Publication Ethics

Journal publication reflects the articles' quality of authors and their institutions. A blind-review process produces it can support and realize a scientific approach. Therefore, an ethical standard is required for all parties involved in the publication (editors, peer reviewers, and authors).

This ethical guideline is adopted from Elsevier (https://www.elsevier.com). 

Ethical Standards For Editors

1. Publication Decision

The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which articles will be published from the received articles. This decision is based on its article's validation and contribution to researchers and readers. In carrying out its duties, the editor-in-chief is based on the editorial board's policies and provisions of prevailing laws and regulations, such as defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief may discuss decision-making with other editors or peer reviewers.

2. Peer Review Process

The editor-in-chief must ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. At least two independent peer reviewers will review the article; if necessary, the editor should seek other opinions. The editorial board will select relevant peer reviewers with relevant expertise in relevant sciences and must follow best practices to avoid selecting fake peer reviewers. The board of editors will review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by peer reviewers in determining whether there is a potential for bias.

3. Objective Assessment

The board of editors determines a manuscript based on its intellectual content without discrimination in religion, ethnic origin, gender, or nation.

4. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

The editorial team will not disclose any information about the received manuscript to anyone other than the author and reviewer. The editorial boards will protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with any peer reviewers and related parties unless the author and the relevant peer reviewers agree. In exceptional circumstances and in consultation with the publisher, the editorial team may share information in limited with other journal editors deemed necessary to investigate alleged research errors.

Research materials (data and research instruments.) contained in unpublished manuscripts must not be used in editorial team research without the author's written consent. Detailed information or ideas obtained by peer review must be confidential and not used for personal advantage.

An editorial board member should refuse to review a manuscript if the editor has a conflict of interest due to a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship with the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript.

5. Vigilance over the Published Record

An editor presented with convincing evidence of misconduct should coordinate with the publisher to arrange the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other correction to the record, as may be relevant.

 

Ethical Standards For Peer Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decision

Peer reviewers' peer review process assists the editor-in-chief in editorial decision-making. Peer review is an essential component of formal scientific communication and scientific approach.

If the assigned reviewer feels unqualified for a manuscript review or knows it is impossible to review on time, the assigned reviewer should notify the editorial team immediately.

2. Confidentiality

Any received manuscripts for review must be confidential documents. The peer reviewers must not show or discuss their results with others without the permission of the editorial team.

The peer reviewers must have the author's written consent if they want to use research materials (data or research instruments) contained in unpublished manuscripts.

3. Awareness of Ethical Issues

Peer reviewers should identify scientific articles which the author has not cited. The peer reviewers should notify the editorial team of substantial or overlapping similarities between a manuscript with other published articles, according to the peer reviewers' knowledge. Relevant citations should accompany any statements about observations or arguments published previously.

4. Standards of Objectivity and Conflict of Interest

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Peer reviewers should realize self subjectivity which may arise in manuscript reviewing. The peer reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Suppose peer reviewers suggest the author (in the articles he reviewed) include their articles (or colleagues). In that case, it should be based on scientific reasons and not aim to increase the number of citations or the visibility of their work.

 

Ethical Standards For Authors

1. Reporting Standards

The author should present an accurate research report, objective analysis, and discussion of its significance. Research data should be presented accurately in the manuscript. The manuscript should have adequate references to allow others to replicate the scientific work. Fraudulent or inaccurate manuscript presentations are unethical and unacceptable behaviour.

2. Data Access

Authors may be asked to provide data supporting their paper for review. The author may provide public access to such data if possible and should be able to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

3. Originality and Plagiarism

The authors should ensure their scientific work is original, and if the author has used the works or words of others, it has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all forms is unethical in scientific works publication and is unacceptable. There are various forms of plagiarism, such as acknowledging another's paper as the author's own, copying or rewriting substantial parts of another's work without mentioning the source, and claiming another's work.

4. Terms of Submission

Authors may not publish the same article in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal or primary publication is unacceptable and concurrently unacceptable.

5. Authorship of Manuscripts

Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the research's conception, design, implementation, or interpretation. All persons who have made substantial contributions must register as co-authors. If others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research (e.g. editing the language), they are only listed in the acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that co-authors have read and approved the final version and have agreed to its submission for publication.

6. Hazards and Human Research Objects

If the research involves a human object, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement explaining that all procedures are appropriate with relevant laws and have been approved by the relevant institution. The privacy rights of the human object must always be observed, and approvals, permissions, and statements must be obtained where the author wishes to include case details or other personal information in the manuscript. The author should retain the written consent; if the journal requests, the author must provide the agreement copy.

7. Errors in Published Works

When the author finds significant errors or inaccuracies in his/her published work, the author must notify the journal editorial team and work together with the editorial team to retrieve or correct the manuscript immediately. Suppose the editorial team obtains information from third parties that the published manuscript contains errors. In that case, the author must withdraw or refine the manuscript or provide evidence of the manuscript's accuracy to the editorial team.