Publication Ethics Statement

The publication ethics of the International Journal of Applied Science and Technology Application are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

This statement sets out the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, and reviewers in order to ensure integrity, transparency, accountability, confidentiality, objectivity, and fairness throughout the publication process.

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standards

Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed and provide an objective discussion of its significance. Research findings must be reported honestly and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to allow other researchers to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts must follow the journal submission guidelines.

2. Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. The manuscript must not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, including the work of other researchers and the authors’ own prior work, must be properly acknowledged and cited. Primary literature should be cited whenever possible. Original wording taken directly from another publication must be placed in quotation marks and accompanied by appropriate citation.

3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications

Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Authors are also expected not to publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal. Concurrent submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project must be clearly identified, and the primary publication must be properly referenced.

4. Acknowledgement of Sources

Authors must acknowledge all sources of data used in the research. Publications that have influenced the nature, design, method, or interpretation of the reported work must be cited appropriately. Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be given.

5. Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should accurately reflect each individual’s contribution to the research and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, analysis, or interpretation of the reported study. Individuals who made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors. Individuals who contributed in a less substantial or purely technical capacity should be acknowledged in the acknowledgement section where appropriate. All authors must have reviewed and approved the submitted version of the manuscript and agreed to be listed as co-authors.

6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors must clearly disclose any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that could be interpreted as influencing the results or interpretation of the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the research project must also be disclosed.

7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works

If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a submitted or published manuscript, the author must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to correct or retract the paper where necessary.

8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

Authors must clearly identify any work involving chemicals, procedures, or equipment that may contain unusual hazards. Where the research involves human participants or animal subjects, authors must ensure that all ethical requirements, approvals, informed consent procedures, and relevant institutional or national regulations have been fulfilled.

Duties of Editors

1. Publication Decisions

Based on the review reports and editorial assessment, the editor may accept, reject, or request modifications to a manuscript. The validation of the work and its importance to researchers and readers must guide editorial decisions. Editors may be guided by the journal’s editorial board policies and by legal requirements concerning libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may consult other editors or reviewers when making decisions. Editors are responsible for the content they publish and should maintain procedures and policies that ensure the quality of published material and protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

2. Review of Manuscripts

Editors must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated for originality and suitability. Editors should organize and use peer review fairly, transparently, and effectively. The peer-review process should be explained in the information for authors, including which sections of the journal are peer reviewed. Editors should select appropriate reviewers with relevant expertise and avoid reviewers with conflicts of interest.

3. Fair Play

Editors must ensure that every manuscript received by the journal is reviewed based on its intellectual content, without discrimination based on sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, institutional affiliation, or other personal characteristics of the authors. Editorial independence and integrity must be upheld to ensure fair and unbiased publication decisions.

4. Confidentiality

Editors must keep all information regarding submitted manuscripts confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breach of data protection, privacy, or participant confidentiality. This includes ensuring proper informed consent for the research and consent for publication where applicable.

5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Editors must not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without the written consent of the author. Editors must not participate in decisions concerning manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Confidentiality

Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors must be kept confidential and treated as privileged information. Manuscripts must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

2. Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by an appropriate citation. Reviewers should immediately notify the journal if they identify ethical concerns, substantial similarity between the manuscript and another submission or publication, or possible misconduct during the research, writing, or submission process. Reviewers must keep such concerns confidential and should not personally investigate further unless the journal requests additional information or advice.

3. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews must be conducted objectively. Reviewers should express their views clearly and support their comments with reasoned arguments. Reviewers should follow the journal’s instructions regarding the type and scope of feedback required. Reviews should be constructive and should help authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewers should clearly distinguish between essential revisions needed to support the manuscript’s claims and suggestions that may strengthen or extend the work.

4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. 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 associated with the manuscript. In a double-blind review process, reviewers who suspect the identity of the authors should notify the journal if this knowledge creates a potential conflict of interest.

5. Promptness

Reviewers should respond within a reasonable time frame. Reviewers should agree to review a manuscript only if they are confident that they can return the review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame. If a reviewer needs an extension or cannot complete the review within the stipulated time, the reviewer must promptly inform the editor so that the manuscript can be assigned to another reviewer if necessary.