manuscripts as confidential and refrain from sharing or discussing them without the editor's authorization.

Objective Review Standards

Reviews should be conducted objectively, avoiding personal criticism of the author. Referees are encouraged to express their opinions clearly, supported by sound arguments.

Acknowledging Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant unpublished work not cited by the authors and report any observed similarities between the manuscript under review and other papers known to them.

Conflicts of Interest

Information obtained through peer review is confidential and must not be exploited for personal gain. Reviewers should avoid assessing manuscripts involving conflicts of interest with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers.

 

Author Responsibilities

Reporting Standards

Authors must present accurate accounts of original research, ensuring accurate representation of underlying data. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are considered ethically unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors are responsible for submitting entirely original works. Proper citation or quoting is essential when using others' work or words.

Publication Integrity

Authors should not submit manuscripts describing identical research to multiple journals concurrently. Multiple, redundant, or simultaneous publications are considered unethical.

Citing Sources

Proper acknowledgment of influential publications is essential. Authors must reference works that have shaped their research.

Authorship Criteria

Authorship should be limited to those contributing significantly to the study's conception, design, execution, or interpretation. All significant contributors must be listed as co-authors.

Informed Consent

Authors must transparently report data acquisition and human study informed consent details, complying with national legislation. A written informed consent must be obtained during the research survey.

Animal Research

Research must not cause undue harm to animals. Details on animal data acquisition should be provided, allowing editors to assess if the research involved cruelty to animals.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose financial or substantive conflicts of interest in their manuscripts, potentially influencing the results or interpretation.

Addressing Errors

Authors are obliged to promptly inform the editor of significant errors in their published work and cooperate in retractions or corrections.

 

Post-Publication

Discussions

We recognize the importance of fostering a constructive academic dialogue after publication. Authors are encouraged to engage in discussions arising from their work, responding promptly and transparently to queries or critiques raised by the scholarly community.

Corrections

If errors, inaccuracies, or omissions are identified in a published work, authors are obligated to promptly notify the editor. Corrections should be made with the same diligence and transparency applied during the initial submission and review process. Editors will consider the nature of the correction and, if necessary, publish a correction notice.

Retractions

In cases where significant errors or ethical concerns compromise the validity or integrity of a published work, authors must cooperate fully with the editor to issue a retraction. Retractions will be considered if there is evidence of misconduct, data fabrication, or other serious ethical lapses. The decision to retract a publication will be made transparently, and a retraction notice will be published promptly.

Reviewers' Role in Post-Publication Discussions, Corrections, and Retractions

Reviewers who become aware of post-publication issues, errors, or ethical concerns have a responsibility to inform the editor promptly. They should maintain confidentiality during the investigation process and contribute to the fair and impartial resolution of such matters.

Editors' Commitment

Editors will handle post-publication discussions, corrections, and retractions with the same dedication to ethical standards as they do in the pre-publication phase. Transparency, fairness, and open communication are paramount in addressing any issues that may arise after a work has been published