Publication Ethics

Section A: Publication and Authorship

All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer-review procedure conducted by a minimum of two worldwide experts in the relevant field.
The review procedure employs blind peer review.
The criteria considered in the review are relevance, soundness, importance, originality, readability, and linguistic proficiency.
The potential outcomes consist of approval, acceptance with modifications, or rejection.
Even if writers are prompted to revise and resubmit their work, there is no assurance that the amended submission will be approved.
Rejected manuscripts will not undergo re-evaluation.
The approval of the document is limited by the prevailing legal restrictions for libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
No study may be included in several publications.

Section B: Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must attest that their papers are unique compositions.
Authors must attest that the manuscript has not been published previously in any other venue.
Authors must affirm that the material is not under consideration for publication in any other venue.
Authors are required to engage in the peer-review process.
Authors are required to issue retractions or corrections for errors.
All authors cited in the publication must have made substantial contributions to the study.
Authors must declare that all data included in the research are genuine and verifiable.
Authors are required to inform the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
Authors are required to acknowledge all sources utilized in the development of their paper.
Authors are obligated to notify the Editors of any inaccuracies identified in their published manuscript.

Section C: Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of any information pertaining to papers and regard it as privileged information.
Reviews must be executed impartially, devoid of any personal critique of the author.
Reviewers must articulate their opinions distinctly, accompanied by substantiating reasons.
Reviewers must discover pertinent published works that the authors have not mentioned.
Reviewers must inform the Editor in Chief of any significant similarities or overlaps between the article being evaluated and any other published work of which they are aware.
Reviewers must refrain from evaluating submissions in which they own conflicts of interest arising from competing, collaborative, or other affiliations with any authors, corporations, or institutions associated with the articles.

Section D: Responsibilities of Editors

Editors has full responsibility and authority to accept or reject an article.
Editors are accountable for the content and general quality of the magazine.
Editors must consistently evaluate the requirements of both authors and readers while seeking to enhance the magazine.
Editors must ensure the quality of manuscripts and the integrity of the academic record.
Editors ought to issue errata pages or implement corrections as necessary.
Editors must possess a comprehensive understanding of the financing sources for research.
Editors should base their judgments exclusively on the articles' significance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the publication's scope.
Editors must not to rescind their choices or annul those of preceding editors without substantial justification.
Editors must maintain the confidentiality of reviewers.
Editors must guarantee that all research materials they publish adhere to globally recognized ethical standards.
Editors should approve a manuscript only when they are reasonably confident.
Editors must intervene if they suspect misbehavior, regardless of the publication status of a manuscript, and should make all reasonable efforts to achieve a resolution to the issue.
Editors ought not to reject manuscripts based on just suspicions; they must possess evidence of misbehavior.
Editors must prevent any conflicts of interest among staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.

issn