Ethical Statements

Authors

  • Authors are required to guarantee the originality, free from plagiarism, and non-publication of their submitted work in any other source.
  • Intentionally fraudulent or deceptive claims are considered unlawful and are not acceptable.
  • Involving in the act of concurrently submitting the same manuscript to numerous journals is considered unethical conduct in the field of publishing and is not deemed acceptable.
  • Authors are required to engage in the process of peer review. All authors mentioned in the paper must have made substantial contributions to the research.
  • The corresponding author has to ensure that all co-authors fully agree to the final version of the manuscript and its submission for publication.
  • Authors are required to present their findings in a transparent and truthful manner, refraining from any form of fraud, deception, or unlawful modifying of data.
  • Authors should ensure that they include comprehensive information about the methodology and references in order to enable others to reproduce the research.
  • Authors are required to inform the editors about any conflicts of interest.
  • Authors are required to disclose the funding sources for the research mentioned in the publication.
  • When an author finds a significant mistake or inaccuracy in a published article, it is their responsibility to immediately inform the journal editor or publisher and work along with the editor to correct or correct the publication.

Editors

  • The Editors have the responsibility to determine which articles submitted to the journal should be published.
  • The Editors are prohibited from disclosing any details regarding a submitted manuscript to anybody other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as deemed appropriate.
  • Manuscripts are assessed by editors solely based on their academic merit, including factors such as importance, originality, validity of the study, and clarity. The relevance of the paper to the journal's scope is also taken into consideration.
  • Editors have the responsibility of ensuring the accuracy and general excellence of the publication.
  • The editors assure that all articles submitted for publication undergo a thorough peer-review process, involving evaluation by at least two competent reviewers in the appropriate subject matter.
  • An editor should not use unpublished information in their own research without first obtaining the author's express written consent.
  • Editors are required to maintain reviewer confidentiality.
  • Editors should not reject articles based on suspicions; instead, they should require concrete evidence of misconduct.
  • Editors must ensure that all research material they publish conforms to accepted ethical criteria.
  • Editors should investigate possible misconduct, whether a work has been published or not, and try to resolve it.
  • Editors should consistently prioritize the requirements of both the authors and reviewers when working to improve a publication.

Reviewer

The reviewer offers scientific expertise on copyrighted content to evaluate the quality of the submitted article and verify its adherence to scientific, literary, and ethical criteria. When evaluating the article, the reviewer must maintain neutrality and agree to the following principles:

  • Expert evaluation is intended to assist the author to improve the text's quality and assist the editor-in-chief in making a decision regarding publication.
  • If the reviewer lacks expertise in the subject matter of the article or is unable to provide a timely assessment, they should inform the editor-in-chief and decline the review.
  • The reviewer must not have any involvement as the author or co-author of the work being reviewed. This also applicable to supervisors of candidates pursuing a scientific degree and/or personnel of the department in which the author is employed.
  • Any manuscripts provided to an expert by the editors for evaluation shall be considered a confidential document. It is not permissible to discuss it with anyone other than the individuals specified above.
  • The reviewer must maintain honesty. Making personal remarks towards the author in the review are considered improper. The reviewer must convey their perspectives with clarity and rationality.
  • The reviewer is required to identify previously published papers that are relevant to the articles being assessed, but have not been referenced by the author. Any statement in the review that certain findings, conclusions, or arguments in the reviewed paper have been previously mentioned in literature must be followed by a precise bibliographic citation to the source. The reviewer should also inform the chief editor about any substantial overlap or resemblance between the evaluated article and any previously published work.
  • If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, authorship issues, or data fabricated, they should inform the editorial board and propose that the author's manuscript be collectively reviewed.
  • The reviewer should provide a fair evaluation of the appropriateness of citation of published papers in the existing body of literature pertaining to the specified topic.
  • The reviewer must adhere to the principle of confidentiality and refrain from utilising the material and ideas offered in the article for personal benefit.
  • The reviewer will decline to evaluate submissions if there is a conflict of interest arising from rivalry, collaboration, or any other relationship with the authors or institutions associated with the publication.