Publication Ethics

Scientific Publication Ethics fundamentally upholds three ethical values in publication, namely Neutrality, Fairness, and Honesty. The following is the Scientific Publication Code of Ethics, which refers to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

JOURNAL PUBLISHER CODE OF ETHICS

• Determine the journal name, scope of science, schedule, and accreditation.

• Determine the membership of the editorial board.

• Define the relationship between the publisher, editor, peer reviewers, and other parties in a contract.

• Respect the confidentiality of contributing researchers, authors, editors, and peer reviewers.

• Implement norms and regulations regarding intellectual property rights, particularly copyright.

• Conduct policy reviews for the journal and present them to authors, editorial boards, peer reviewers, and readers.

• Develop guidelines for the code of conduct for editors and peer reviewers.

• Publish the journal periodically.

• Ensure the availability of resources for the sustainability of journal publication.

• Build cooperation networks and marketing strategies.

• Prepare permits and other legal aspects.

EDITOR CODE OF ETHICS

• Improve the quality of publications.

• Ensure processes that maintain the quality of published papers.

• Promote freedom of opinion and expression.

• Maintain the integrity of authors’ academic records.

• Provide corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary.

• Be responsible for the style and format of papers, while the content and statements remain the responsibility of the authors.

• Evaluate journal policies and attitudes based on feedback from authors and peer reviewers to increase responsibility and minimize errors.

• Be open to accepting new opinions or perspectives different from personal views.

• Avoid maintaining personal, author, or third-party opinions that may lead to incorrect decisions.

• Encourage authors to revise papers until they are suitable for publication.

PEER REVIEWER CODE OF ETHICS

• Accept assignments from editors to review papers and submit reviews as a consideration for publication eligibility.

• Review papers in a timely manner according to style guidelines based on scientific principles (data collection methods, authorship legality, conclusions, etc.).

• Review revised papers according to standards.

• Encourage authors to improve their papers by providing feedback, suggestions, and recommendations.

• Maintain the privacy of authors by keeping corrections, suggestions, and recommendations confidential.

• Reviewers must not review papers in which they are involved directly or indirectly.

• Follow peer review guidelines and complete evaluation forms provided by the editor.

• Review papers substantively without focusing on grammar, punctuation, or typographical errors.

• Ensure principles of truth, novelty, and originality; prioritize the benefit of the paper for the development of science, technology, and innovation; and understand its impact on scientific writing.

• Avoid maintaining personal, author, or third-party opinions that may lead to non-objective decisions.

• Uphold objectivity and remain free from any influence.

• Ensure the confidentiality of findings in the paper until publication.

• Possess broad understanding and expertise to provide accurate and proper reviews.

• Decline reviewing research outside their field of expertise and recommend other experts if necessary.

• Be open to accepting new opinions or views different from personal opinions.

• Decline review requests if deadlines set by the editor cannot be met and notify the editor as soon as possible.

• Present review results honestly, objectively, and supported by clear arguments. Possible recommendations include:
  (a) Accepted without revision
  (b) Accepted with minor revisions (no need for re-review after revision)
  (c) Accepted with major revisions (requires re-review after revision)
  (d) Rejected but recommended for publication elsewhere
  (e) Rejected and not recommended for publication anywhere because the paper is scientifically flawed

• The last recommendation should be used only as a final option if the paper is not feasible or shows serious ethical violations.

• Reviewed papers must not be used for personal or third-party interests. Any use of content from the reviewed paper requires permission from the author.

AUTHOR / ARTICLE CODE OF ETHICS

• Authors are collectively responsible for the work and content of the article, including methods, analysis, calculations, and details.

• Authors must respond to peer reviewer comments professionally and promptly.

• Authors must inform the editor if they withdraw their paper.

• Authors must describe the limitations of the research.

• Authors must respect the publisher’s request not to publish findings in interviews or other media before official publication.

• Authors must inform the editor if the paper is part of phased, multidisciplinary research with different perspectives.

• Authors must declare that the submitted paper is original, has not been published elsewhere in any language, and is not under consideration by another publisher.

• If errors are found in the paper, authors must immediately notify the editor or publisher.

• The use of copyrighted material from other publications must obtain written permission and proper acknowledgment.

• Authors must properly cite the work of others in quotations and references used in the paper.

• When presenting new discoveries or improving previous findings, authors must acknowledge earlier work by other researchers or inventors.

• Authors are not allowed to include references to publications they have not read.

• If requested, authors must provide evidence that the research has met research ethics requirements, including field notes.

• Authors must respond appropriately to comments or feedback after the paper is published.