Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

 

Publication Ethics

Publication decisions

The choice of which of the submitted articles will be published rests with the editors. contributions will be judged by the editors irrespective of the author’s race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic background, or political beliefs. The decision of the editors to approve or reject an article for publishing should solely be based on the significance, uniqueness, and clarity of the work, as well as the study’s applicability to the journal’s objectives. It’s also important to consider any applicable laws pertaining to plagiarism, copyright violations, and libel. Selected reviewers’ professional judgments served as the foundation for this conclusion.

Confidentiality

Only the associated author, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher may get information about a submitted contribution from the editors and all editorial staff. Editors will ensure that submitted material is kept confidential during the screening process.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

The publisher or editorial board members may not exploit unpublished material provided in a submitted article for their own study without the express written approval of the author. Editors’ access to original material, ideas, or information throughout the editing process will be kept private and will not be utilized for their own gain. Editors who have competing, cooperative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers will not edit those papers; instead, they will ask another editorial board member to edit the paper or decline to accept it if the conflict of interest remains unresolved.

Peer review process

Every paper goes through a peer review procedure with two reviewers. An article may be rejected outright by the editor if it is clearly of such low quality that it cannot be considered for peer review, or if it does not address the topic of the conference.
After an item is deemed eligible for evaluation, experts in the relevant subject are notified. Reviewers are requested to classify the article as instantly publishable, publishable with minor modifications and enhancements, or publishable with significant modifications and enhancements (a further review is required in this instance).

Only during a second review procedure, in which the author has had a chance to incorporate the reviewers’ feedback from the first review, may the reviewers declare the work unpublishable. Every evaluation provided by the reviewers includes a clear suggestion for what should be done with the manuscript. The author receives the reviewers’ remarks when the procedure is complete. Editors need to be ready to defend any significant departure from the stated process. Editors ought not to overturn publishing choices until grave issues are detected.

Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

In situations when research misconduct, fraudulent publishing, or plagiarism is reported or verified, the editor will take all necessary action to address the issue and make the relevant changes to the article. When research misconduct occurs, the editor will take appropriate action to find the articles and stop them from being published. Under no circumstances will the editor condone or knowingly permit research misconduct to occur.

Archiving and access to the Conference

Access to conference proceeding content is committed to the permanent availability of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive.

 

Reviewers Responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review facilitates communication between editors and authors, which helps the editors make judgments and help the authors better their work. The foundation of the scientific process and a crucial component of formal scientific communication are peer reviews. Reviewers are requested to follow proper peer review procedures, treat authors and their work with respect, and report on ethical concerns and deviations from acceptable scientific practice.

Promptness

In order for a decision to be made on how to proceed, any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to evaluate a paper, is not in a position to examine a paper, or is aware that a speedy review is not feasible, should notify the editors.

 

Confidentiality

All documents that are received for evaluation need to be handled with confidentiality. They may only be seen or discussed with others with the editor’s permission. Reviewers are not permitted to utilize unpublished material from a submitted article for their own study without the original authors’ consent in writing. Ideas or privileged information that have undergone peer review must be kept private and cannot be used for personal gain.

 

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Reviewers are not permitted to utilize unpublished material from a submitted manuscript for their own study without the authors’ express written agreement. Ideas or privileged information that are acquired via the review process must be kept private and not exploited for personal gain. It is not appropriate for reviewers to work on articles if they have a conflict of interest due to partnerships, competing ties, or other connections with any of the authors, organizations, or businesses connected to the papers.

 

Standards of objectivity

Reviews need to be carried out impartially. Any kind of personal criticism is improper. Reviewers ought to clearly state their opinions and provide evidence to back them up. Before accepting to evaluate a paper, reviewers must get in touch with the editors if they have any possible conflicts of interest because of cooperative, competitive, or other ties with any of the authors, businesses, or organizations connected to the work.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers ought to draw attention to instances in which pertinent published work that is mentioned in the article but is not referenced in the reference section. They ought to draw attention to whether or not conclusions and observations drawn from other works are properly referenced. Reviewers notify the editors of any noteworthy parallels or overlaps that they personally know exist between the work being reviewed and another published publication.

 

Authors Responsibilities

Reporting standards

Contributors ought to give a precise account of the work completed and a dispassionate analysis of its importance. The article should correctly present the underlying data. A paper should include enough information and citations so that other people may duplicate the work. It is unprofessional and immoral to provide false or intentionally erroneous information. It is the authors’ responsibility to make sure that their work is true and suitable from a scientific standpoint. Articles have to be factual and impartial.

 

Data access and retention

When submitting a paper for editorial review, authors may be asked to submit the raw data of their research. In such cases, they should be prepared to retain the data for a minimum of ten years following publication, preferably through an institutional or subject-based data repository, and to make the data available to the public when feasible.

Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources

The authors pledge to submit only fully original works and to properly credit other people’s writings and/or ideas. In addition, authors ought to reference works that have influenced their understanding of the submitted work. Any form of plagiarism is prohibited and represents unethical publication practices. Others’ contributions must always be duly acknowledged. Without the source’s express written consent, information received in private conversations, letters, or interactions with other parties may not be utilized or shared. It is forbidden to exploit information acquired via private services, including peer review of papers, without the express written consent of the author of the work that is part of those services.

 

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

An author shouldn’t write articles summarizing essentially the same study in many journals or major publications. Sending the same work to many journals without properly citing it is considered unethical publishing practice. It is not permitted to submit work that has already been published under copyright anywhere else. Furthermore, manuscripts that undergo peer review in the journal need not to be resubmitted to periodicals protected by copyright. An author shouldn’t send a work that has already been published for review to another journal.
The writers retain copyright, allowing them to choose whether or not to reprint their work. Nonetheless, the second publication needs to reference the prior one.

Authorship of the paper

Only individuals who have significantly influenced the idea, planning, execution, or interpretation of the submitted work should be able to claim authorship. As co-authors, everyone who has contributed significantly needs to be mentioned. The corresponding author makes sure that all co-authors have contributed and that no unaffiliated individuals are included among the authors. They also make sure that all co-authors have approved the final version of the work and given their approval for its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any financial or other significant conflicts of interest that may be interpreted as affecting the findings or interpretation of the article should be declared by all authors in their manuscript. Disclosure of all funding sources for the project is required. As soon as feasible, such conflicts of interest should be declared. The identity of the research’s financiers and their involvement in the study should be disclosed to the readers.

Peer Review

It is mandatory for all authors to engage in the peer review process and provide their complete cooperation by quickly answering inquiries from editors on raw data, clarifications, and copyright clearances. If an initial “revision required” judgment is made, authors should modify their paper and resubmit it within the submission deadline after responding methodically, item by item, and immediately to reviewers’ remarks.

 Fundamental errors in published works

An author has an obligation to promptly tell the journal’s editor or publisher of any serious errors or inaccuracies found in their published work. They also have an obligation to assist with the withdrawal of the work or its correction in the form of an erratum. The author is required to remove or amend the published work right away or to give the editor documentation attesting to the correctness of the original work if the editor or publisher discovers through a third party that a work includes a substantial error and notifies the author of this.