Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The Journal of Applied Data Sciences (JADS) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and to supporting the integrity of the academic record. All parties involved in the publication process—authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher—must adhere to the ethical principles outlined below, which are developed based on the the previous COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the current COPE's Core Practices.

 

1. Authorship and Originality

  • All submitted manuscripts must be the original work of the author(s) and must not be under review elsewhere.

  • Authorship should reflect only those individuals who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research.

  • All listed co-authors must approve the final version of the manuscript and agree to its submission.

  • Any reuse of data, text, or figures from previous publications must be properly cited and disclosed.

2. Conflict of Interest

  • Authors must disclose all financial or personal relationships that could be perceived as potential conflicts of interest.

  • Reviewers and editors must also disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect the impartial evaluation of a manuscript.

  • The editorial team will avoid assigning reviewers with known conflicts related to the authors or the subject matter.

3. Peer Review Policy

  • JADS employs a Single-Blind Peer Review model. Reviewers remain anonymous to the authors, but the authors’ identities are known to reviewers.

  • Every manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.

  • Reviewers evaluate submissions based on academic merit, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal scope.

  • The editorial team ensures that peer review is conducted in a fair, unbiased, and timely manner, typically within 4 to 8 weeks.

  • Reviewer comments are shared with the authors for revision, and final publication decisions are made by the editorial board.

4. Research Involving Human Participants

JADS requires that all research involving human subjects complies with internationally accepted ethical standards such as the Declaration of Helsinki and follows institutional and national regulations.

  • Informed Consent: Authors must include a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants, and specify the format (written or verbal). If consent is verbal, a justification and approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) must be documented.

  • Anonymity and Privacy: Identifying information (e.g., names, photos, personal data) must not be published unless explicit consent was obtained. Anonymity of participants must be preserved throughout the article.

  • Ethics Approval: Studies involving human participants must include the name of the approving ethics committee, along with the reference number. If ethical approval was not required, authors must provide a clear rationale.

  • Sensitive Data Handling: Data containing sensitive personal or behavioral information must be securely stored and appropriately de-identified. Authors must comply with privacy regulations such as GDPR or applicable national laws.

5. Retraction and Correction Policy

  • JADS recognizes its responsibility to correct errors or retract articles where necessary.

  • Articles will be retracted in cases of proven scientific misconduct, data fabrication, plagiarism, or unethical research involving human/animal subjects.

  • Minor errors that do not affect the integrity of the article may be corrected via erratum.

  • Authors, readers, or third parties may notify the editor regarding concerns. All allegations will be investigated following COPE procedures.

Duties of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality and credibility of JADS. Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following principles:

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. They may not be shared or discussed with others unless authorized by the editorial office.

  • Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted fairly and objectively, without personal bias. Constructive feedback should be provided to help authors improve the manuscript.

  • Expertise: Reviewers should accept only manuscripts for which they have sufficient subject expertise. If a reviewer feels unqualified, they should notify the editor and decline the review.

  • Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the stipulated timeframe (typically 2–4 weeks). If a delay is unavoidable, they should promptly inform the editorial office.

  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal, financial, or institutional) and decline to review when such conflicts exist.

  • Citation of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant literature that has not been cited by the authors and alert the editor to any significant overlap with other published work.

Duties of Authors

Authors are responsible for the integrity and quality of their submitted work. They are expected to uphold the following ethical standards:

  • Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must submit only original work and appropriately cite the contributions of others. Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is strictly prohibited.

  • Data Integrity: Authors must ensure that their data is accurate, valid, and available upon request. Fabrication or falsification of data constitutes serious misconduct.

  • Multiple Submissions: Manuscripts submitted to JADS must not be under consideration elsewhere. Redundant or simultaneous submissions are considered unethical.

  • Authorship and Acknowledgment: All individuals who made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors. Others who contributed to specific aspects should be acknowledged.

  • Disclosure: Authors must disclose any financial support, affiliations, or personal relationships that could be perceived as influencing the research.

  • Corrections and Retractions: If errors are discovered after publication, authors must notify the editorial office promptly and cooperate in issuing a correction or retraction if necessary.

Duties of Editors and Section Editors

Editors and section editors are responsible for overseeing the integrity and quality of the editorial process. They are expected to:

  • Editorial Independence: Decisions on manuscript acceptance must be made solely based on scholarly merit, without influence from advertisers, sponsors, or institutional affiliations.

  • Confidentiality: Editors must keep all manuscript information confidential and disclose it only to those directly involved in the publication process.

  • Fair Evaluation: Submissions should be evaluated without bias regarding the authors’ race, gender, nationality, institutional affiliation, or political beliefs.

  • Conflict of Interest: Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists. These may include prior collaboration or personal relationships with the authors.

  • Peer Review Oversight: Editors are responsible for selecting qualified reviewers and ensuring that the peer review process is rigorous, timely, and respectful.

  • Handling Misconduct: Editors must investigate ethical complaints, allegations of misconduct, or disputes related to authorship, and take appropriate action in accordance with COPE guidelines.