1.1 The editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, validity of scholarship, clarity) and their relevance to the journal’s field of endeavor, without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation of the authors.

1.2 Editorial and publication decisions are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside the journal.

1.3 The editor-in-chief has full authority over all editorial content of the journal and the timing of its publication.

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

3.1 Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained from the editors during the processing of the manuscript will be kept confidential and will not be used for personal purposes.

3.2 Editors will refrain from reviewing manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related to the work; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

4.1 The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts are peer reviewed by at least two experts in the field.

4.2 The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts will be submitted to the journal based on the validation of the manuscript, its importance to researchers and readers, reviewers’ comments, and the applicable legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

4.3 In making this decision, the editor-in-chief may consult with other editors or reviewers.

5.1 Editors will take action when ethical concerns are raised about a submitted manuscript or published work. Every reported act of unethical behavior will be investigated, even if discovered years after publication

5.2 Editors follow the COPE flowcharts (available at publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20flowcharts.pdf) when dealing with suspected misconduct cases. If the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or another note, as appropriate, will be published in the journal.

1.1 Reviews support editors in editorial decision-making and through editorial communications with authors can help authors improve their manuscripts.

1.2 Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and is central to scientific research.

2.1 Any invited reviewer who does not feel qualified to review the research submitted in a manuscript or who knows that prompt review will be impossible should immediately inform the editors and decline the invitation to review so that other reviewers can be contacted.

3.1 All manuscripts received are confidential.

3.2 Manuscripts should not be shown or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor-in-chief (who will do so only in exceptional and specific circumstances).

3.3 This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the invitation to review

4.1 The review must be carried out objectively, and the comments must be clearly described with supporting arguments so that the authors can use them to improve the manuscript.

4.2 The personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

5.1 Reviewers should identify relevant published works that have not been cited. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument that has been reported in previous publications must be cited.

5.2 Reviewers should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

6.1 Any invited reviewer who has conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related to the manuscript and the work described in the manuscript must immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that other reviewers may be contacted.

6.2 Unpublished data disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the authors’ express written consent. Privileged information or ideas gained from peer review must remain confidential and will not be used for personal benefit. This policy also applies to invited reviewers who decline the invitation to participate in the peer review.

1.1 The authors of the original research must provide an accurate description of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work.

1.2 The manuscript should contain sufficient details and references to help others to reproduce it.

1.3 Both reviews and articles must be accurate, objective and comprehensive. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

2.1 Authors may be required to provide the primary data of their study with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if possible.

2.2 In any case, authors should ensure the accessibility of these data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication.

3.1 The authors must ensure that they have written and submitted only a completely original manuscript. If they have used the work and/or words of others, they must ensure that these have been properly cited.

3.2 Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” the work of another as the author’s own work, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s work (without attribution), to claiming the results of research carried out by others.

3.3 Plagiarism, in all its forms, constitutes unethical publication behavior and is unacceptable.

4.1 Only individuals who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript because they must be able to publicly take responsibility for the content:

a. have made significant contributions to study conception, design, execution, data collection, or analysis/interpretation;
b. drafted the manuscript or critically reviewed;
c. have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

4.2 All persons who have made substantial contributions to the work presented in the manuscript (such as technical help, drafting and editing assistance, general support), but who do not meet the criteria for authorship, should not be listed as authors but should be listed in the “Acknowledgments” section after obtaining their written permission to be listed.

4.3 The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors are included in the list of authors and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication.

5.1 Papers describing the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Therefore, authors should not submit a manuscript that has already been published in another journal.

5.2 Simultaneous submission of a manuscript to more than one journal is unethical and unacceptable publication behavior.

6.1 The authors should – at the earliest possible stage – disclose any conflicts of interest that could be understood as influencing the results or their interpretation in the manuscript.

6.2 All sources of financial support for the work must be disclosed (including grant number or other reference number, if necessary).

7.1 Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others. Information obtained privately (from conversations, correspondence or discussions with third parties) should not be used without explicit, written permission from the source.

7.2 Authors must not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained explicit written permission from the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

8.1 Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and to cooperate fully, responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and evidence of ethical approval, author consent, and copyright permission.

8.2 In the case of an initial “revisions needed” decision, authors should respond systematically, point-by-point, and in a timely manner to reviewers’ comments, revising and resubmitting the manuscript to the journal by the deadline.

9.1 When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly inform the editors or publisher of the journal and to cooperate with them either to correct the work in the form of an erratum or to retract the work.

9.2 If the editors or publishers find out from a third person that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, they will contact the author immediately. Authors have the obligation to promptly correct or withdraw the work or provide the journal’s editors with evidence of its accuracy.

1.1 In cases of suspected or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the editor, in close collaboration with the reviewers, will take all appropriate steps to clarify the situation and amend the article in question. This includes prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the worst case, withdraw of the affected work

1.2 The editor, together with the reviewers, should take the necessary measures to prevent the publication of articles in which research misconduct has occurred and should not encourage or permit such misconduct. /p>