Publication Ethics Statement
Author’s Work
1. Author’s article
The author should present an accurate original article about the process of work performed and present an objective discussion. In the article, the data should be displayed accurately. The article must contain enough detail and referrals so others can develop the research. Intentional incorrect or inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable behavior.
2. Access to Data
There are certain conditions, at the request of the editor, the author is asked to give raw data in connection with the review process, the author should be ready to give the editor access to the data
3. Authenticity and Plagiarism
The author must ensure that their work is original entirely, and if the author has used other people’s works and/or words that have been quoted or quoted appropriately.
4. Double Publication
An author should not publish a script that descriptively explains the same research in more than one journal or another publication. Sending the same script to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.
5. Source Recognition
The author must always acknowledge the work that others have made. The author must quote influential publications in determining the nature of the submitted article.
6. About the author of the article
The author’s name listed are limited to those have contributed significantly to the concept, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported research. Everyone who has contributed significantly must be registered as a writer. If other people who have contributed in certain substantive aspects of a research project, they must be recognized or registered as contributors. The author who corresponds with the editor must ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no cp-authors are not appropriately included in the article and that all co-authors have seen and approved the latest article and have agreed to its submission for publication.
7. Conflict of interest
All authors must disclose in their script every financial matter or other substantive conflicts of interest that can be construed to influence the outcome or their interpretation script. All financial support resources for the project must be disclosed.
8. A fundamental mistake in the published work
When an author finds a significant mistake or inaccuracy in his or her own publication, the author’s obligation to notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to pull back or to repair the script.
Editor’s job
1. Justice
An editor always evaluates the script for their intellectual content without regard to the author’s race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, or political flow.
2. Confidentiality
The editor and every editorial staff are forbidden to give any information about the script that submitted to anyone other than the author, the editorial board, and other publishers.
3. Conflict of Interest
Unpublished material written in the submitted script should not be used in the editor’s own research without the written consent of the author
4. Publication Decision
The journal editor is responsible for determining which articles are published. Editors can ask for advice from editorial board journals and tools that exist to overcome copyright infringement and plagiarism. Editors can discuss this with other editors and reviewers to make this decision.
5. Review Script
The editor must ensure that every script is evaluated by the editor related to originality. The editor must organize and use the reviewer fairly and wisely. The editor must explain the peer review process as information for the author and also show which journal sections are reviewed by the reviewer. The editor must use a suitable peer reviewer for articles deemed to be published by selecting people with adequate expertise and avoiding conflicts of interest.
Reviewer’s job
1. Contribution to editorial decision
The reviewer helps the editor in making an editorial decision. Through communication between the editor with the author, the reviewer also can help the author in fixing the article.
2. Speed
Every selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the script must tell the editor and resign from the review process.
3. Objectivity standards
The process review must be done objectively. Personal criticism for the author is inappropriate. The reviewer must express their views clearly and accompanied by supporting arguments.
4. Confidentiality
Every script received for review must be treated as a confidential document. They should not be showed or discussed with other people unless authorized by the editor.
5. Disclosure and conflict of interest
New information or idea acquired through peer review should be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. The reviewer should work professionally dan get rid of any conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any author, company, or institution related to the article.
6. Source Recognition
The reviewer must identify the relevant publication’s work that the author has not quoted. Every statement in the form of a previously published observation, decline, or argument must be accompanied by a relevant quotation. A reviewer should also discuss with the editor for any substantial or overlapping similarities between the currently reviewed script and other published articles.