The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. Ethical standards are crucial to ensure the high quality of scientific publications, credibility of scientific findings, and that authors receive credit for their work. The details of publication ethics incorporated in the journal are as follows:


For Publisher

1. The publisher must not disclose any information about manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers as appropriate. In the case of a misconduct investigation, the editor-in-chief may disclose material to third parties (e.g., an institutional investigation committee or other editors). 

2. The editorial should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

3. The Editorial stuff must communicate journal policies to authors, readers and peer reviewers and review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE .


For Authors

1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

2. All authors must guarantee that the manuscript is not being considered by another journal and has not been published elsewhere. Once an article submitted to the journal, the author should wait for 3 months for the final result. Submission of the same manuscript in this period to the other journal is not ethical and the submission will be rejected.

3. Withdrawal of manuscript from the publication process is possible within a few days after submission and it is unacceptable in advanced stage of the editorial process, when peer reviews are near to completion, or accepted for publication.

4. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

5. Corresponding author should be mentioned in manuscript.

6. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her 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.


For Reviewers

1. Reviewers should Respond in reasonable time frame, especially if they cannot do the review, and without intentional delay.

2. Reviewers should Declare if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review or it they are able to assess only part of the manuscript, outlining clearly the area for which they have the relevant expertise.

3. Reviewers should Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal.

4. Reviewers should Decline to review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review.

Reviewers should Decline to review if they have been involved with any of the work in the manuscript of its reporting.

5. Reviewers should not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.

6. Reviewers should not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.

7. Reviewers should not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, including junior researchers they are mentoring, without first obtaining permission from the journal; the names of any individuals who have helped them with the review should be included with the returned review so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due credit for their efforts.

8. Reviewers should Contact the journal if circumstances arise that will prevent them from submitting a timely review, providing an accurate estimate of the time they will need to do a review if still asked to do so.

9. In the case of double-blind review, if reviewers suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.

10. Reviewers should be specific in their criticisms, and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements such as, ‘this work has been done before’, to help editors in their evaluation and decision and in fairness to the authors. suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important.


For Editors

1. The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.

2. They should suggest strategies to improve the quality of articles.

3. Editor should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.

4. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them. This duty extend to both published and unpublished paper.

5. Editorial decisions should not be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors.