Decision on the Publication of Articles

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Director of the above-mentioned journals are responsible for deciding which of the articles accepted for publication after undergoing double-blind peer review should be published. The Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Director may be guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board and are subject to such legal requirements as apply regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Neither the Editor-in-Chief nor the Editorial Director has the authority to influence the reviewers who are conducting the blind review of the articles submitted for peer review.

Editorial decisions are based solely on a manuscript's academic merit, originality, and relevance, and are made independently of any commercial consideration (including advertising, reprints, or publication-charge revenue) and free from undue influence by the publisher or any external party.

Fair Play

Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their intellectual merit, without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, disability, or political philosophy.

Confidentiality

The Editor-in-Chief and any other editorial staff must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's or reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Any editor or editorial staff member who has a personal, professional, or financial conflict of interest concerning a submitted manuscript — including manuscripts authored or co-authored by themselves, close collaborators, students, or family members — must recuse themselves from all editorial handling of that manuscript. Such manuscripts are reassigned to another qualified member of the Editorial Board for independent decision-making.

The journal considers all complaints and allegations of misconduct — whether raised before or after publication, and whether concerning authors, reviewers, or editors — in line with COPE's guidelines and flowcharts. Complaints should be addressed in writing to the Editor-in-Chief/ Editorial Director. The journal aims to acknowledge receipt within 5 working days, will investigate fairly, confidentially, and without undue delay, and will give the party concerned a reasonable opportunity to respond before a conclusion is reached. Where a complaint is not resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant, it may be referred to COPE for independent guidance.

Editors will ensure the scholarly record is corrected promptly where errors are identified. Articles will be retracted where warranted — for example, in cases of falsified or fabricated data, plagiarism, duplicate publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, undisclosed use of AI in the conduct or reporting of research, compromised or manipulated peer review, or paper-mill activity — in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines (2025, version 3). Where an investigation is ongoing but a concern is serious enough to warrant an interim signal to readers, the journal may publish an Expression of Concern, consistent with COPE's 2025 guidance. Retraction and correction notices are linked to the original article, are freely accessible, and clearly state the reason for the action.

Contribution of Double-Blind Peer Review

Double-blind peer review assists editors in making decisions and, through editorial communication, helps authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewers do not know the author's identity, as identifying information is stripped from the manuscript before review. Reviewers' comments to editors are treated as confidential and are anonymised before being passed on to the author. Reviewer identities remain confidential and are known only to the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Director.

Promptness

A reviewer who feels unqualified to review an assigned manuscript, or who cannot complete a review within the requested timeframe, should notify the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Director promptly and decline the assignment.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with, anyone other than as authorised by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Director.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews are conducted objectively. There should be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly, with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by the authors and note any statement previously reported elsewhere, with the relevant citation. A reviewer should also draw the Editor-in-Chief's/ Editorial Director's attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Privileged Information

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper.

Reviewers must declare any such conflicts to the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Director at the point of invitation and decline the assignment where a conflict exists.

Reporting Standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data must be represented accurately. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide access to it, if practicable, and to retain it for a reasonable period after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure they have written entirely original work and, where the work or words of others have been used, that this is appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism — from passing off another's paper as one's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper without attribution, to claiming results from research conducted by others — constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, Duplicate, Redundant or Concurrent Submission

An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is unethical and unacceptable.

Authorship of the Paper

Only persons who (a) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; (b) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (c) have seen and approved the final version and agreed to its submission, should be listed as authors. Others who contributed (technical help, writing/editing assistance, general support) should be acknowledged, with their written permission, in the Acknowledgements section. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all appropriate co-authors — and no inappropriate ones — are listed, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final manuscript.

The journal will not accommodate requests for change/addition of authors after the review of a manuscript is complete. Only the existing authors can change/update their affiliations and ordering of the authors. The change will be considered only in special cases after the author has given valid reasons in writing and this needs to be approved by the EiC.

AI tools, including large language models (e.g., ChatGPT) and other generative AI systems, cannot be listed as an author or co-author, as they cannot take responsibility or be held accountable for the submitted work and cannot give consent to be named. Where authors have used AI tools in preparing a manuscript — for drafting text, data analysis, translation, or generating figures or images — this must be disclosed in the dedicated ‘Declaration of AI Use’ statement, naming the tool, its version, and the purpose for which it was used. Authors remain fully responsible and accountable for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all content, including any AI-assisted content, and must ensure it is free of hallucinated citations, plagiarism, or misrepresented data. Undisclosed use of AI in the conduct or reporting of research is a breach of this policy and may result in rejection or, if discovered post-publication, retraction.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of others' work must always be given. Information obtained privately (e.g., in conversation or correspondence) must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Information obtained through confidential services such as refereeing must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work concerned.

Acknowledgment of Funding Sources

Sources of funding for the research reported in the article should be acknowledged at the end of the article.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of the work, and all sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief/ Editorial Director and cooperate with the editors to correct or retract the paper.

Ethical Oversight, Human Subjects, Hazards, and Informed Consent

If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment with unusual inherent hazards, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Where a submission reports research involving human participants (e.g., surveys, interviews, experiments, or focus groups, as is common in social science research), authors must confirm that the research was conducted in accordance with applicable ethical standards, that informed consent was obtained from participants, and, where required by the authors' institution, that approval was obtained from an appropriate Institutional Review Board / Institutional Ethics Committee. A brief statement to this effect should be included in the manuscript. Where a study involves particularly sensitive data or vulnerable groups, authors should describe the additional safeguards used for confidentiality and anonymization.