Publication Ethics

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

This publishing code of ethics is derived from COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.  The publication of an article in the peer-reviewed journal is an important part of the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. This is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and institutions that support them. Articles that are reviewed by colleagues support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree on the expected standard of ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: writers, journal editors, peer reviewers, publishers, and the public.

Duties of Editors

Fair play and editorial independence

Editors assess submitted manuscripts particularly on the grounds of their academic honor (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its pertinence to the journal’s field, without consideration to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not decided by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority above the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.


All information about a submitted manuscript will only be disclosed to the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate, by the editors and editorial staff.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

The unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used by the editors and editorial board members for their own research purposes without the authors' explicit written permission. 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.

Publication decisions

The editors of the IJAIT journals are able to decide which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The Editor-in-Chief is able to decide 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 necessities as are currently in force regarding slander, copyright violation, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may deliberate with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors (in agreement with the publisher and/or community) will take active measures if ethical concerns are raised with attachment to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Even if the unethical publishing behavior is found years after publication, every reported act of that will be observed by editors. AP-SMART editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If on the investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a change, cancellation, the appearance of concern or additional note as may be relevant, will be printed in the journal.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review helps editors in making editorial decisions and through editorial communications with authors, may help authors in revising their manuscripts. Peer review is an imperative part of formal scholarly communication and rests at the essence of the scientific effort.


Every requested arbitrator who feels incapable to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its punctual review will be impossible should quickly notify the editors and refuse the invitation to review, so that alternative reviewers can be reached.


Any manuscripts permitted to review must be reviewed as confidential documents. They must not be exposed or discussed with others except as allowed by the editor. This pertains including invited reviewers who refuse the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be handled objectively and observations expressed precisely with supporting evidence so that authors can use them for enhancing the manuscript. The personal judgment of the authors is improper.

Acknowledgment of sources

Reviewers should recognize if the authors have not been cited the related published work on their manuscript. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be followed by the relevant citation. Furthermore, if there is any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal information, a reviewer should additionally notify the editors.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Every requested arbitrator who has conflicts of interest occurring from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions related to the manuscript and the work described therein should quickly notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and refuse the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be reached.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the specific written permission 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 pertains including invited reviewers who refuse the review invitation

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

The paper should be represented original research by the author, which presents an accurate account of the work performed and the results as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Dishonest or inaccurate statements are unacceptable and unethical behavior.

Data access and retention

Authors can be asked to provide raw data from their studies along with the manuscript for editorial review and must be prepared to make data available to the public if possible, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. The authors can use similarity tools to make sure that their works have a minimum similarity score as required as IJAIT Authors guideline.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Authors should not submit the manuscripts that describe the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submission of manuscripts simultaneously to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable.

Authorship of the manuscript

the author is the one who meets the following criteria:

  1. Made a significant intellectual contribution to the theoretical development, system or experimental design, prototype development, and/or the analysis and interpretation of data associated with the work contained in the article;
  2. Contributed to drafting the article or reviewing and/or revising it for intellectual content;
  3. Approved the final version of the article as accepted for publication, including references.

 Contributors who do not meet all of the above criteria may be included in the Acknowledgment section of the article. Omitting an author who contributed to your article or including a person who did not fulfill all of the above requirements is considered a breach of publishing ethics.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should disclose any conflict of interest that might be interpreted to influence their result or interpretation in their manuscripts. All sources of financial support for work must be disclosed (including grant numbers or other reference numbers if any).

Acknowledgment of sources

Authors should ensure that they have recognized the work of others correctly, and should also cite publications that influence the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversations, correspondence or discussions with third parties) may not be used or reported without written permission from the source.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify this in the text.

 Peer review

Authors are required to engage in the peer-review process and cooperatively by responding immediately to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and evidence of ethics approval, subject approvals, and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions required", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting the new manuscript to the journal website exactly at the time requested.

 Fundamental errors in published works

When authors discover significant errors, failures, or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their responsibility to immediately notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an error or to withdraw the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, failure, or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ responsibility to immediately correct or withdraw the paper or provide the evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.