Publication Ethics of SARPO Journals
SARPO journals adhere to the highest ethical standards in publishing, ensuring the integrity and quality of the scientific record. The organization follows internationally recognized guidelines, such as those of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), to maintain ethical practices in the publishing process. Below are the key ethical principles observed by SARPO journals:
- Responsibilities of Authors
- Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their work is original and properly cited. Plagiarism in any form is strictly prohibited.
- Authorship Criteria: All individuals who have made significant contributions to the research should be listed as authors. Those who contributed in a supportive capacity may be acknowledged.
- Data Accuracy: Authors must provide accurate and reliable data. Fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting of data is unethical.
- Conflict of Interest: Authors must disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that could influence the research outcomes.
- Multiple Submissions: Manuscripts submitted to SARPO journals should not be under consideration by another publication. Simultaneous submissions are considered unethical.
- Corrections and Retractions: If significant errors or inaccuracies are discovered, authors are obliged to promptly inform the journal to facilitate correction or retraction.
- Responsibilities of Editors
- Fair Decision-Making: Editors must evaluate manuscripts based on academic merit, regardless of the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or affiliations.
- Confidentiality: Information about submitted manuscripts must not be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, or editorial staff.
- Conflict of Interest: Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have competing interests.
- Handling Misconduct: Editors are responsible for investigating and addressing allegations of ethical breaches, such as plagiarism or data manipulation, in collaboration with journals ethics committee.
- Responsibilities of Reviewers
- Objective Evaluation: Peer reviewers must provide an unbiased, constructive critique of the manuscript, focusing on its scientific rigor and relevance.
- Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscript as a confidential document and refrain from sharing its content with others.
- Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the agreed-upon timeframe.
- Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists.
- Publication Misconduct and Resolution
SARPO journals actively monitor and address publication misconduct, including:
- Plagiarism Detection: Submitted manuscripts are screened using advanced plagiarism detection software.
- Ethics Investigations: Allegations of ethical violations are thoroughly investigated, following COPE’s best practices.
- Sanctions: Proven cases of misconduct may result in rejection of the manuscript, retraction of the published article, or banning the author from future submissions.
- Transparency and Accountability
SARPO journals are committed to maintaining transparency in the editorial and publishing process:
- Open Access Policy: SARPO journals ensure free access to published articles to promote knowledge dissemination.
- Archiving and Preservation: Digital copies of all published articles are archived to ensure long-term accessibility.
- Ethical Oversight: SARPO journals regularly review and update their publication ethics policies to align with evolving standards.
By adhering to these ethical guidelines, SARPO journals aim to foster trust, promote academic integrity, and ensure the dissemination of high-quality research in the global scientific community.