Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement & Policy
1. The Journal recognises its ethical duties and other responsibilities and takes every stage of the Review Process seriously, and seeks to encourage the best practices and standards of publication ethics.
2. The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and Policy (“Publication Ethics Policy”) aims to promote integrity in academic writing and prevent any kind of misconduct, on behalf of all the stakeholders in the editorial process.
3. Guidelines for the Authors:
3.1. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure their work is original and that the plagiarism in their submission is within reasonable and acceptable limits. Subject to the Editors’ discretion, the acceptable threshold for plagiarism is 10% (ten percent). Any reuse of previously published content must be appropriately cited in the manuscript in the Harvard Bluebook 21st Edition.
3.2. Authorship: All contributors must be listed as authors, and their specific contributions must be acknowledged.
3.3. Conflict of Interest: If your manuscript is the result of a funded research project, the necessary disclosure must be made in the manuscript. Authors must disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest.
3.4. Copyright: The Authors must ensure that all necessary permissions have been obtained from copyright holders for the reproduction of any illustrations, tables, figures, or substantial quotations previously published.
4. Guidelines for the Editors:
4.1. Impartiality: Editors must ensure that all editorial decisions are made solely on the basis of academic merit, originality, methodological rigour, clarity of expression, and relevance to the Journal’s objectives. Given the double-blind review process, editors shall not be privy to the identity, institutional affiliation, or background of the Author(s) at any stage of the Review Process. This guarantees that decisions remain uninfluenced by any potential biases or preconceptions.
4.2. Confidentiality: Editors must treat all manuscript-related information with the highest degree of confidentiality. This includes safeguarding the anonymity of Authors and Reviewers as part of the double-blind review process. Editors shall not attempt to ascertain the identities of the Author(s), nor share submission details with anyone outside the Review Process. All editorial communications and decisions must be documented securely and handled professionally.
4.3. Conflict of Interest: Editors must disclose any conflicts of interest that might arise in relation to a manuscript they are assigned, even if the identities of the Author(s) are unknown. If an Editor suspects that they may have a relationship or affiliation with the work or content in question that could pose a perceived or actual conflict, they must immediately notify the Chief Managing Editor and recuse themselves. Editors must avoid any behaviour that might compromise the objectivity or perceived fairness of the Review Process.
4.4. Corrections and Retractions: Editors are accountable for upholding the scholarly integrity of the Journal. In the event that significant errors, ethical violations, or cases of misconduct (including plagiarism, data manipulation, or publication fraud) are discovered post-publication, Editors must take prompt and transparent corrective actions. These may include issuing formal corrections, retractions, or clarifications, in accordance with COPE Guidelines. All such notices must be clearly linked to the original article and publicly accessible.
5. Guidelines for the Reviewers:
5.1. Objectivity: Reviewers must assess manuscripts objectively and constructively, and any criticism should be based solely on the scholarly merits of the work, including originality, clarity, methodology, and contribution to the field. Reviewers must avoid derogatory, inflammatory, or personal remarks.
5.2. Confidentiality: Reviewers are entrusted with confidential material. They must not disclose, share, or use any part of the manuscript, including data, findings, or arguments, for personal gain or to benefit others. The obligation of confidentiality remains even after the review process is complete. Reviewers should not discuss manuscripts with unauthorised colleagues.
5.3. Timeliness: Reviewers must provide their evaluations within the agreed-upon deadline. If unable to meet the deadline, they must promptly inform the Chief Managing Editor, and, if possible, recommend an alternative reviewer.
5.4. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must proactively disclose any real or perceived conflicts of interest, including but not limited to personal relationships, financial interests, or funding sources. If a conflict is identified, Reviewers must recuse themselves from the Review Process. Any attempt to influence the publication decision or personal or institutional gain is strictly prohibited.
6. Every manuscript must be accompanied by a declaration that the manuscript is an original work and has not been published nor submitted elsewhere for publication. The CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY AND COPYRIGHT can be accessed HERE.
7. Publication of a manuscript is subject to acceptance by the Editorial Board and the Peer Reviewers.
8. The Editorial decision of the Journal shall be final and binding. For any cases not covered by this policy, the Journal shall consult all members of the Board of Editors, and the decision taken therewith shall be final and binding.