Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

This journal is a peer-reviewed electronic journal dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics. It follows the principles and guidelines outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All parties involved in the publishing process (authors, editors, peer reviewers, and publisher) must agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior. The editorial management and workflow of the journal are fully integrated with the COPE Core Practices to ensure transparency and accountability.

1. Duties of Editors

  • Publication Decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions.
  • Fair Play: An editor will evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  • Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  • Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

2. Duties of Reviewers

  • Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
  • Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.
  • Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  • Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

3. Duties of Authors

  • Reporting Standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper.
  • Data Access and Retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data if practicable.
  • Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted.
  • Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior.
  • Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
  • Fundamental Errors in Published Works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

4. Handling Cases of Misconduct

Any allegations of research misconduct or publishing malpractice will be systematically investigated in strict accordance with the COPE Publication Ethics Guidelines. In the event of confirmed malpractice, the journal reserves the right to issue corrections, clarifications, retractions, or apologies as appropriate.