Ethical code

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The publications made in this journal are supported under the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement for the production of responsible research in conjunction with authors, editors, and reviewers.

The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement is based on general ethical principles and aligned with the standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Authorship responsibility

The texts submitted must be the result of original research. It should also include an objective discussion of the data obtained, the data used, and the results. There should be enough information for any expert to be able to repeat the research and confirm or disprove the interpretations and/or results defended in the paper.

Authors should know what scientific misconduct is and not do anything that goes against publication ethics.

Authors must show the results clearly and honestly, without falsifications or inappropriate manipulations of the data.

Authors must guarantee that the data and results presented in their articles have originality and have not been copied, manipulated, fabricated, or distorted.

Plagiarism, multiple disclosure, making up data, or changing data in any way is against the rules of science and is considered scientific fraud.

Authors should indicate authorship and appropriate acknowledgements. Authors should refrain from deliberately misrepresenting the relationship between a scientist and the publication. All authors should make a significant contribution to the research.

Authors must inform the editor if they have any direct or indirect interest in the editor, the editorial team or the members of the International Scientific Committee.

In no case will any part of your submission be previously published, either as an article or as a chapter, or be under consideration for publication elsewhere.

If the author discovers a serious error in his/her work, he/she is obliged to contact the journal as soon as possible to correct, retract, amend, or publish a correction or erratum.

If the editorial board finds a possible mistake, the author has to confirm that the paper has been fixed.

Authors are obliged to participate in the review process of all submissions.

2. Responsibility of the editors

The members of the journal team will review the work requested for publication in an impartial manner, respecting the intellectual independence of the author and giving him/her the right to reply in the case of a negative evaluation.

The members of the journal team are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of the text received and its content until permission for publication is granted. Only then can the title and authorship be made public.

Similarly, members of the journal staff may not use the data, arguments, or interpretations contained in unpublished papers for their own research unless the author(s) give written permission.

2.1. Decision on Publication

All submissions will undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial team. The editorial team is the sole guarantor of their selection and thereby decide which submissions meet the objectives of the journal and will therefore be published. Articles that are deemed suitable are sent to two independent reviewers who are experts in their fields and can assess the specific quality of the article. The editors will make the final decision to accept or reject the article.

For the publication of an article, its importance in terms of potential readers, researchers, and professionals should be taken into account. In this case, the publisher should take these aspects into consideration over commercial issues for the publication of the manuscript.

Editors making final decisions on manuscripts should refrain from making editorial decisions if there is a conflict of interest or a relationship that may cause potential problems related to the article in question. Responsibility for final decisions regarding publication is delegated to editors who are not in conflict.

2.2. Paper review

The Editorial Board makes sure that manuscripts submitted for publication are reviewed by at least two experts in the field and that the review process is fair and unbiased.

Articles that have been peer-reviewed are kept secret by the editorial team, the International Scientific Committee, and the reviewers.

The people who helped the editorial board evaluate the research submitted to the journal are recognised and thanked for their work.

2.3 Identification and prevention of misconduct

Members of the Editorial and Scientific Committees should never encourage or put up with any kind of wrongdoing on purpose.

Reviewers and members of the Scientific and Editorial Committees should be aware of any misconduct; identify papers in which scientific misconduct of any kind has occurred or appears to have occurred; and file appropriate complaints.

If misconduct occurs, the journal editor is responsible for correcting the misconduct. The editor may work with members of the editorial board, the scientific board, reviewers, and experts in the field.

Problems are documented accordingly. All issues related to who, what, when, where, and why should be documented. All relevant documents, especially relevant articles, should be retained.

The journal editor will contact the authors. This gives the author the opportunity to voice or comment on any complaints, allegations, or disputes.

If misconduct has occurred or appears to have occurred, or if a correction is required, the editorial board will respond in accordance with COPE recommendations.

The publisher will put a lot of effort into telling the difference between honest human mistakes and cases of fraud.

In cases of fraud, the editors may decide to stop publishing, but if there isn't enough proof, they will send out a warning and ask that false segments be fixed.

3. Reviewers' accountability

Reviewers must know the journal's editorial guidelines and statement of ethics and malpractice, and they must follow them.

The journal will require that potential reviewers have an academic background or significant professional experience in a related field. They should have recent studies and/or peer-recorded work and experience. They should provide personal and professional information that accurately and fairly reflects their experience.

In the same way, all reviewers should say no if they know they don't know enough about the manuscript to rate it, if they don't think they can give an objective opinion, or if they think they have a conflict of interest.

Reviewers are asked to identify articles where scientific misconduct has occurred or is suspected and to inform the editorial board. The Editorial Board will handle the case accordingly.

4. Potential Conflict of Interest

In the event of a conflict of interest on the part of the editorial team and the reviewers of the journal with respect to the authorship of the manuscript under review, Any conflict of interest between authorship, reviewers, and members of the editorial team and the scientific committee will be avoided.

In this way, reviewers should think about the following things before leaving the process of making a decision about the manuscript:

• There is a direct link between authors and reviewers.
• Recently, an important professional cooperation between reviewers and authors has emerged.
• The editor or reviewer works for the project to which the contribution is made.
• The editor or reviewer has a financial interest in a company that has a financial interest in or competes with the submitted work.
• The editor or reviewer thinks they can't be fair because of their own feelings or because they have financial interests that aren't covered by the policy.