Academy review                      


Editors’ Responsibilities

In case of misconduct, the journal editor is responsible for resolving the issue. He or she can work in conjunction with the other co-editor, members of the editorial board and international scientific board, peer reviewers, and experts in the field.


The issue will be documented accordingly. All factual questions should be documented: who, what, when, where, why. All relevant documents should be kept, in particular the article(s) concerned.

Due Process for Authors 

The journal editor shall contact the author or publication involved, either the author submitting to journal or another publication or author. The author is thus given the opportunity to respond to or comment on the complaint, allegation, or dispute.

Data Access and Retention

Where appropriate, editors encourage authors to share the data that supports research publications. Research data refers to the results of observations or experimentation that validate research findings. Editors encourage authors to state the availability of their data in a data statement attached to the submitted article. With the data statement, authors can be transparent about the data they used in the article.

Fair Play and Editorial Independence

Editor-in-Chief evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study's validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors' 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 any other agencies outside of 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.


Editor-in-Chief and International Editorial Board 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

Editor-in-ChiefandInternational Editorial Board will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent.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 by editors as a result of 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 expert 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 reviewers’ 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 in making this decision.

Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations 

Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. Journal 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.

Appropriate Corrections 

In the event that misconduct has or seems to have occurred, or in the case of needed corrections, the editorial board deals with the different cases by following the appropriate COPE Recommendations. Great care will be taken to distinguish cases of honest human error from deliberate intent to defraud. COPE states that:

  1. Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error). Retraction is also appropriate in cases of redundant publication, plagiarism, and unethical research.
  2. Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if:

(1) they have reason to believe that there has been research or publication misconduct by the authors but have insufficient evidence,

(2) there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case,

(3) they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair, impartial or conclusive,

(4) or an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.

Retraction and eliminating of publication ethics violations algorithm

Retraction of a published scientific is a method for correcting published information and signaling to readers that a scientific article contains significant errors or inaccurate data that cannot be relied upon. These inaccuracies can arise from both unintentional mistakes and deliberate violations.Retraction is employed to notify readers of potential instances of publication duplication (when an author submits the same data in multiple publications), plagiarism, and conflicts of interest that could impact the interpretatio n or recommendations derived from the data. The primary purpose of retraction is to correct published information and maintain its integrity rather than to punish authors who committed violations.

Reasons and grounds for article recall should be clearly explained.

The article is being recalled as it violates the ethical principles of the Journal.

Editors, reviewers or readers have the right to take reasonable measures when they suspect, or they see any violations of publication ethics. If the editorial board or reviewer finds dishonesty in the materials of the article, they should act in accordance with the specifics of the identified violations:

suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript

reviewer suspects undisclosed conflict of interest in a submitted manuscript

suspected an ethical problem in a submitted manuscript

suspicion that the proposed surname does not actually correspond to co-authorship, indicates that the co-authorship is fictitious

signs that might indicate authorship problems

If readers find bad faith in their publications, they should proceed with the following algorithms in each cases according to a flowchart:

suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript

suspected fabricated data in a published manuscript

suspected undisclosed conflict of interest in a published article

a reader suspects a reviewer has appropriated an author’s ideas or data

Retractions should occur after the journal’s editors have carefully considered appeals received from the editors, authors, or readers (for more details on the procedure for handling appeals, see the Complaints and Appeals.

The PDF file of the retracted article remains on the website but is clearly watermarked with the note “Retracted” on each page.