Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Institute of Natural Sciences and Applied Technology

Preamble

The Institute of Natural Sciences and Applied Technology (INSAT) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics, transparency, and academic integrity across all its publication outputs, including journal articles, books, conference proceedings, reports, and other scholarly materials. This statement defines the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved in the publication process—authors, editors, peer reviewers, and the publisher—and establishes clear policies for peer review, originality, authorship, data integrity, and the handling of misconduct.

This statement is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, the ICMJE Recommendations, the Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB) requirements for publication ethics and malpractice statements, and internationally recognized frameworks for scholarly publishing. Scopus requires every indexed publication to have a clear and publicly available statement of publication ethics and publication malpractice. INSAT is fully committed to compliance with these requirements.

1. Duties and Responsibilities of Authors

1.1 Reporting Standards

Authors of original research must present an accurate account of the work performed, including an objective discussion of its significance. Results must be presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript must contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable.

1.2 Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the underlying data of a submission for editorial review. Authors should be prepared to provide access to such data where practicable and must retain original data for a reasonable period (minimum five years) after publication.

1.3 Originality and Plagiarism

All manuscripts must be the original work of the author(s). The inclusion of the work of others must be clearly indicated with appropriate citation of the source material. Plagiarism in all its forms—including verbatim copying, paraphrasing without attribution, self-plagiarism (text recycling), and appropriation of others' ideas or data—constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is strictly prohibited. All submissions undergo mandatory similarity screening using plagiarism detection software (e.g., iThenticate or equivalent).

1.4 Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

An author should not describe the same research findings in more than one primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal or conference concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

1.5 Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship is limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. To qualify as an author, each contributor must meet all of the following criteria:

Substantial contribution to study conception, design, data acquisition, or analysis;
Drafting or critically revising the manuscript for important intellectual content;
Final approval of the version to be published;
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Guest authorship, ghost authorship, and gift authorship are strictly prohibited and constitute serious ethical violations. All authors must approve the final manuscript, and any changes in authorship after submission must be approved by all authors with clear justification.

1.6 Acknowledgment of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that were influential in determining the context, relevance, and impact of the reported work.

1.7 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial, institutional, personal, or other substantive conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their research. If no conflict exists, authors must state: "The authors declare no conflict of interest".

1.8 Fundamental Errors in Published Works

If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the editors and cooperate with the publication of a correction, retraction, or expression of concern.

1.9 Ethical Oversight for Research Involving Subjects

For research involving human participants or animals, authors must comply with international ethical standards, including the Helsinki Declaration (human research), CIOMS guidelines, and ARRIVE guidelines (animal research). Manuscripts must include:

Ethics committee approval number and institution;
Informed consent statements (for human subjects);
Description of animal welfare protocols (if applicable);
Privacy and confidentiality protections.

2. Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

2.1 Publication Decisions

Editors are responsible for deciding which submitted manuscripts should be published. Decisions must be based on the manuscript's importance, originality, clarity, validity, and relevance to the scope of the publication. Editorial decisions must remain independent of commercial, institutional, or personal influence.

2.2 Fair Play

Editors must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, nationality, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3 Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, or other editorial advisors.

2.4 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in editors' own research without the express written consent of the authors. Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest.

2.5 Prevention of Misconduct

Publishers and editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred. In no event shall a journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

3. Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

3.1 Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer reviewers assist editors in making editorial decisions and may also assist authors in improving manuscripts through constructive feedback.

3.2 Promptness

Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research or who knows that timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and withdraw from the review process.

3.3 Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared with or discussed with others unless authorized by the editors. Reviewers must not upload any part of a manuscript or its data to public AI tools.

3.4 Objectivity Standards

Reviews must be conducted and written objectively and constructively. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Reviewers must express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3.5 Source Recognition

Reviewers should identify relevant published works not cited by the authors. Any observation, derivation, or argument published previously must be followed by a citation to its source. Reviewers should also draw the editors' attention to any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript and other published work.

3.6 Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through reviewing manuscripts must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal benefit. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competition, collaboration, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions linked to the manuscripts.

4. Peer Review Policy

All content published by INSAT must be subjected to rigorous peer review. INSAT follows a double-blind peer review process unless otherwise specified for specific publication types:

Each submission is reviewed by at least two independent experts;
Reviewers are selected from different institutions and geographies where possible;
Reviewers are independent of the editorial decision-making process;
Evaluation criteria include originality, rigor, relevance, and contribution.

The peer review process must be clearly described and publicly available, and all judgments and findings must be objective. Reviewers must have no conflict of interest and must treat reviewed articles confidentially prior to publication.

5. Definition of Research Misconduct and Malpractice

Research misconduct is defined as actions that violate academic integrity, including but not limited to:

5.1 Plagiarism

Verbatim copying or almost verbatim copying of another author's work without attribution;
Paraphrasing portions of another author's work without clearly indicating the source;
Self-plagiarism (text recycling);
Claiming results from research conducted by others.

5.2 Data Fabrication and Falsification

Manufacturing or inventing data;
Manipulating, altering, or misrepresenting data or images;
Selective reporting of data to support desired conclusions.

5.3 Improper Authorship

Guest authorship (adding individuals without real contribution);
Ghost authorship (excluding individuals who made substantial contributions);
Gift authorship.

5.4 Duplicate and Concurrent Submission

Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal or conference simultaneously;
Publishing essentially the same research in more than one primary publication.

5.5 Citation Manipulation

Coercive or unnecessary citations;
Excessive self-citation;
Manipulation of citation practices to inflate impact metrics.

5.6 Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

Failure to disclose financial, institutional, personal, or professional conflicts of interest.

5.7 Manipulation of Peer Review

Attempting to influence the peer review process inappropriately.

6. Handling of Allegations of Misconduct

6.1 Detection

Misconduct may be detected through plagiarism screening tools, reviewer reports, editorial checks, or post-publication peer review.

6.2 Preliminary Assessment

Allegations are subject to preliminary assessment by the editorial team or designated ethics committee to determine validity.

6.3 Formal Investigation

If misconduct is suspected, a formal investigation is conducted:

The corresponding author is contacted and provided with an opportunity to respond;
Evidence is reviewed thoroughly and fairly;
The investigation follows COPE best practice guidelines.

6.4 Actions and Sanctions

Depending on the severity and nature of the misconduct, the following actions may be taken:

Stage of DiscoveryAction

During submission/reviewImmediate rejection of the manuscript

After publicationPublication of a correction (erratum), retraction, or expression of concern

Severe or repeated misconductReporting to the authors' institutions and relevant funding bodies

6.5 Retraction Policy

Articles may be retracted in cases of:

Proven plagiarism or data fabrication/falsification;
Multiple submissions or redundant publication;
False claims of authorship;
Major research misconduct;
Violations of professional ethics.

Retractions will be clearly linked to the original article, and retraction notices will be published.

7. Corrections and Post-Publication Updates

INSAT is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record and will:

Publish corrections (errata) for minor errors that do not affect overall findings;
Publish clarifications where necessary;
Issue retractions in cases of proven misconduct or unreliable findings;
Publish expressions of concern when investigations are ongoing.

8. Conflicts of Interest

All parties involved in the publication process must disclose any potential conflicts of interest:

Authors: Must disclose financial relationships, institutional affiliations, personal relationships, or competing academic positions;
Reviewers: Must declare any conflicts and recuse themselves where bias could arise;
Editors: Must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have conflicts.

Editorial decisions must remain independent of any such conflicts.

9. Intellectual Property and Copyright

Authors retain responsibility for ensuring no copyright infringement occurs. Copyright and licensing information shall be clearly described on all publication platforms. The way(s) in which publications are available to readers—whether open access, subscription-based, or with pay-per-view fees—must be clearly stated.

10. Archiving and Digital Preservation

INSAT maintains a plan for electronic backup and preservation of access to published content in the event that a publication is no longer active. All publications are archived in accordance with industry best practices to ensure long-term accessibility.

11. AI Usage Policy

INSAT recognizes the growing use of artificial intelligence in research and publishing:

Manuscripts must reflect the genuine intellectual contribution of the author(s);
Any use of AI tools in research, writing, or data analysis must be explicitly disclosed;
Reviewers must not use AI tools to generate review reports or recommendations;
Reviewers must not upload manuscript content to public AI platforms.

12. Compliance and Accountability

Scopus requires every suggested publication to have a clear and publicly available statement of publication ethics and publication malpractice. Scopus will hold each publisher listed in its database accountable for performance and compliance with these policies. INSAT is fully committed to:

Maintaining transparency throughout the publication process;
Taking appropriate action in cases of malpractice, including rejection of manuscripts, retractions, and institutional notifications;
Ensuring all publication ethics and malpractice statements are prominently visible and easily accessible on all relevant platforms.

13. Reporting Concerns

Any concerns regarding publication ethics, research misconduct, or violations of this statement should be reported to:

Institute of Natural Sciences and Applied Technology
Publication Ethics Committee
Email: [Insert designated email address]
Website: [Insert website URL]

All complaints will be handled confidentially, fairly, and in accordance with COPE guidelines