Publication Ethics

• Editors evaluate manuscripts solely on their intellectual and scientific merit, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, religion, citizenship, or institutional affiliation.
• Editors ensure a fair, unbiased, and timely peer review process for every submission.
• Editors maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and do not disclose information to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and editorial board members.
• Editors do not use unpublished material from a submitted manuscript for their own research without the explicit written consent of the author.
• Editors take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of manuscripts involving research misconduct, and act promptly on ethics concerns raised about a submitted or published paper.

2.1 Originality and plagiarism — Submitted manuscripts must be entirely original work. Where the work or words of others have been used, this must be appropriately cited or quoted. All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism-detection software prior to peer review. A similarity index above 15% (excluding references, quotations, and common phrases) is generally not acceptable and may result in rejection or a request for revision.

2.2 Data access and retention — Authors may be required to provide the raw data associated with a manuscript for editorial review, and must retain such data for a reasonable period after publication.

2.3 Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication — Authors must not submit the same manuscript, or substantially similar manuscripts, to more than one journal concurrently. Publishing the same research in more than one journal is considered unethical and unacceptable.

2.4 Authorship of the paper — Authorship is limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All those who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors, and all co-authors must have seen and approved the final version and agreed to its submission. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring all appropriate co-authors are included and that no inappropriate co-authors are included.

2.5 Disclosure and conflicts of interest — Authors must disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that could influence the results or interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed in the Funding section.

2.6 Fundamental errors in published work — When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, they are obligated to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate to correct or retract the paper.

• Reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and may also assist authors in improving their manuscript through the editorial communications.
• Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document and must not be shown to or discussed with others without editorial authorization.
• Reviews should be conducted objectively, with observations formulated clearly and supported by argument; personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
• Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by the authors and alert the editor to any substantial similarity between the manuscript and any other published work of which they are aware.
• Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
• Reviewers who have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors should decline to review the manuscript.

Attribution of authorship should be based on the following four criteria, consistent with ICMJE recommendations:

• Substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
• Final approval of the version to be published; and
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet all four criteria (e.g. general supervision, funding acquisition, or technical assistance) should be listed in the Acknowledgements section instead.

All authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, personal, or professional relationships that could be perceived to influence, or that could reasonably be perceived by others as influencing, their work. Examples include:

• Direct or indirect financial support for the reported research
• Employment, consultancy, or advisory roles with organizations that could benefit from the research
• Personal relationships with individuals involved in the review or editorial process

Where no conflict exists, authors should include the statement: “The authors declare no conflict of interest.”

Allegations of research misconduct — including but not limited to data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and duplicate publication — will be investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines. This may involve:

• Requesting an explanation from the author(s) in question
• Consulting the author’s institution or funding body, where appropriate
• Issuing a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, as warranted by the outcome of the investigation

8.1 Corrections — Minor errors that do not affect the overall results or conclusions of a published article (e.g. typographical errors, minor data omissions) will be addressed through a formal erratum/corrigendum, linked to the original article.

8.2 Retractions — Articles may be retracted if there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct or honest error; the findings have been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification; or it constitutes plagiarism or reports unethical research. Retracted articles are not removed from the journal archive; they remain accessible but are clearly marked as “Retracted,” along with the reason and date of retraction, in line with standard scholarly practice.