Publication Ethics

Ensuring the highest standards of publication ethics is of utmost importance to our journal. We adhere to the ethical guidelines and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics 

(COPE- https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines) to ensure the integrity and reliability of our published research.

The article publication process of journal typically follows the following steps:

• Manuscript Submission: Using the journal's online submission system, the author submits the manuscript along with any required parts, including the abstract, main text references, figures, and tables.• Editorial Assessment: The chief editor or an associate editor will review the manuscript to make sure it satisfies the goals and scope of the journal as well as the fundamental requirements for high-quality writing and research. The manuscript may be desk-rejected, meaning it won't be sent out for peer review, if it doesn't meet these requirements.

• Peer Review: Should the manuscript clear the editorial screening, it will be forwarded to a minimum of two impartial specialists in the pertinent field for review. Reviewers will offer a comprehensive analysis of the manuscript's merits and faults, along with a recommendation for approval, disapproval, or modification.• Author Revision: The author may be asked to make changes to the manuscript in response to the reviewers' observations and concerns based on the feedback from the peer review process. This could entail revising passages of the manuscript, reanalyzing data, or offering more details.

• Final Decision: The editor-in-chief or associate editor will decide ultimately whether to accept, reject, or request additional revisions after the author submits a revised manuscript. The editor's evaluation of the manuscript and the reviewers' comments together form the basis for this decision. • Production: The journal's production team will receive the manuscript for copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading if it is accepted for publication. Prior to publication, the author will also have the chance to check and approve the manuscript's final draft.

• Publication: The manuscript will appear in the print and/or online edition of the journal after it has been polished and given the author's approval. Normally, an online link to the published article and a copy of the paper are sent to the author.

The Peer review process and journal decision:

The peer review process is an essential step in publishing research in the journals. Here is an overview of the review process for journal using:

• First Check: The manuscript is first reviewed by the journal editor to make sure it complies with the format and scope guidelines. The manuscript will move on to the next phase if it passes this inspection.

• Peer review: Two or more subject-matter experts in the field receive the manuscript from the editor. These reviewers, who don't reveal their identities to the authors, assess the manuscript and give the editor comments. This feedback will include recommendations for manuscript acceptance or rejection along with revision suggestions.

• Editor's Decision: The editor decides what to do with the manuscript based on the reviewers' comments. The editor may return the manuscript to the author for additional editing and resubmission if the reviewers recommend changes.

Journal decisions can be categorized into four main categories based on the peer review process:

• Accept: After reviewing the manuscript, the editor and reviewers have concluded that it satisfies the journal's ethical, high-quality, and scope requirements. No changes are needed; the manuscript is accepted for publication as is.

• Minor Revisions: After reviewing the manuscript, the editor and reviewers concluded that it has the potential to be published. However, there are a few minor revisions needed to make it clearer, more organized, or use better language. It is requested that the author make a few small changes and submit the work again.

• Major Revisions: After reading the manuscript, the editor and reviewers determined that it needs to be significantly revised in order to enhance its caliber, methodology, or conclusions. It is requested that the author make significant changes and submit the work again for additional evaluation.

• Reject: After reviewing the manuscript, the editor and reviewers concluded that it did not adhere to the journal's ethical, quality, or scope standards. The manuscript has been turned down and won't be appearing in the journal. The author may decide to submit the work to a different publication or to make substantial changes and then submit it again to the same publication.

PUBLISHING ETHICS

The duties for publishers:

• Editorial independence: Publishers must guarantee that editorial choices are made without regard to business interests and that editorial content is not subjected to undue influence. • Peer review: Editors should make sure that reviewers are chosen on the basis of their qualifications and objectivity, and that the process is transparent and objective. • Plagiarism detection: Publishers should look into any concerns or accusations of misconduct and use the proper tools to identify plagiarism and other forms of misconduct. • Data access and retention: Publishers ought to mandate that authors keep accurate and comprehensive records of their studies, including all data, and ought to motivate authors to grant access to these records upon request.

• Ethical standards: Publishers should create and abide by ethical standards for publishing, which should cover how to handle conflicts of interest and how to retract or edit published content. • Copyright and permissions: In addition to upholding authors' and other creators' rights, publishers should make sure authors have all the authorizations required to use content that is protected by copyright. • Openness and transparency: Publishers ought to be forthright about their procedures and policies, such as those pertaining to authorship, data sharing, and peer review. • Publication fees: Publishers must make sure that any costs related to publication are reasonable and do not impede publication. They must also be open and honest about these costs. 

The duties for Editors:

• Editorial independence: Editors must make sure that editorial choices are made without regard to profit and that no undue influence is placed on editorial content. • Peer review: Editors should make sure that reviewers are chosen for the review based on their impartiality and expertise, and that the process is transparent and objective. • Detection of plagiarism: Editors should look into any concerns or accusations of misconduct and utilize the proper tools to identify plagiarism and other types of misconduct. • Conflict of interest: When making editorial decisions, editors should disclose any and all conflicts of interest to the public and refrain from acting on them.

• Data access and retention: editors should make sure that authors keep accurate and comprehensive records of their research, including all data, and they should push authors to grant access to these records upon author request. • Ethical standards: Editors should create and abide by ethical standards for publishing, which should cover retraction or correction of published content as well as how to handle conflicts of interest. • Openness and transparency: Editors should be forthcoming with information regarding their peer review, data sharing, and authorship policies, among other policies and practices. 

• Authorship: Editors should make certain that all persons who have contributed significantly to the study are identified as authors, and that all authors have examined and approved the completed manuscript. • Corrections and retractions: Editors must work with the publisher to issue the necessary corrections or retractions as soon as they find errors in published work, and they must do so promptly. 

The duties for Authors:

• Originality: Unless it's a new edition of a previously published work, authors should make sure their work is original and hasn't been published before, either in whole or in part. • Attribution: Writers must make sure that they give due credit to all sources—both published and unpublished—that they use in their writing. • Data access and retention: When requesting access to their research, authors should make sure that all relevant data is kept up to date and accurate. • Disclosure: Any relevant financial, personal, or interest relationships or conflicts that might be interpreted as influencing the research should be made known by the authors. 

• Plagiarism: Writers must refrain from self-plagiarism as well as plagiarism, which includes republishing or using someone else's work without giving credit. • Conflicts of interest: Financial or personal conflicts of interest should be avoided by authors as they may compromise the objectivity of their work or how it is interpreted. • Ethical approval: When conducting research on humans or animals, authors should get ethical approval and make sure the study complies with all relevant ethical standards. • Authorship: Authors must make sure that all persons who have contributed significantly to the study are identified as authors and that all authors have read and approved the completed manuscript. 

Corrections and retractions: Writers should work with the publisher to issue retractions or corrections as needed, and they should notify the publisher right away if they find errors in their published work.

The duties for Reviewers:

• Confidentiality: Without the editor's consent, reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all of its contents. They may not divulge any information about the manuscript to third parties. • Objectivity and impartiality: Reviewers must assess the manuscript in an unbiased and objective manner, avoiding letting their own prejudices or conflicts of interest affect their judgment. • Constructive criticism: Reviewers ought to point out the manuscript's advantages and disadvantages while offering polite, professional criticism. • Timeliness: Reviewers ought to submit their reviews on time, and if they can't, they ought to let the editor know. 

• Ethical concerns: Reviewers ought to notify the editor of any ethical concerns they may have regarding conflicts of interest, plagiarism, or duplicate publication. • Expertise: Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts that fall outside of their area of expertise if they lack the requisite knowledge to assess the work. • Conflict of interest: If a reviewer has one or more conflicts of interest, they should disclose them and decline to review the manuscript. 

The use of human participants in research:

• Informed consent: Before beginning any research involving human subjects, researchers must get their consent, making sure the subjects are aware of the study's goals, the methods being used, and any possible risks or advantages.• Confidentiality and privacy: Researchers are required to uphold the confidentiality and privacy of all human subjects and make sure that no personal data is shared without the subjects' permission.• Risk assessment: Researchers need to make sure that the possible benefits of their work outweigh any potential risks by evaluating and minimizing the risks involved in their work.• Vulnerable populations: Pregnant women, children, and individuals with disabilities are examples of vulnerable populations whose rights and welfare need to be protected with special attention by researchers.

• Data sharing: Researchers have to make sure that any information gathered from human subjects is only utilized for that purpose and shared in a way that respects the confidentiality and privacy of the subjects.

The use of animal participants in research:

• Animal welfare: Researchers are responsible for making sure that the well-being and ethical treatment of animals utilized in research are safeguarded. • Minimization of harm: In order to meet research goals, researchers must employ the fewest possible animals while also attempting to minimize any pain or suffering that the animals may endure. • Replacement, reduction, refinement: To reduce animal use and suffering, researchers must adhere to the 3Rs framework (replacement, reduction, refinement). • Housing and care: Researchers are required to give animals proper housing and care, including the right kind of food, water, and surroundings. • Ethical review: An institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) must conduct an ethical review and grant approval for any research involving animal participants. 

Plagiarism and Retraction

The submissions to the journal may be screened by plagiarism detection software, and if any instances of plagiarism are detected, the journal will adhere to the plagiarism guidelines set forth by COPE (https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines).

Conflict of Interest

All potential conflicts of interest, including monetary interests, personal connections, institutional affiliations, and intellectual biases, must be disclosed by authors, reviewers, and editors to the journal. In addition, it is necessary for editors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest to their publishers and for reviewers to abstain from reviewing manuscripts when they have one.

Sources:

ELSEVIER, Publishing Ethics, https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/publishing-ethics

COPE, Guidelines, https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines

COPE, Retraction guidelines, https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines