About the Journal

Duties of Editors

Fair play and editorial independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit (importance, originality, study's validity, clarity) and their relevance to the journal's scope, without regard to the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or other agencies outside the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their research purposes without the author's explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors due to handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

Publication decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewer's comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief may confer with other editors or reviewers to make this decision.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

In conjunction with the publisher and/or society, editors will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised about a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported unethical publishing behavior will be looked into, even if discovered years after publication. AP-SMART editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note as may be relevant will be published in the journal.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is essential to formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific endeavor. AP-SMART shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process must do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief, who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published or unpublished work of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer's personal advantage. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be identified. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review. They should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submitted only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper without attribution, to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant, or concurrent submission/publication

Papers describing the same research should not be published in multiple journals or primary publications. Hence, authors should not submit a manuscript already published in another journal for consideration. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable.

The publication of some kinds of articles, such as clinical guidelines and translations, in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Authorship of the manuscript

Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: {i} made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and {ii} drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and {iii} have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript {such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support} but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should, at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript), disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed, including the grant or other reference numbers.

Acknowledgement of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained while providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the authors of the work involved in these services.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment with any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves using animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures comply with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committees have approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. The authors should also include a statement in the manuscript stating that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

Peer review

Authors must participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors' requests for raw data, clarifications, proof of ethics approval, patient consent, and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewer's comments systematically, point by point, and promptly revise and resubmit their manuscript to the journal by the deadline.

Fundamental errors in published works

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, they must promptly notify the journal's editors or publisher and cooperate with them to correct the paper in the form of an erratum or retract it. Suppose the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy. In that case, the author must promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.

Duties of the Publisher

Handling of unethical publishing behavior

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification, or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher and the editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage or knowingly allow such misconduct to occur.

Access to journal content

The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our digital archive.

Section A: Publication and authorship

1. All submitted papers are subject to a strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers who are experts in the area of the particular paper.
2. The review process is a blind peer review.
3. The factors considered in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
8. No research can be included in more than one publication.

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
4. Authors must participate in the peer review process.
5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
7. Authors must state that all data in the paper are authentic.
8. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
9. Authors must identify all sources used to create their manuscript.
10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited.
5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they have personal knowledge.
6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts with conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
4. Editors should guarantee the papers' quality and the academic record's integrity.
5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
6. Editors should clearly understand a researcher’s funding sources.
7. Editors should base their decisions on the papers’ importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the publication’s scope.
8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without a serious reason.
9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
10. Editors should ensure that all published research material conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably sure.
12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
13. Editors should accept papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
14. Editors should not allow conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.

Sources:

• ELSEVIER: Elsevier publishing ethics resource kit
• COPE: Responsible research publication: international standards for authors
• COPE: Cope’s new code of conduct
• COPE: Responsible research publication: International standards for editors
• COPE: Cope short guide to ethical editing for new editors
• COPE: Cope ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
• COPE: The editorial board follows the guidelines for retracting articles issued by COPE
• COPE: Code of conduct for journal publishers
• COPE: Cope retraction guidelines