Publications Ethics

Ethics Statement & Publication Malpractice Statement

Our Publication Ethics are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Fill This Publication Ethics Before Published

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Requirements:Authors must provide an accurate account of the original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers must present their findings honestly, without fabrication, falsification, or improper data manipulation. A manuscript should include enough detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unethical and must be avoided. Manuscripts should adhere to the journal's submission guidelines.
  2. Plagiarism and originality:Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. Unless the editors have agreed to co-publication, the manuscript should not be submitted to more than one publication at the same time. Previous research and publications, both by other researchers and by the authors, should be appropriately acknowledged and referenced. Wherever possible, the primary literature should be cited. Original wording taken directly from other researchers' publications should be surrounded by quotation marks and accompanied by appropriate citations.
  3. Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publications:In general, the author should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. The author is also expected not to publish duplicate manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior. Multiple publications resulting from a single research project must be clearly identified as such, and the primary publication must be cited.
  4. Authors should acknowledge all data sources used in the research and cite publications that were influential in determining the nature of the reported work. It is always necessary to properly acknowledge the work of others.
  5. Authorship of the Paper: Individual contributions to the work and its reporting should be accurately reflected in the authorship of research publications. Authorship should be limited to those who made a significant contribution to the study's conception, design, execution, or interpretation. Others who have contributed significantly must be listed as co-authors. When major contributors are listed as authors, those who made less significant, or purely technical, contributions to the research or publication are listed in an acknowledgment section. Authors also ensure that all authors have seen and agreed to the manuscript's submitted version, as well as their inclusion of names as co-authors.
  6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:All authors should clearly disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that could be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript in their manuscript. All sources of funding for the project should be disclosed.
  7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, he or she should notify the journal editor or publisher immediately and work with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author should clearly state this in the manuscript.

 Duties of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality: Authors' manuscript submission information should be kept confidential and treated as privileged information. They must not be shown or discussed with anyone else unless specifically authorized by the editor.
  2. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that the authors have acknowledged all data sources used in the study. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any claim that an observation, derivation, or argument has previously been reported should be accompanied by a citation. If reviewers discover any irregularities, have concerns about the ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript, they should notify the journal immediately; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally inveigh on them.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: The review of submitted manuscripts must be objective, and reviewers must express their opinions clearly and with supporting arguments. Unless there are compelling reasons not to, reviewers should follow the journal's instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them. The reviewers should be constructive in their feedback and provide suggestions to help the authors improve their manuscript. The reviewer should specify which suggested additional investigations are required to back up the claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will simply strengthen or extend the work.
  4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:Confidential information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept private and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have competing, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers. Confidential information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept private and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have competing, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers.

Promptness: Reviewers must respond within a reasonable time frame. Reviewers will only agree to review a manuscript if they are reasonably confident they will be able to return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed-upon time frame, informing the journal promptly if an extension is required. If a reviewer believes he or she will be unable to complete a review of the manuscript within the time frame specified, this information must be communicated to the editor so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.