Ethical responsibilities of authors

Authors should avoid misrepresenting study findings, which could jeopardise the journal's credibility, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and ultimately the entire scientific endeavour. In the interest to maintain such integrity of the research, authors are expected to follow the rules of good scientific practices which include the following:

• The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication.

• The submitted work must be original and have not been previously published in any form or language (in whole or in part) unless the new work is an expansion of previously published material. (Please be transparent about material reuse in order to allay worries about text recycling ('self-plagiarism').

• Data collection, selection, and processing should be done in accordance with criteria applicable to the author's field. There should beThere should be no'salami-slicing/publishing' of a single study to increase the number of submissions to various publications or to a single publisher over time. no 'plagiarism' in the presentation of external facts, language, or theories.

• Without fabrication, falsification, or incorrect data change the findings should be presented in a straightforward and truthful manner (including image-based manipulation).

• A single study should not be split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various publications or to one publication over time.

• Concurrent or secondary publication may be acceptable with certain conditions to be met. For instance: translations or a manuscript that is intended for a different group of readers.

• Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given (including material that is closely reproduced (near verbatim), summarised and/or paraphrased), quote marks (to indicate words borrowed from another source) are used for verbatim copying of content and permissions secured for copyrighted material.

• It is the responsibility of the authors to ensure that any software, questionnaires/(web) surveys, and scales used in their research are allowed to be used (if appropriate).

• To substantiate authors’ arguments, both research articles and non-research articles (such as Opinion, Review, and Commentary articles) must refer to relevant and acceptable literature.

• We strongly discourage authors from making concerted efforts to collectively self-cite in an excessive or inappropriate manner. Authors should avoid making false assertions about an entity (which might be a person or a firm) or describing their conduct or acts in a way that could be interpreted as personal attacks or allegations against that entity.

• Authors are highly encouraged to double-check the order of authors, the author group, and the Corresponding Author before submitting.

• When revising an article, it is not permitted to add or remove authors except under specified situations.

• Revisions to the authorship of a work should have good justification. Please be aware that once a paper has been accepted, changes to authorship cannot be made.

• Authors may be requested for relevant data/documents which shall be made available upon request during the reviewing/ revision process.

• Any requests for supporting documentation or data from the authors should be met with a prompt response. This could be in the form of unprocessed data, samples, or records, amongst other possibilities. This may not include sensitive information in the form of confidential or proprietary material.

• Fundamental errors: Once an author discovers a serious error or inaccuracy in a published article, they have an obligation to fix it. In order to contact the journal, the author(s) must describe how the inaccuracy affects the paper. The method of resolving an error in the text will be determined by the type of the mistake. Either a correction or retraction has been made in this article. The retraction note should make it clear which parts of the article were tainted as a result of the mistake.

• Suggesting / excluding reviewers: When submitting their submissions, authors have the option of suggesting reviewers or requesting the exclusion of certain individuals. When recommending reviewers, authors should make sure the individuals are unbiased and unaffiliated with the project. Recommendations from reviewers from other nations and institutions are highly recommended. Any reviewer suggestions should be accompanied by an institutional email address from the Corresponding Author. If this is not possible, include other means of verifying identity in the submission letter, like a link to a personal homepage, a link to publication record, or an ID number for the reviewer. The Journal may not adopt your suggestions, but they are welcome and may make the peer review process go more smoothly.

Peer Review Policy, Process and Guidance

• Peer reviewer policy: completeness is checked on all submissions before they are given to an Editor for evaluation. The Editor will decide if the submissions are ready for peer review. A different member of the Editorial Board shall be assigned to supervise peer review if an Editor is on the author list or has any other conflicting interest. Editorial decisions may be informed by peer-reviewed reports, but the editors are free to disregard any recommendations or conclusions expressed therein. The rejection of a manuscript can be caused by a single concern expressed by a peer reviewer or the Editor. As soon as the editorial decision is made on a paper, authors are notified by peer review reports.

• Peer review process: the peer reviewer selection is of important to the publication process. It's based on a variety of things, such as expertise, reputation, personal recommendations, potential conflicts of interest, and past performance. Rapidity, thoroughness, sound reasoning, and camaraderie are all highly regarded qualities.

• Peer review guidelines: Peer review's primary goal is to provide the Editor with the data he or she needs to make a fair, evidence-based judgement that complies with the journal's editorial standards. Additionally, writers should be able to use the review reports in order to improve their manuscript before submitting it to be published elsewhere. Reports that include a recommendation to reject a paper should highlight the research's significant shortcomings so that the authors can better prepare their manuscript for submission to another publication. The following conventions should be respected by reviewers:

  • • The peer review policy of the Journal should be reviewed by reviewers before they disclose their reviewer roles.

    • Reviews should be carried out in an unbiased manner. Any criticism of the author on a personal level, as well as any statements that are defamatory or libellous, should be avoided.

    • Reviewers are expected to present their opinions clearly, with reasons and sources to support their views.

    • All competing interests should be declared by the reviewer.

    • In cases when reviewers have a competing interest due to relationships or affiliations with authors, companies or organisations associated with the articles, they should decline to assess the manuscripts.

    • Reviewers must maintain the secrecy of the material they are given and refrain from discussing or using information about unpublished papers with their peers or in other projects.

    • It's the reviewer's responsibility contact the journal first in order to forward a peer review invitation.

    • The following types of questions are sent to reviewers in order to get an overall opinion of the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses:

1. Key results: Please give a brief summary of the work's most noteworthy qualities.

2. Validity: Is there any flaws with the manuscript that would prevent it from being published? If this is the case, please elaborate.

3. Clarity and context: Is the abstract well-defined and easily understandable? Do the abstract, introduction, and conclusions fit together well?

4. Data & methodology: Please give your opinion on the approach's validity, the data's quality, and the presentation's overall quality. It's important to know that we want our reviewers to look at all of the data, including any supplemental or expanded data. Is the data and methodology reporting complete and transparent enough to allow the findings to be reproduced?

5. Originality and significance: Assess the originally of the conclusions. Shall the conclusions are not original, please provide support for with relevant references.

6. Suggested improvements: Please provide revision recommendations that might improve the work.

7. References: Does this manuscript make proper use of prior works? Do you have any suggestions for references to include or omit? Any attempts to extort citation from a reviewer will be documented in our database.

Editorials Responsibilities

• For articles describing original research or secondary analysis of primary research, the editor(s) is expected to seek a minimum of two peer reviewers.

• Obtaining two independent peer reviewers may not be possible in all cases, especially in new and specialised domains. A decision to publish based on a single peer review report may be appropriate in these situations. Editorial staff are expected to base their decisions exclusively on peer review reports that meet the minimum requirements.

• Editorial decisions should be based on peer reviewer comments that meet these criteria rather than on recommendations made by short, superficial peer reviewer reports which do not provide a rationale for the recommendations.

• There is an expectation that the editor(s) will independently check the contact information provided by authors or other third parties for potential reviewers. Peer reviewers should be invited using institutional email addresses if available. At least one reviewer who was not recommended by the author should examine each article.

• In the case of Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries, and Opinion Articles, which do not include primary or secondary analysis of primary research as part of their content, the manuscripts may be approved without peer review. To determine if an article is appropriate for publication, it should be evaluated by the Editor(s) with experience in the subject matter; if not, at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member should do so.

• The Editor may act as a second reviewer or make a judgement using only one report when two impartial peer reviewers cannot be recruited. If an editor serves as a second reviewer, he or she should be well-versed in the subject matter. The editor should sign the review to ensure the peer review process is open and transparent. Editor should sign the review. Detail and thoroughness should be the hallmarks of any single report. The first reviewer should be experienced, knowledgeable, and well-versed in the field.

Plagiarism

• The editorial office can check submitted manuscripts for similarity to existing literature using appropriate software. There can be no fraudulent or intentionally incorrect statements included. It is necessary to properly cite or quote other people's work.

Conflict of Interest

• If authors receive any support that could be interpreted as influencing their manuscript's results or interpretation, a conflict of interest statement must be included in the publication. The project's funding sources should all be revealed.

Authorship and Collaboration

• Only writers who have made significant contributions to the report's findings should have their names included in the document. Co-authors should only be those who have contributed significantly. The contributions of others must be acknowledged or identified as contributors in order for their contributions to be considered valid. Ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no improper co-authors are included is the responsibility of the corresponding author. Before the manuscript can be submitted, it must be approved by all of the co-authors and agreed to in its final form.

Disclaimer

• ACARS' editors and publisher have gone to great lengths to ensure the accuracy of the data they've included. There are no official positions taken by ACARS, its editors, or its publisher in this article. All views and recommendations are those of the writers alone. ACARS, its editors, and its publisher disclaim all responsibility for any losses, whether direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, compensatory, or otherwise.