A. Fundamental Principles and Editorial Commitment

The Journal upholds the integrity, reliability, and permanence of the scholarly record as its highest editorial responsibility and therefore adopts a zero-tolerance principle toward plagiarism and serious ethical misconduct. This principle is implemented through a documented, transparent, fair, and evidence-based editorial process. Zero tolerance does not imply automatic rejection without evaluation, but rather a firm commitment that confirmed ethical violations will not be tolerated at any stage of the editorial lifecycle.

All submitted manuscripts must be original works that have not been published elsewhere and are not under consideration by another journal. Authors are fully responsible for ensuring appropriate citation, accurate attribution, and compliance with accepted standards of responsible research conduct. Submission of a manuscript constitutes the author’s explicit acknowledgment of, and agreement to comply with, this policy in its entirety.

B. Definition of Plagiarism and Unethical Publication Practices

Plagiarism is defined as the use, reproduction, adaptation, or presentation of another party’s intellectual contribution—including ideas, hypotheses, data, arguments, methodologies, analytical frameworks, figures, tables, images, software, or textual expressions—without clear, accurate, and appropriate acknowledgment of the original source. This definition applies regardless of language, medium, format, discipline, or intent, and includes both deliberate and negligent acts.

In addition to direct plagiarism, the Journal recognizes the following practices as unethical when conducted without transparent disclosure or explicit editorial approval: inappropriate or deceptive paraphrasing, excessive textual similarity, self-plagiarism, duplicate submission, redundant or overlapping publication, segmented (“salami”) publication, misrepresentation of authorship or contribution, and manipulation of citation practices.

As an editorial reference point, manuscripts exhibiting an overall similarity index exceeding 10%—after the exclusion of references, quotations, standard methodological expressions, and legally reused materials—are subject to enhanced scrutiny. Similarity percentages are used solely as screening indicators and never as automatic determinants of misconduct. Final editorial decisions are based on qualitative evaluation, contextual analysis, disciplinary norms, and academic judgment. Any confirmed plagiarism, regardless of numerical similarity score, is treated as a serious ethical violation.

C. Categorization of Plagiarism and Corresponding Editorial Sanctions

D. Retraction, Withdrawal, and Data Correction (R–W–D)

The Journal clearly distinguishes between withdrawal, retraction, and data correction as integrity-preserving mechanisms designed to protect the transparency, reliability, and permanence of the scholarly record. These actions are corrective in nature and do not substitute for institutional, legal, or disciplinary proceedings.

Withdrawal applies to manuscripts removed prior to formal publication. Withdrawn manuscripts do not form part of the permanent scholarly record and are not indexed or cited.

Retraction applies to published articles found to contain unreliable findings, plagiarism, redundant publication, or serious ethical violations. Retracted articles remain publicly accessible and are clearly labeled with an explanatory retraction notice to ensure transparency and traceability.

Data Correction (Erratum or Corrigendum) is issued when errors are identified that do not invalidate the main conclusions but require correction to maintain factual accuracy and reader trust.

E. Sanctions for Proven Ethical Violations

• Immediate rejection or formal retraction of the affected article
• Permanent labeling of the article as retracted due to ethical misconduct
• Formal internal documentation of the violation
• Temporary or permanent restriction on future submissions, proportionate to severity and subject to documented editorial review
• Notification of affiliated institutions when ethically and legally appropriate

Authors are granted an opportunity to respond to allegations before final determinations are made. All decisions are documented, confidential, and subject to internal review in accordance with COPE guidance.

F. Administrative Fees and Cost Transparency

Administrative fees are strictly separated from Article Processing Charges (APC) and have no influence whatsoever on editorial or peer review decisions. These fees apply exclusively to author-initiated withdrawal or author-requested retraction after editorial, peer review, or production resources have already been allocated.

Important Clarification: Administrative fees are intended solely to offset verifiable operational costs, including editorial handling, reviewer coordination, similarity screening, production preparation, metadata management, system administration, and record maintenance.

The Journal does not generate profit from administrative fees.

Administrative fees are never imposed on manuscripts rejected for ethical violations or academic reasons, are never a condition for acceptance or publication, and are non-negotiable and non-refundable. Editorial independence remains absolute and uncompromised.

G. Editorial Workflow for Handling Plagiarism Allegations

The Journal implements a structured, transparent, and proportionate editorial workflow to identify, assess, and resolve potential plagiarism cases. This workflow is designed to ensure due process, editorial independence, and consistency with COPE flowcharts and international best practices in publication ethics.

1. Initial Similarity Screening: All submitted manuscripts undergo mandatory similarity screening using recognized plagiarism-detection software as part of the preliminary editorial quality control.
2. Preliminary Editorial Assessment: The handling editor conducts a qualitative evaluation of the similarity report.
3. Classification of Ethical Concern: Categorization based on acceptable similarity, minor similarity, or potential plagiarism.
4. Author Notification and Right to Respond: Authors are formally notified and granted opportunity to respond.
5. Editorial Determination: Decisions include revision, rejection, withdrawal, retraction, or correction.
6. Escalation and Institutional Communication: Severe cases may be escalated to institutions.
7. Documentation and Record Keeping: All actions are formally documented.

At no stage does the existence of administrative fees influence editorial judgment or ethical determinations. The editorial workflow operates independently of financial considerations and is solely guided by academic integrity and publication ethics.