Publication Ethics


  1. Identifying the journal’s name, the science’s scope, the timeline and the accreditation.
  2. Identifying the editorial boards’ membership.
  3. The relationship between authors, publishers, peer reviews and other contract parties is established.
  4. Appreciating the confidentiality of contributors to research, author, editor, and peer review.
  5. Applying intellectual property rights norms and regulations, in particular, to copyrights.
  6. Conducting policy reviews and introducing them to authors, publishing committees, peer reviewers and readers.
  7. Preparing the editor and peer review behavior code guidelines.
  8. Publishing periodicals on a regular basis.
  9. Ensure the resources are available for publishing the sustainable journal.
  10. Establishing a network of cooperation and marketing.
  11. Licensing preparation as well as other legal aspects.


  1. Improvement of publishing standard.
  2. Ensure that the quality of the published papers is maintained.
  3. Lead the right to express an opinion.
  4. Maintaining the integrity of the academic track record of the author.
  5. Corrections, clarifications, withdrawals and disclaimers should be submitted.
  6. The authors are responsible for styling and formatting the paper, while the contents and any statements in the paper are the responsibility of the authors.
  7. Evaluating the author's policies and attitudes in the published journal and peer review in order to increase accountability and minimize errors.
  8. The author or third parties that may contribute to a false judgment are preventing defending our own views.
  9. Encourage the author to refine the document until it is worth publishing.


  1. The editors have the responsibility of evaluating the documents and submitting a review to the publisher in order to determine the paper's viability.
  2. Reviewing the papers promptly (on time) in compliance with the scientific guideline (Data collection process, author's legality, results, etc.).
  3. Checking the records corrected according to the standards.
  4. Motivating the author to develop documents by offering reviews, feedback, feedback and advice.
  5. Maintaining the privacy of the author by covering the findings and recommendations obtained from the author.
  6. Reviewers shall not analyze documents which directly or indirectly involve reviewers in their work.
  7. Following the peer review criteria for the review of articles and evaluation of the editors' appraisal types document.
  8. Substantially reviewing the papers by not correcting the grammar, punctuation and mistype.
  9. Ensuring reality, novelty and originality principles; prioritize the paper's benefits for research, technology and innovation development; also realizing the effect on science-based writing.
  10. The author or third parties who may give rise to a decision reference being prohibited in defending their own judgment being non-objective.
  11. Enhances the objective meaning and is free of influences.
  12. Ensure that the results of the paper remain confidential before they are published.
  13. Expertise is commonly known and the paper can be reviewed accurately and properly.
  14. Do not check if the study is not in the specialist sector. Rather, if there are other experts on the topics, the peer review should give the researcher recommendations.
  15. Be open-minded to consider the new viewpoints or views of those that differ from your personal views.
  16. Reject the examination if the editor's time limit cannot be met. If the peer review is lacking the editor should be informed as soon as possible.
  17. There must be honest, objective and clear arguments for the results of the review. Some suggestions from the review are:
  18. Accepted without being repaired
  19. Less repair accepted (It is not necessary to go to peer review after the reparation by the author).
  20. Admitted for major repairs (Return to the peer review for revision after reparation by the author).
  21. Rejected and recommended for further release.
  22. Rejected and recommended that no publication be published because the paper is scientifically defective for the community.
  23. To reject the last recommendation as the final choice relating to the feasibility and/or to indicate serious infringements of the author's code of ethics.
  24. Reviewed documents may not be used for the interests of individuals or third parties. In addition, the author has to have given permission to use some of the contents of the papers reviewed.


  • Author responsible for the work and contents of the paper covering methods, analyses, calculations and details.
  • The author responds immediately, professionally and promptly, to the comments of the peer review.
  • If author’s paper is withdrawn, TheY should inform the editor.
  • The author describes the study's restrictions.
  • The author shall respect the publisher if he requires that the results not be published before publication through interviews and other media.
  • The author informs the editor of a document that forms part of a phased study, multidisciplinary approach and various perspectives.
  • The author declares that the papers for publication were original, were not published anywhere and were not submitted to another publisher.
  • If an error occurs, the author should notify the editor or publisher immediately.
  • Written permission and grateful should be given for the use of documents from other copyrighted publications.
  • The author refers, as appropriate, to the work of others in the citations and quotations used in the paper.
  • The authors should mention the previous researcher/writer/founder when delivering new discoveries or improving inventions.
  • If the author does not read the publication, he cannot give the bibliography of the publications.
  • The authors prepared the evidence, on request, that the research has already satisfied the research ethics requirements, including field notes.
  • If comments or feedback are made after publication, the author responds adequately.