Duties of Authors

(These guidelines are rooted in the established policies of Elsevier).

Reporting standards:  Authors must ensure their reports provide a precise account of the work conducted and an impartial analysis of its importance. The data underlying the research should be presented precisely in the document. Each paper must include enough detail and references to allow others to duplicate the study. Deliberately misleading or false statements are unethical and not permissible. Reviews and professional publications should maintain accuracy and objectivity, and editorial pieces should be distinctly marked as such.

Data access and retention:  Authors might be requested to supply the raw data related to a paper for review by the editors. They should be ready to make this data publicly accessible, if possible, and should also be prepared to keep this data for a reasonable period following publication.

Originality and plagiarism: The authors need to guarantee that their works are completely original, and if they have incorporated someone else’s work or words, they should have properly cited or quoted them. All forms of plagiarism are considered unethical publishing behavior and are deemed unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication:  Authors should generally avoid publishing manuscripts that essentially report the same research findings in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the identical or substantially similar manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously is considered unethical and is not acceptable. Furthermore, previously published papers should not be submitted again to other journals for consideration. However, certain types of publications, such as clinical guidelines or translations, may be published in more than one journal under specific conditions. In such cases, the authors and editors of the involved journals must mutually agree on the secondary publication, which should accurately reflect the original data and interpretations. Importantly, the original publication must be clearly cited within the subsequent publication.

Acknowledgement of sources: Proper credit must always be given to the work of others. Authors are expected to cite publications that have significantly influenced their research. Any information obtained through private communication, such as conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, should only be used or disclosed with explicit written permission from the original source. Similarly, information gained through confidential activities, like manuscript reviewing or grant evaluations, must not be used without the clear, written consent of the parties involved.

Authorship of the paper: Authorship should be reserved for individuals who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research presented. All collaborators who have played a significant role in these aspects should be listed as co-authors. Individuals who contributed to other important parts of the project should be recognized in the acknowledgments or noted as contributors. The corresponding author holds the responsibility of ensuring that all rightful co-authors are included and no inappropriate authors are listed on the manuscript. Additionally, all co-authors must have reviewed, approved the final version of the manuscript, and agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and human or animal subjects: If the research involves the use of chemicals, procedures, or equipment that present any unusual hazards, these risks must be clearly identified and described within the manuscript. For studies involving animal or human subjects, the manuscript should include a statement confirming that all experiments were conducted in accordance with applicable laws and institutional guidelines, and that the appropriate ethics committee(s) have granted approval. Authors are also required to declare that informed consent was obtained from human participants involved in the research. Throughout the study, the privacy and confidentiality of human subjects must be strictly maintained.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: All authors are required to disclose in their manuscript any financial or other significant conflicts of interest that could potentially influence the results or interpretation of their work. This includes revealing all sources of financial support related to the project. Examples of conflicts that should be declared include employment, consulting roles, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications or registrations, and research grants or other funding. It is important that these potential conflicts are reported as early as possible in the publication process to ensure transparency and maintain the integrity of the research.

Fundamental errors in published works: If an author identifies a significant mistake or inaccuracy in their published article, it is their responsibility to promptly inform the journal editor or publisher and collaborate with them to either correct or retract the work. Should the editor or publisher be made aware by a third party of a substantial error in a published article, the author is likewise obligated to swiftly address the issue by retracting or correcting the paper, or by providing convincing evidence supporting the validity of the original publication.

Role of Editorial Team

These guidelines are grounded in current Elsevier policies and mirror the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Publication decisions: The editor of Academians Publishers holds the responsibility for determining which submitted articles are suitable for publication. Decisions are based on the scientific validity of the work and its relevance and significance to the journal’s readership and research community. In making these decisions, the editor may follow the guidance and policies established by the journal’s editorial board and must consider applicable legal requirements, including those pertaining to libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may also consult with other editors or expert reviewers to ensure informed and fair judgment. 

Fair play:  An editor ought to assess manuscripts based on their intellectual content, without considering the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic background, citizenship, or political views. 

Confidentiality: The editor and editorial staff are required to keep the details of a submitted manuscript confidential, sharing information only with the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher when necessary.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Editors must not use unpublished material from submitted manuscripts for their own research or personal benefit without the explicit written permission of the author. Any privileged information or ideas learned during the peer review process must remain confidential and should not be exploited for personal gain. If editors have conflicts of interest—whether due to competitive, collaborative, or other connections with the authors, institutions, or companies involved—they should recuse themselves from handling those manuscripts. Instead, the manuscript should be assigned to a co-editor, associate editor, or another member of the editorial board without such conflicts. Editors are also responsible for requiring all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests. Should any conflicts come to light after publication, appropriate actions such as issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern must be taken.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations: When an editor receives an ethical complaint regarding a submitted manuscript or a published article, they should respond appropriately and in collaboration with the publisher or relevant society. Typical actions include contacting the author involved to discuss the complaint seriously and thoroughly. Depending on the outcome, further communication with relevant institutions or research bodies may be necessary. If the complaint is found valid, the editor may take corrective steps such as publishing a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other appropriate notice. Investigations into unethical publishing behavior should always be conducted, regardless of whether the issue arises shortly after publication or many years later.

Role of Reviewer

(These recommendations are derived from current Elsevier policies and the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors established by COPE). 

Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review plays a crucial role in helping the editor make editorial decisions, and through discussions with the author, it can also aid the author in enhancing their paper. As a fundamental aspect of formal scholarly communication, peer review is central to the scientific method. Elsevier aligns with the opinion held by many that all scholars aiming to contribute to publications have a responsibility to participate fairly in the review process. 

Promptness: Any chosen referee who either feels unqualified to assess the research described in a manuscript or knows that they cannot provide a timely review should inform the editor and withdraw from the review process. 

Confidentiality: Manuscripts submitted for review are to be regarded as confidential documents. They must not be shared with or discussed among others unless permission is given by the editor. 

Standards of objectivity: Reviews must be carried out impartially. Criticizing the author personally is not suitable. Reviewers ought to clearly state their opinions, backing them with valid arguments. 

Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers are responsible for identifying any relevant published work that authors have omitted to cite. Any claim that an observation, derivation, or argument was previously reported should be supported with the appropriate citation. Additionally, reviewers should alert the editor if they recognize substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published article of which they have knowledge. 

Disclosure and conflict of interest: Reviewers must not use any unpublished material obtained through a manuscript under review for their own research or personal gain without the clear, written permission of the author. All privileged information or ideas acquired during the peer review process must be strictly kept confidential and must not be exploited for personal advantage. Reviewers should also avoid handling manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest related to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, their institutions, or companies involved. In such cases, reviewers should recuse themselves from reviewing to maintain the integrity of the review process.