Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics

NKRI: Networked Knowledge and Research in Informatics is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and academic integrity. This statement describes the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, section editors, and reviewers involved in the publication process. The journal follows internationally accepted principles of scholarly publishing ethics and refers to the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

All parties involved in the publication process are expected to uphold honesty, objectivity, transparency, confidentiality, and accountability. Any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, unethical authorship, or conflict of interest that may compromise the integrity of scholarly work is considered unacceptable.

Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: Authors must present an accurate, objective, and complete account of the research conducted. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail, data, and references to allow other researchers to understand, verify, and, where possible, replicate the study. Fraudulent, misleading, or knowingly inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable.
  2. Data Access and Retention: Authors may be requested to provide raw data related to the submitted manuscript for editorial review. Authors should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable period after publication and, where appropriate, provide access to support transparency and verification.
  3. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their work is original. When the work, ideas, data, or words of others are used, they must be properly cited or quoted. Plagiarism in any form constitutes unethical publishing behavior and will not be tolerated.
  4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication: Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Publishing substantially similar research in more than one journal or primary publication without proper justification is considered unethical.
  5. Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors must properly acknowledge the work of others. Relevant publications that have influenced the research design, method, analysis, or interpretation should be cited accurately.
  6. Authorship of the Manuscript: Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, analysis, or interpretation of the study. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all appropriate co-authors are included, that no inappropriate authors are listed, and that all co-authors have approved the final version of the manuscript.
  7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Authors must disclose any financial, institutional, personal, or other conflicts of interest that may influence the results, interpretation, or presentation of the manuscript. All sources of research funding or support must also be clearly stated.
  8. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they are obliged to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate in correcting, retracting, or clarifying the article when necessary.
  9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: If the research involves hazardous materials, procedures, equipment, human participants, or animal subjects, authors must clearly identify these matters in the manuscript and ensure compliance with relevant ethical standards and regulations.

Duties of Editors and Section Editors

  1. Fair Play: Editors evaluate manuscripts based on their academic quality, originality, relevance, clarity, and contribution to the field, without discrimination based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, political views, or institutional affiliation of the authors.
  2. Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts. Information about a manuscript may only be disclosed to the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisers, and the publisher when necessary.
  3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Editors must not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without written consent from the author. Editors should avoid handling manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest.
  4. Publication Decisions: The editorial board is responsible for deciding which submitted manuscripts should be published. Decisions are based on the manuscript’s scholarly merit, reviewer recommendations, relevance to the journal’s focus and scope, and compliance with ethical and legal requirements related to plagiarism, copyright, and defamation.
  5. Review of Manuscripts: Editors must ensure that each manuscript is initially assessed for suitability, originality, and ethical compliance. Editors are responsible for selecting qualified reviewers with relevant expertise and for avoiding reviewers who may have conflicts of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists editors in making publication decisions and helps authors improve the quality, clarity, and scholarly contribution of their manuscripts through constructive feedback.
  2. Promptness: Reviewers who feel unqualified to review a manuscript or are unable to complete the review within the required time should promptly notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively and professionally. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should present their comments clearly, respectfully, and with supporting arguments.
  4. Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use the manuscript content for personal advantage without permission from the editor.
  5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must not evaluate manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, personal, institutional, or financial relationships with the authors or related parties.
  6. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. They should also inform the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and other published works of which they are aware.