Journal Policy

1. Authorship & Contributor Policy

1.1 Authorship Criteria
To qualify as an author, an individual must satisfy all of the the following criteria (adapted from ICMJE) ICMJE:

  1. Made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;

  2. Drafted the work or critically revised it for important intellectual content;

  3. Approved the final version to be published;

  4. Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that questions related to accuracy or integrity are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Those who contribute to the work but do not meet all the criteria should be acknowledged (e.g. in an Acknowledgments section), not listed as co-authors.

1.2 Order of Authors & Contribution Statements

  • The authors should decide the ordering of authors jointly, based on relative contributions.

  • A brief Author Contribution Statement must appear in each published article, describing who did what (e.g. conceptualization, data collection, analysis, writing, supervision).

  • Any change to authorship (addition, removal, reordering) after initial submission must be approved in writing by all listed authors and justified to the Editor.

1.3 Corresponding Author Role

  • The corresponding author is responsible for manuscript submission, communication with the Journal, ensuring all authors approve the manuscript, and managing any post-publication inquiries (e.g. corrections, retractions).

  • The corresponding author also ensures that institutional and inter-author agreements and ethical clearances are in place.

1.4 Disputes over Authorship

  • Authors are encouraged to discuss authorship early in the research process to avoid misunderstanding.

  • If a dispute arises, authors should attempt to resolve it internally (e.g. via their institutions).

  • If unresolved, the Editor may decline to process the manuscript or refer the matter to the authors’ institutions for mediation.

  • The journal does not itself arbitrate personal or institutional disputes about authorship unless misconduct is involved.

1.5 Special Cases (Deceased or Incapacitated Authors)

  • If an author dies or becomes incapacitated during the review or production process, the remaining authors may retain or adjust authorship with appropriate acknowledgment of the circumstances, subject to agreement of all co-authors or legal representatives.

  • If the sole author is deceased, permission from next of kin or legal representative is required.

2. Conflict of Interest (COI) / Disclosure Policy

2.1 Purpose
To maintain transparency and trust, all parties (authors, reviewers, editors) must disclose financial or nonfinancial relationships or competing interests that could influence (or be perceived to influence) the research, writing, or review process.

2.2 Author Disclosures

  • At submission, all authors must complete a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form detailing any relevant relationships, including but not limited to:
      • Financial support, funding, grants, employment, consulting, honoraria, stock ownership, royalties, patent rights
      • Personal, professional, or institutional relationships or rivalries
      • Intellectual predispositions

  • All disclosed COIs will be published with the article, typically in a “Declaration of Interest” section near the end of the paper.

  • If circumstances change during revision or after acceptance, authors must promptly update their disclosures.

2.3 Reviewer / Editor Disclosures & Recusal

  • Reviewers and editors must also declare any conflicts (e.g. working in same institution, prior collaboration, financial or personal relationships with authors).

  • If a conflict is present, the reviewer should recuse themselves or the editor assign an alternate reviewer.

  • Editorial decisions will not be influenced by undisclosed conflicts.

2.4 Handling Undisclosed / Late Disclosures

  • If a COI is identified after publication (by author, reader, or editor), the journal may publish a correction or “notice of concern” and/or evaluate editorial action (see Retraction / Correction policy).

3. Corrections, Retractions & Post-Publication Integrity

3.1 Guiding Principles

  • The journal follows COPE guidelines on retractions and corrections Publication Ethics+2Wiley Author Services+2

  • The integrity of the scholarly record is paramount. Corrections or retractions should be made publicly, linked to the original article, and documented transparently.

3.2 Correction / Erratum / Corrigendum

  • A Correction Notice (or Erratum / Corrigendum) is issued when a published work contains errors or omissions that affect interpretation but do not invalidate the central findings or conclusions.

  • The correction notice should clearly describe:
      • The nature of the error
      • The correction (e.g. corrected data, figure, affiliation)
      • Whether the error was author- or publisher-originated

  • The correction notice will be linked to the original article (and vice versa).

  • The online version of the article may also be corrected, with a footnote or audit trail indicating what was changed.

  • Minor typographic or formatting errors that do not affect data interpretation may be fixed without a formal correction notice (but with a footnote or annotation).

3.3 Expressions of Concern

  • If credible concerns arise (e.g. about data integrity, ethical violations) but investigation is unresolved or incomplete, the Editor may publish an Expression of Concern alerting readers to potential issues, pending further review.

  • Once the investigation concludes, a Correction or Retraction notice will follow, replacing or accompanying the Expression of Concern.

3.4 Retraction

  • A Retraction is issued when errors or misconduct invalidate the results or conclusions, or in cases of serious ethical breach (fabrication, plagiarism, duplicate publication, compromised peer review, lack of ethical approval) Wiley Author Services+3Author Services+3Publication Ethics+3

  • Retraction notices must:
      • Be titled “Retraction: [article title]”
      • List all authors and the original article’s bibliographic details
      • State the reasons for retraction (with transparency), differentiating honest error vs misconduct, when possible
      • Remain permanently linked to the original article

  • The original article remains part of the public record but is clearly marked (e.g. with watermark “Retracted”)

  • Retractions are not punitive; their purpose is to correct the scientific record.

3.5 Removal

  • In rare circumstances (e.g. legal issues, defamation, grave risk to public safety, privacy violations), an article may be removed, but only after careful consideration and consultation with legal and ethical guidelines.

  • In such cases, a removal notice will replace the article page, and citation information is retained to maintain the historical record (if permissible).

3.6 Initiating Corrections / Retractions

  • Requests may come from authors, readers, editors, or third parties.

  • The Editorial Board and/or publisher will conduct an investigation, possibly involving the authors’ institutions or external experts.

  • Authors will have opportunity to respond to allegations.

  • Decisions should be handled promptly, fairly, and transparently.

3.7 Appeals & Statements

  • Authors may appeal editorial decisions regarding retractions or corrections by submitting a written request to the Editor-in-Chief, who may refer the case to an Ethics Committee.

  • All published notices (correction, expression of concern, retraction) should remain part of the permanent archive.

4. Ethical Compliance & Author Warranties

4.1 Originality & Prior Publication

  • Submitted manuscripts must be original, not published previously, and not under consideration elsewhere.

  • Overlapping or duplicate submissions are disallowed.

  • Significant reuse of authors’ prior work must be disclosed and appropriately cited.

4.2 Research Ethics & Approvals

  • For research involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data, authors must obtain approval from relevant institutional or national ethics committees and include an ethics statement in the manuscript.

  • Informed consent must be obtained (and documented) for human subjects, and privacy/confidentiality safeguarded.

4.3 Data Availability & Transparency

  • Authors should make the underlying data, code, and materials available to reviewers and (where possible) to readers, consistent with legal, ethical, and privacy constraints.

  • If data are restricted, a justification must be provided, and means for access (e.g. via repository with restrictions) described.

4.4 Plagiarism, Fabrication, Falsification

  • Any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, or falsification is strictly prohibited.

  • Manuscripts may be screened with plagiarism detection software.

  • If misconduct is discovered, appropriate corrective or punitive actions (e.g. retraction, notification to institutions) will be taken.

4.5 Author Warranties & Declarations
By submitting a manuscript, authors warrant that:

  • The work is original and all necessary permissions (e.g. for copyrighted material) have been obtained.

  • All authors have approved the submission and will abide by policies on corrections and retractions.

  • No undisclosed conflicts of interest exist.

  • Ethical approvals, consents, and data integrity are upheld.

  • If any portion of the work is later found erroneous or unethical, the authors agree to cooperate in corrections, retractions, or other remedial measures.

5. Editorial / Peer Review Ethics & Responsibilities

5.1 Peer Review Policy & Anonymity

  • The journal practices single-blind (or double-blind, or open review — choose one) peer review.

  • Reviewers should evaluate objectively, fairly, and confidentially.

  • Manuscripts, data, and reviewer comments are confidential and must not be shared or used for personal gain.

5.2 Reviewer Conduct

  • Reviewers should disclose conflicts of interest before accepting a review.

  • They should recuse themselves if conflicted.

  • Reviewers should not use material from the manuscript for personal advantage before publication.

5.3 Editorial Decision-Making

  • Editors base decisions solely on scholarly merit, originality, and relevance.

  • Editors should recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have personal or competitive conflicts.

  • Editors should safeguard confidentiality and respond to ethical issues in submissions.

5.4 Ethical Oversight, Appeals & Misconduct Handling

  • The journal maintains an ethics committee or oversight team to adjudicate serious concerns.

  • Appeals by authors (about decisions or alleged misconduct) are allowed in writing, with transparent procedures.

  • If misconduct is confirmed, sanctions (e.g. rejection, retraction, author bans) may be applied.

  • Institutions may be notified if serious misconduct is involved.

6. Implementation & Publication of Policy

  • These policies should be prominently posted on the journal’s “About / Ethics & Integrity / Policies” page, and readily accessible to authors, reviewers, and readers.

  • During manuscript submission, authors must explicitly confirm awareness of and compliance with these policies.

  • The journal should periodically review and update the policies to reflect evolving best practices in scholarly publishing.