1. Duties of Editors

1.1. Editors should be responsible for everything published in the journal under their responsibility, as follows:

• Manage and operate the journal in accordance with its objectives and the principles of good governance.
• Maintain and ensure the academic quality standards of the published works.
• Promote and support authors' freedom of expression, provided it does not violate the law or good morals.
• Continuously improve the quality of the journal in terms of format, content, and operational systems to align with modern science and technology.

1.2. Provide readers with detailed information regarding the published academic and research articles, including the authors, their affiliations, and the origins of the research.

1.3. Conduct an initial assessment of the articles before the formal quality evaluation for publication.

1.4. Keep the identities of both the authors and the reviewers strictly confidential during the review process.

1.5. Make the final decision to select articles for publication after the peer review process, based on the journal's evaluation criteria, which consider the article's significance, originality, clarity, and alignment with the journal's objectives.

1.6. Do not publish articles that have been previously published elsewhere (duplicate publication).

1.7. Do not reject an article merely out of suspicion or uncertainty; sufficient evidence must be gathered to verify any doubts before making a decision.

1.8. Have no conflicts of interest with authors, co-authors, reviewers, or the journal's management team.

1.9. Verify articles for suspected plagiarism using reliable software. If plagiarism is detected, the editor must halt the review process and immediately notify the corresponding author to request an explanation before proceeding with acceptance or rejection according to the journal's procedures.

1.10.    Provide a written explanation of all publication procedures, including formatting, initial screening, peer review by at least three experts, and the notification of evaluation results (acceptance, acceptance with conditions, or rejection).

1.11.    Evaluate the quality of academic and research works based on accuracy, appropriateness, clarity of content, research methodology, relevance to current situations, and alignment with the journal's objectives.

1.12.    Allow authors to appeal or provide a written explanation to the editorial board within 30 days of receiving the evaluation results if they disagree with the reviewers' comments or suggestions.

 

2. Duties of Authors

2.1. Certify that the submitted article has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration for publication in any other journal.

2.2. Write the article strictly adhering to the formatting guidelines specified in the "Author Guidelines."

2.3. Present factual academic and research results from their own work without distorting data, which could lead to false information.

2.4. Properly cite the names of articles or authors in both the text and the reference list when utilizing others' works.

2.5. List the names of all co-authors who significantly contributed to the research.

2.6. Acknowledge any funding sources that supported the research at the end of the article.

2.7. Clearly declare any potential conflicts of interest related to the publication of the article.

2.8. Strictly adhere to ethical principles, laws, and regulations if the research involves animals, human participants, or interviewees with sensitive data. Prior consent must be obtained, and relevant documents, such as certificates from human or animal research ethics committees, must be provided.

 

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1. Maintain confidentiality and do not disclose any information about the assigned article to others during the evaluation period.

3.2. Notify the editor or editorial board and decline the review if a conflict of interest is realized (e.g., being a co-investigator or personally knowing the author) or if unable to review the article.

3.3. Evaluate articles within the field of expertise by considering the article's significance, quality, depth, and accuracy. Reviews should be objective and not based on personal opinions or unsupported emotions.

3.4. Suggest relevant and significant published works that the authors have not cited or referenced in the article.

3.5. Immediately notify the editor or editorial board if any part of the evaluated article is identical or substantially similar to another author's published work.