Publication Ethics

For Author:

1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate representation of data constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable. Manuscripts should adhere to the journal's submission guidelines.
2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. Manuscripts should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publisher unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors' own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. Primary literature should be cited whenever possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear within quotation marks in accordance with standard citation practices.
3. Duplicate, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: In general, authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such, and the primary publication should be cited.
4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors must acknowledge all sources of data used in the research by citing them. Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be made in all written work.
5. Authorship of Scientific Work: Authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals' contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The author also ensures that all co-authors have seen and approved the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion as co-authors.
6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors must clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors must clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

For Editor:

1. Publication Decisions: Based on the reviewers' reports, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published work.
2. Manuscript Review: The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality and suitability to the journal's scope. The editor must conduct the peer review process fairly and impartially. The editor should explain the peer review process in the information provided to authors. The editor should conduct appropriate peer review of manuscripts considered for publication by selecting people with appropriate expertise and taking care to avoid those with conflicts of interest.
3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors.
4. Confidentiality: Editors must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and author confidentiality.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: The Journal editor will not use unintentionally published materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript without the express written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest.

For Reviewers:

1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors must be kept confidential. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
2. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work referred to by the authors. Reviewers should notify the editor promptly if they discover any irregularities, potential breaches of publication ethics, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or published work, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript.
3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts should be conducted objectively, and reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should follow the journal's instructions regarding the specific feedback required of them, unless there are compelling reasons not to do so. Reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors improve their manuscript. Reviewers should make clear which suggested additional studies are essential to support the claims made in the manuscript under consideration.
4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Information or ideas obtained specifically through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
5. Punctuality: Reviewers must respond within a reasonable timeframe in accordance with the established policy. Reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are reasonably confident they can return the review within the proposed or mutually agreed timeframe, and inform the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is impossible for them to complete the review within the stipulated timeframe, they must communicate with the editor so that the manuscript can be sent to the reviewer.