1. Reporting Standards & Originality

Authors of original research reports must present an accurate account of the work performed alongside an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper.

• Plagiarism: Plagiarism in all its forms—including passing off another's paper as one's own, copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper without attribution, or claiming results from research conducted by others—is strictly unacceptable.
• Data Access & Retention: Authors may be asked to provide raw research data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data where practicable.

2. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications

An author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

3. Authorship & Acknowledgments

• Authorship Limit: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.
• Corresponding Author: The corresponding author must ensure all appropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission.
• Funding & Conflicts: All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed, along with any relevant conflicts of interest.

1. Fair Play & Editorial Independence

Editors evaluate manuscripts exclusively on their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation.

2. Confidentiality & Publication Decisions

• Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers.
• Publication Decision: The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers, and peer reviewers' comments.

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

2. Promptness & Objectivity

• Timeliness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.
• Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
• Disclosure of Conflicts: Reviewers must not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors.

Corrections, Retractions & Misconduct Procedures

When genuine errors in a published work are identified that do not render the work invalid, the editor will issue a correction notice. In cases where misconduct, unethical publishing behavior, or major errors invalidating the scientific conclusions are proven, the journal will issue a formal retraction or expression of concern in accordance with COPE guidelines.