This section provides context and purpose for the journal’s ethics statement. By adhering to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) standards, the journal is committed to maintaining ethical publishing practices. The statement outlines the responsibilities of all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher. This ensures accountability and transparency at every stage, promoting trust and quality in the research published.

Duties of Authors

1. Integrity
• Researchers should strive to describe their methods and present their findings clearly and unambiguously.
• Authors must notify the editor as soon as they discover an error in any submitted, accepted, or published work.

2. Originality
• Authors must ensure that their submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language.
• Authors should represent the work of others accurately in citations and quotations.
• If the author has not read the cited work, he or she should not copy references from other publications.
• Copyright material should only be reproduced with permission and acknowledgement.

3. Disclosure and Conflict of interest
• All sources of research funding, equipment or materials supplied, and other assistance should be disclosed.
• Authors should disclose any relevant interests or relationships that may be thought to influence the interpretation of their findings. This includes any connection to the journal, such as editors publishing their own research in their own journal.

4. Authorship
• Researchers should make certain that only those individuals who made a significant contribution to the work are given authorship.
• All authors must agree to be listed and must approve the publication's submitted and accepted versions.

5. Accountability and Responsibility
• If errors or omissions are discovered after publication, authors should work with the editor or publisher to correct their work as soon as possible.

6. Observance of Peer Review and Publication Norms
• Authors should abide by the publisher's request that their work not be submitted to more than one publication for consideration at the same time.
• If an author withdraws their work from review or chooses not to respond to reviewer comments after receiving conditional acceptance, they must notify the editor.
• Authors should respond to reviewers' comments professionally and promptly.

7. Responsible reporting of human or animal research
• If editors request it, authors should provide evidence that the reported research was approved and conducted ethically.
• Researchers should not generally publish or share identifiable individual data without the individual's explicit consent.

Duties of Editors

1. Publication Decision
• Editors are in a powerful position when it comes to publishing decisions, so it is critical that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible, as well as in accordance with the academic vision of the specific journal.
• Editors must accept responsibility for everything they publish and must have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality and integrity of the published journal.
• Editors should make decisions based solely on academic merit.
• Editors should not attempt to improperly influence their journal's ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric for reasons other than genuine scholarly ones.

2. Confidentiality
• Editors must maintain the confidentiality of authors' materials and remind reviewers to do the same.
• Editors should not share submitted papers with editors of other journals unless the authors agree.

3. Conflict of Interest
• Editors' policies should require all authors to declare any relevant financial and non-financial conflicts of interest, and editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest.

4. Peer Review
• Editors should work to ensure that all published papers make a significant new contribution to their field.
• Editors have the authority to reject a paper without peer review if it is deemed unsuitable for the journal's readers or is of poor quality. This decision should be made fairly and objectively.
• Editors should select appropriate peer reviewers for papers under consideration for publication, avoiding those with conflicts of interest. Editors must ensure that reviews are received on time.
• Avoid duplicate or redundant publication unless fully declared and acceptable to all parties.
• Editors may also use anti-plagiarism software to screen for plagiarism, duplicate, or redundant publication.

5. Ethical Conduct
• Authors must exercise ethical oversight, follow appropriate consent procedures, and follow applicable laws. Editors must be alert to potential issues in this area.

Duties of Peer-Reviewers

1. Participation in Editorial Decisions
   
   • Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions about the article's editorial content.
   • It may also assist the author in improving the manuscript through editorial contacts with the author.

2. Timeliness
   
   • It is polite to respond to peer review invitation within a reasonable time frame.
   • You should agree to review only if you can return a review within the mutually agreed-upon time frame.
   • If you require an extension, please notify the journal as soon as possible. If you are unable to review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers.

3. Objectivity Standards
   
   • Reviews should be carried out objectively.
   • Personal attacks on the Reviewers should express their opinions clearly and provide supporting evidence.

4. Confidentiality
   
   • Manuscripts for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown or discussed with anyone else unless specifically authorized by the editor.

5. Conflict of Interest and Disclosure
   
   • The privileged knowledge or ideas of peer reviewers must be kept secret and not used for personal gain.
   • Reviewers should not consider submissions when they have competitive, cooperative, or other relationships with any of the authors or organizations associated with the papers.

6. Source Acknowledgement
   
   • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited.
   • A reviewer should also alert the editor to any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any other published paper.