Publication Ethics

[Please download]

Human Research Ethics

IJSASR takes research ethics extremely seriously and prioritizes safeguarding the safety and well-being of study participants who are human volunteers, as well as their human rights and dignity. Any study publications that involve experiments with human subjects must explicitly state that researchers must receive both a research ethics certificate and permission from the Human Research Ethics Committee. The approval for publication of an article is subject to the consideration of the journal editorial board, which is final.

 

Publication Ethics

1.  Editors' Ethics
Publication Decision : IJSASR accepts only manuscripts which have never been published elsewhere before (except in the form of an abstract) or are being considered for publication by another journal. The editorial team is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. The editor is guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Confidentiality: The editor and editorial staff must ensure the confidentiality of the submitted manuscripts until they are published, except only in the case of suspicion of double submission or the manuscripts that have been under revision or have been published elsewhere. Privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer review process must be kept confidential and are not allowed to be used for personal advantage.
Plagiarism: Plagiarism is strictly prohibited. Editors must try to examine whether the submitted manuscript is absent from plagiarism. All submissions will be examined by the editorial staff in terms of plagiarism by using plagiarism detecting software.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All funding sources must be disclosed in the acknowledgement and any conflicts of interest must be stated. All submissions must include disclosure of any relationship that could be viewed as a potential conflict of interest such as funding organizations, affiliations of all the authors, advisors of the research project, etc.  The corresponding author must confirm that he/she had the final responsibility for the decision to submit and had full access to all the data involved in the study. 
Duties of Editors
1. The editors are responsible for reviewing the format, completeness, and quality of articles before beginning the peer reviewer evaluation process for publication in the journal they are responsible for.
2. The editor will not disclose any information during the article evaluation period and publication of that journal to any person unrelated, whether it is the author's information or the article reviewer.
3. Editors will be the preliminary assessors in the decision to select articles for the publishing process and consider publishing articles that have passed the article evaluation process by considering the results of the peer reviewer's assessment of importance, newness, clarity, and the consistency of the content and the policy of the journal is important.
4. The editors will not publish articles that have been published elsewhere either in the form of journals or articles after their presentation at a full academic conference (Proceeding).
5. The editors will not reject the publication of articles that do not meet the requirements until there is evidence to prove those suspicions.
6. The editors will not have any conflicts of interest with the authors, the evaluators, and the management team.
7. Editors check for plagiarism in their articles using a reliable program. If there is clear evidence or confirmation that the work of others is plagiarized, the editor will contact the main author for clarification and if there is no clarification on academic basis, the editor will refuse to publish the article.

2.Authors Ethics
Authorship: All authors must have agreed to the submission and to the order of their names on the title page. They must also have agreed that the corresponding author may act on their behalf throughout the editorial review and publication process.
Originality and Plagiarism: Manuscripts of research articles submitted to IJSASR must not been published previously and not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. The author(s) must ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the author(s) have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted and listed in the references. Any attempt of plagiarism, data fabrication/falsification, or citation manipulation will result in the rejection of the submitted manuscript.  IJSASR reserves the right to use plagiarism detecting software to screen submitted papers.
Human Subjects: If the research work involves the use of human participants/volunteers, the author(s) should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines. Authors must include a statement in the manuscript that approval from an ethics committee was obtained for any experiments/clinical trials involving human subjects. Authors must state the approval code in the manuscript.
Disclosure and Conflicts of interest: All funding sources must be disclosed in the acknowledgments and any conflicts of interest must be stated. All submissions must include disclosure of any relationship that could be viewed as a potential conflict of interest. 
Duties of Authors
1. The authors must be certified by the author as new work and has never been presented in a proceeding and published form anywhere else.
2. The authors must present reports of true information arising from research without distorting information or providing false information.
3. If someone else's work is used in the author's work, the author's work must be referenced and appear in the reference list at the end of the article.
4. the authors must be following the format specified in the recommendations of the original thesis submission of the journal, otherwise, the editors will not accept such articles.
5. An article whose author's name appears must be a person who takes part in the actual research and the editors will consider the feasibility of the article.
6. The article must include the source of funding supporting this research in the acknowledgment (if any).
7. The authors must specify conflicts of interest (if any).

 


3. Reviewers' Ethics
Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer reviewers assist the editors in making a decision to publish a manuscript and also assist the author(s) in improving the quality of the manuscript.
Confidentiality: Reviewers have to respect the confidentiality of the review process. They must not discuss aspects of the work under review with other researchers until such time as the article is published. Unpublished material disclosed in a manuscript under review must not be quoted or referenced by a reviewer without the express written consent of the author(s), requested through the editorial team. Information or ideas obtained through peer reviews must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Standards of Objectivity: All manuscripts must be reviewed objectively in the context of the reviewer's expertise in the field. Personal opinions without backing evidence must not be used as criteria for review decisions.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The reviewers must not use any information obtained through the peer review process for personal advantage. The reviewers must not accept to review if they have a conflict of interest with the author(s), companies, or institutions affiliated to the manuscripts. 
Duties of Reviewers
1. The reviewer will not disclose the information of the article and author to other unrelated persons throughout the evaluation period (Confidentiality).
2. The reviewer must not have conflicts of interest with the author, such as being a co-author or others that will prevent the assessor from assessing and giving recommendations independently.
3. The reviewer will assess articles in their area of ​​expertise based on their content and assess articles based on their importance, recency, clarity, and consistency, without using personal opinions that do not have technical information. Academic support came as a criterion for judging articles.
4. The reviewer can suggest important research findings that are consistent with the article in case the author does not refer to the article evaluation.
5. If the reviewer finds that the article is similar or plagiarism to the work of others with clear evidence, the assessor can reject the publication and notify the editor.

 

Process for handling complaints against editors submitted to the Publication Ethics Committee
1. Complaints from authors, readers, or reviewers may be forwarded to the Publication Ethics Committee for consideration.
2. Complaints to journal editors must be made in writing directly to the editor. The first step is to make a written complaint directly to the journal editor. If the complaint is not resolved satisfactorily, the complaint can be forwarded to the editor’s home committee or any reviewers.
3. Only complaints that have passed the journal complaints process can be forwarded to the Publication Ethics Committee, and all relevant documentation must be attached.
4. The Publication Ethics Committee will accept complaints within 6 months after the journal has considered the complaint.
5. The Publication Ethics Committee will not consider complaints about the content of the editor’s decision to publish an article (but will consider the process) or comments about the content of the editorial.
6. The Publication Ethics Committee will not consider events that occurred prior to the publication of this ethical standard document.

Guidelines when a complaint is forwarded to the editorial board:
1. The complainant submits the complaint to the journal’s editorial staff.
2. The journal’s editorial staff will verify the complaint based on the following points: Then forward to the College's Research Ethics Committee or the accredited institution. 2.1 Complaint against a member of the journal's editorial board. 2.2 Complaint within the scope of the journal's editorial board. 2.3 Complaint that is not resolved after being forwarded to the journal for consideration according to the process. 3. The complainant must submit all relevant documents, including documents related to the complaint to the journal that the journal acknowledges the complaint, in order to reassure the journal's editorial board. 4. The chairman of the journal's ethics committee informs the journal's editor of the complaint forwarded to the ethics committee. 5. Various situations that may occur: The editor does not cooperate. In this case, the chairman of the journal's ethics committee will inform the complainant and the journal owner. The editor responds to the complaint with the following points:
5.1 The chairman of the journal's ethics committee and one representative nominated by a member of the Publication Ethics Committee Council jointly consider and decide that the journal has handled the complaint satisfactorily and has informed the complainant and the editor.
5.2 The chairman of the journal's ethics committee and one representative nominated by a member of the journal's ethics committee jointly decide that further investigation is necessary and has informed the complainant and the journal editor. And submit a report of the action to the relevant subcommittee of the journal ethics committee. - The subcommittee that considers and decides on the complaint should consist of a chairperson and at least 3 members of the Publication Ethics Committee, of which 2 members must not be editors, and none of the members of the subcommittee are members of the same publishing house (or parent company) as the editor who is complained about.
6. If the chairperson is in the same publishing house (or parent company) as the editor who is complained about, the chairperson will appoint a vice-chairperson with appropriate qualifications to oversee the documents instead.
7. When a complaint is sent to the subcommittee, the subcommittee may:
7.1 Withdraw the complaint and inform the complainant and the editor of the reasons.
7.2 Conclude that it is a violation of the prescribed regulations.
8. When the subcommittee concludes that it is a violation of the prescribed regulations, it must submit a report to the Publication Ethics Committee, explaining the nature of the violation and providing recommendations on what to do. The journal ethics committee will consider the report, which may be revised. After that, it will inform the complainant, the editor, and the owner of the publishing house (journal) of the recommendations. Finally, these may include:
8.1 The editor shall apologize to the complainant for the complaint received.
8.2 The editor shall publish the statement received from the journal's Ethics Committee in his journal.
8.3 The journal shall make improvements to its procedures.
8.4 The editor shall resign from the Ethics Committee for a period of time or take any other action that the journal's Ethics Committee deems appropriate in the circumstances.

 

Appeal Procedure
The complaint can contest the ethics committee's recommendations by requesting the contact details from the Editorial Office and the journal's ethics committee.

 

Copyright Notice

Articles published in the International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews (IJSASR) are protected by copyright. Those who wish to publish the IJSASR must first obtain permission. Articles accepted for publication in the IJSASR cannot be published in another journal before they appear there. If the authors would like, they can download or print the paper from the IJSASR website, or they can obtain a link from the editors to the journal where their work was published.

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews (IJSASR) is committed to the highest standards of integrity, transparency, and ethical conduct in scholarly publishing. The journal adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines, and follows COPE flowcharts when dealing with cases of potential misconduct.

This statement outlines the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher.

  1. Responsibilities of Authors
  • Originality and Integrity: Authors must submit original manuscripts that have not been previously published or simultaneously submitted elsewhere. Plagiarism, data fabrication, and falsification are strictly prohibited.
  • Authorship Criteria: All listed authors must have made a significant academic contribution to the work, and all must approve the final version of the manuscript.
  • Research Ethics: Studies involving human participants must have approval from a recognized ethics committee, with appropriate evidence of informed consent.
  • Citations and Acknowledgments: Authors must properly cite all sources and acknowledge financial or institutional support.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Authors are required to disclose any financial, institutional, or personal relationships that might influence their work.
  1. Responsibilities of Editors
  • Editorial Independence: Editors evaluate manuscripts based solely on academic merit, without discrimination regarding gender, race, institutional affiliation, or nationality.
  • Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff must maintain confidentiality of all submissions and may not disclose information to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and publisher.
  • Fair Review Process: Editors ensure a fair, timely, and transparent peer review process.
  • Handling of Misconduct: In suspected cases of plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated data, or authorship disputes, editors will act in accordance with COPE flowcharts to ensure consistent and fair outcomes.
  • Corrections and Retractions: Editors will issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions when necessary, in line with COPE recommendations.
  1. Responsibilities of Reviewers
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential and must not use unpublished material for personal advantage.
  • Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively, providing constructive feedback without personal criticism of the authors.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must decline review invitations if conflicts of interest exist (e.g., financial, institutional, collaborative, or personal relationships).
  • Ethical Awareness: Reviewers should alert editors to suspected misconduct, including plagiarism, redundant publication, or data manipulation, discovered during the review process.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.
  1. Responsibilities of the Publisher
  • Editorial Independence: The publisher respects the independence of the editorial board and does not interfere with editorial decisions.
  • Integrity of the Record: The publisher ensures that the scholarly record is preserved and corrected when necessary through errata, corrigenda, or retractions.
  • Misconduct Handling: The publisher supports editors in following COPE flowcharts to address allegations of misconduct and ensures transparent communication of outcomes.
  • Accessibility and Preservation: The publisher is responsible for the permanent digital preservation of all published content through recognized archiving systems such as LOCKSS and Portico.
  1. Handling of Misconduct (COPE Flowcharts). The journal follows COPE flowcharts in addressing ethical concerns, including but not limited to:
  • Plagiarism and Text Recycling
  • Duplicate Submission or Redundant Publication
  • Data Fabrication or Falsification
  • Authorship Disputes
  • Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest
  • Peer Review Manipulation

Process Overview:

  1. Detection – Concerns raised by editors, reviewers, readers, or plagiarism detection software.
  2. Preliminary Assessment – Editors gather evidence and contact authors for an explanation.
  3. Evaluation – If the explanation is unsatisfactory, editors take action in line with COPE flowcharts.
  4. Outcome – May include rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction.
  5. Notification – All relevant parties are informed, and notices are published openly on the journal website.

For detailed procedures, please refer to: COPE Flowcharts.

  1. Transparency and Open Access

The IJSASR is an open access journal. All articles are freely available online to the global academic community. The journal is committed to transparency and will publish information on submission timelines, review processes, and acceptance rates to ensure accountability.

 

Misconduct Handling Policy

The International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews (IJSASR) follows the COPE flowcharts in handling cases of research and publication misconduct. The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record and ensuring that all allegations of misconduct are addressed fairly, transparently, and consistently.

  1. Types of Misconduct. Misconduct may include, but is not limited to:
  • Plagiarism / Text Recycling: Copying or reusing work without proper attribution.
  • Duplicate Submission / Redundant Publication: Submitting the same work to multiple journals or republishing substantially similar work.
  • Data Fabrication or Falsification: Inventing, altering, or misrepresenting research data or results.
  • Authorship Disputes: Incorrect or disputed assignment of authorship.
  • Conflict of Interest: Failure to disclose financial, institutional, or personal relationships that may affect judgment.
  • Peer Review Manipulation: Any attempt to compromise the integrity of the peer review process.
  1. General Procedure for Handling Misconduct
  • Detection
    • Misconduct may be identified by editors, reviewers, plagiarism detection software, or external parties.
  • Preliminary Assessment
    • Editors will gather relevant evidence.
    • If no basis for concern exists, the case is closed.
    • If concerns are substantiated, the author(s) will be contacted for an explanation.
  • Evaluation of the Response
    • If the explanation is satisfactory, minor corrections may be requested.
    • If the explanation is unsatisfactory or evidence of misconduct is confirmed, stronger action will be taken (e.g., rejection of the submission, retraction of a published article).
  • Correction of the Scholarly Record
    • Corrigendum/Correction: Issued when minor errors do not compromise the integrity of the article.
    • Expression of Concern: Published when there are unresolved or ongoing investigations.
    • Retraction: Issued when misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, fabrication, duplication) is confirmed and the validity of the work is compromised.
  • Notification
    • Authors, reviewers, and relevant parties will be informed of the outcome.
    • Retractions or corrections will be published on the journal’s website to ensure transparency.
  1. Commitment to COPE Guidelines

The journal strictly adheres to the COPE Code of Conduct and Flowcharts in all misconduct cases. Editors will follow COPE-recommended procedures to ensure due process and to protect both the rights of authors and the integrity of the scholarly record.

For more details, see: COPE Flowcharts

 

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement (PEMS)

The International Journal of Sociologies and Anthropologies Science Reviews (IJSASR) is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity, transparency, and ethical conduct in scholarly publishing. The journal strictly follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines, and applies COPE flowcharts in addressing cases of potential misconduct.

This statement sets forth the ethical responsibilities and obligations of all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher.

  1. Responsibilities of Authors
  • Originality: Authors must ensure that their submissions are original works, free from plagiarism, and not under review by another journal. Duplicate or redundant publications are prohibited.
  • Authorship: All individuals listed as authors must have made substantial academic contributions to the work and must approve the final version prior to submission.
  • Research Ethics: Studies involving human participants or animals must comply with international ethical standards and provide appropriate approval from institutional review boards.
  • Transparency: Authors must properly acknowledge all sources, cite relevant literature, and disclose any conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.
  • Corrections: Authors have a responsibility to promptly inform the editor if they discover significant errors in their published work.
  1. Responsibilities of Editors
  • Fair Evaluation: Manuscripts are assessed based on scholarly merit, relevance, and originality, without bias regarding the author’s gender, race, nationality, or institutional affiliation.
  • Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff must treat submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and disclose information only to those involved in the editorial process.
  • Integrity of the Record: Editors are responsible for maintaining the scholarly record by issuing corrections, errata, expressions of concern, or retractions as necessary, in accordance with COPE guidelines.
  • Misconduct Handling: Editors investigate all allegations of misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, fabricated data, authorship disputes) and follow the COPE flowcharts to ensure fairness and transparency.
  • Independence: Editorial decisions are made independently of the publisher and free from external influence.
  1. Responsibilities of Reviewers
  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential and may not use unpublished data for personal research or advantage.
  • Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively, providing constructive, evidence-based feedback without personal criticism.
  • Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and decline review assignments when impartiality cannot be assured.
  • Ethical Awareness: Reviewers should alert editors to suspected ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, or data falsification.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete evaluations within the agreed timeframe to support an efficient publication process.
  1. Responsibilities of the Publisher
  • Editorial Independence: The publisher supports the editorial board’s independence and does not influence editorial decisions.
  • Preservation and Accessibility: The publisher ensures the long-term digital preservation of published content through trusted archiving services such as LOCKSS and Portico.
  • Misconduct Support: The publisher assists editors in handling allegations of misconduct in accordance with COPE flowcharts.
  • Transparency: The publisher upholds transparency in publishing policies, financial disclosures, and access to journal content.
  1. Handling of Misconduct

The journal adopts the COPE flowcharts to guide decision-making in cases of:

  • Plagiarism and text recycling
  • Duplicate submission or redundant publication
  • Data fabrication or falsification
  • Authorship disputes
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest
  • Peer review manipulation

Procedure Overview:

  1. Detection: Concerns raised by editors, reviewers, readers, or plagiarism detection tools.
  2. Assessment: Editors evaluate evidence and request an explanation from the author(s).
  3. Decision: If misconduct is confirmed, appropriate action is taken (e.g., rejection, correction, retraction).
  4. Correction of Record: Corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions are issued transparently on the journal’s website.
  5. Notification: All relevant parties, including authors and institutions, are formally notified of the outcome.

 

       6. Transparency and Open Access

The IJSASR is an open access journal. All published articles are freely available to the global scholarly community without subscription barriers. The journal is committed to transparency by publishing clear information on submission guidelines, peer review processes, acceptance rates, and editorial timelines.