All submitted papers are subject to a strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
Review process are blind peer review.
The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
No research can be included in more than one publication.
The journal adheres to COPE guidelines regarding appeals and complaints. Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions through a formal and transparent process.
Any allegations of research or publication misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication, peer review manipulation) will be handled strictly in accordance with the latest COPE flowcharts.
Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
Authorship must be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The journal encourages the use of the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework to detail individual contributions.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies (e.g., Large Language Models) do not qualify for authorship. Any use of AI in manuscript preparation must be clearly disclosed in the methodology or acknowledgments section.
Authors must participate in the peer-review process.
Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic. Authors must provide a Data Availability Statement and be prepared to provide public access to raw data in connection with the paper upon reasonable request.
Authors must notify the Editors of any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest.
Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscripts.
Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors and cooperate fully to publish an erratum, addendum, or retraction if deemed necessary.
Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
Reviewers must not upload the manuscript or any part of it into public or unauthorized Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, as this violates confidentiality.
Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Reviewers should alert the Editors if they suspect any ethical issues, such as data fabrication, image manipulation, or undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
Editors should publish errata pages, corrigenda, expressions of concern, or retractions when needed, following COPE’s Retraction Guidelines.
Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources and ensure that funding details and conflicts of interest are transparently published.
Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to the publication’s scope, free from any commercial or publisher influence.
Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem, guided by COPE flowcharts.
Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
.png)
