Editors play a crucial role in maintaining the quality, integrity, fairness, and transparency of the publication process. To fulfill these responsibilities, editors are expected to adhere to the following duties and ethical standards:

1. Fair Play

   Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and their relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. The policies of governments or other agencies outside the journal itself do not determine decisions to edit and publish. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

2. Confidentiality

   The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

   The Editors will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used to their advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

4. Publication Decisions

   The editors of IJORTAS ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field. The Editor is responsible for deciding 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 requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

5. Management of Unethical Behaviors

   The editors and the publisher should take rationally responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented regarding a submitted manuscript or published article. Every reported unethical publishing behavior will be considered, even if discovered years after publication.

Reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of scholarly publications by providing objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts. To fulfill these responsibilities, reviewers are expected to adhere to the following duties and ethical standards.

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

   Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communications with the author, may also assist the author in improving the paper. Please ensure that each reviewer follows this checklist:

   Reviewer Checklist: DO
   • Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This presents to the editor that you have read and understood the research.
   • Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, has a sufficient impact, and adds to the knowledge base in technology and applied science.
   • When commenting, do so using short, clearly-defined paragraphs and make it easy for the editor and author to see what section you’re referring to.
   • Assess whether the article conforms to the journal's guidelines and scope.
   • Please provide specific comments and suggestions, for example: does the title accurately reflect the content? Is the abstract complete and stand-alone?
   • Check the graphical abstracts and/or highlights provided by the authors.
   • Keep your comments strictly factual and don't speculate on the motives of the authors.
   • Carefully review the methodology, statistical errors, results, conclusion/discussion, and references.
   • Consider feedback on the presentation of data in the article, the sustainability and reproducibility of any methodology, the analysis of any data, and whether the conclusions are supported by the data.
   • Raise your suspicions with the editor if you suspect plagiarism or research falsification, or have other ethical concerns, providing as much detail as possible.
   • Be aware of potential bias in your review. Unconscious bias can lead us all to make questionable decisions that negatively impact the academic publishing process.
   Reviewer Checklist: DON'T
   • Feel the need to comment on the spelling, grammar, or layout of the article. If the research is sound, but let down by poor language, then recommend to the editor that the authors have their paper language edited.
   • Make Ad hominem comments. "Ad hominem" comments refer to personal attacks or insults directed at the person making an argument, rather than addressing the argument itself.
   • Dismiss alternative viewpoints or theories that might conflict with your own opinions on a topic; when reviewing, maintain an open perspective.
   • Share the review or information about the review with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved. Reviewers must treat any manuscripts they are asked to review as confidential documents.
   • Suggest that the author include citations to your (or your associates') work unless for genuine scientific reasons and not to increase citation counts or enhance the visibility of your work (or that of your associates).
2. Promptness

   Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.

3. Acknowledgement of Sources

   Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they know personally.

4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

   Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts with conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Author(s) play a crucial role in ensuring the integrity, originality, and quality of scholarly publications by submitting accurate and ethical research work. To fulfill these responsibilities, authors are expected to adhere to the following duties and ethical standards:

1. Communication During Submission

   All forms of communication submitted to the Editor-in-Chief must originate from the corresponding author or, in certain cases, other names listed as authors in the article. IJORTAS does not facilitate communication from individuals whose names are not included in the article's author list.

2. Reporting Standards

   Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective, and comprehensive, while editorial ‘opinion’ or perspective pieces should be identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

3. Data Access and Retention

   Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review when requested.

4. 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. Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's paper to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. We will check each manuscript using a plagiarism checker to ensure the originality of the article. Furthermore, each submitted article should be accompanied by a letter of statement from the author(s) stating that the article is free from plagiarism.

5. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

   Papers describing the same research should not be published in multiple journals or primary publications. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript already published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable. Manuscripts previously published as formal publications are not accepted. Manuscripts previously disseminated as preprints, conference abstracts, or through institutional repositories may be considered, provided that full disclosure is made during submission. Authors submitting manuscripts to IJORTAS must ensure that their work is original and not under consideration by another journal at the time of submission. Any submissions found to have been formally published elsewhere will be rejected at the initial assessment or during or after the peer review process. Authors are encouraged to disclose any prior dissemination of their work at the time of submission to ensure compliance with IJORTAS publication policies.

6. Acknowledgement of Sources

   Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained while providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the authors of the work involved in these services.

7. Authorship of the Paper

   Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where others have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

8. Fundamental Errors in Published Works

   When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, the author should promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

   If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment with any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committees have approved them. The authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed. For human subjects, the author should ensure that the work described has been carried out per The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments involving humans.

10. Declaration of Competing Interests

    All authors should disclose in their manuscript any competing interests or conflicts of interest. The detailed information can be found here.

11. Image Integrity

    Enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or introducing a specific feature within an image is unacceptable. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Manipulating images for improved clarity is accepted, but manipulation for other purposes could be seen as scientific ethical abuse and will be dealt with accordingly. Authors should comply with any specific policy for graphical images that the relevant journal applies, e.g., providing the original images as supplementary material with the article or depositing these in a suitable repository. The author can add images or pictures, or figures as illustrations with appropriate citations or references.

To uphold integrity and transparency in the scholarly publication process, the International Journal of Recent Technology and Applied Science (IJORTAS) enforces strict policies regarding authorship determination and verification. These policies ensure that only individuals who have made substantial contributions are recognized as authors, and that all authors provide their consent prior to publication. The following outlines the requirements for author consent and contribution:

Named authors must consent to publication. Authorship should be based on:

1. Substantial contribution to conceptualisation, design, analysis, and interpretation of data.
2. Drafting or critical revision of important scientific content.
3. Final approval of the version to be published.

If authors’ names are added or deleted after the submission of an article, or the order of the names is changed, all authors must agree to this in writing.

The authors need to provide an Author Declaration before the references list. For example:

International Journal of Recent Technology and Applied Science (IJORTAS) uses a double-blind peer review process, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers:

• Willingness: Peer reviewers should promptly inform the editor regarding their willingness to review the assigned manuscript. If they are unable or unqualified to do so, they must notify the editor immediately to excuse themselves.
• Confidentiality: The reviewed manuscript is a strictly confidential document. Any communication or disclosure regarding the manuscript with third parties without the prior permission of the editor or author is prohibited.
• Standard of Objectivity: Peer reviewers must uphold the principles of objectivity and refrain from personal criticism against the authors. All evaluation comments must be formulated constructively with clear, supportive suggestions.
• Reference Clarity: Peer reviewers are encouraged to identify relevant published work or data that the authors have not cited. Any observation or argument previously reported should be noted along with the relevant citation.

Papers submitted to IJORTAS must be original, unpublished, and not pending publication elsewhere. Any material taken verbatim from another source needs to be clearly distinguished from the present original text by:

1. Indentation
2. Use of quotation marks
3. Precise identification and citation of the source

Any text exceeding fair use standards (defined as more than two or three sentences) or any graphic material reproduced from another source requires explicit permission from the copyright holder and involvement/identification of the original source.

Similarity Index & Evaluation Guidelines

IJORTAS utilizes the Turnitin software to evaluate the similarity index of all submitted manuscripts. Based on the screening report, the Editorial Board enforces the following structural decisions:

Note for Revisions: For manuscripts within the 10-40% range, authors must carefully revise the text and resubmit the article along with a Turnitin report demonstrating that the similarity score has been successfully reduced to less than 10%.

Self-Plagiarism & Redundant Submissions

This policy also applies to material reproduced from another publication by the exact same author(s). Simultaneous submissions or significant overlaps with other articles are handled according to the following strict classifications:

• Severe Plagiarism (Significant Overlap): Defined as identical or almost identical figures and modified text for one-half (50%) or more of the paper. If a simultaneous dual-submission is discovered, the editor of the other journal will be formally notified.
• Intermediate Plagiarism: Self-plagiarism covering less than one-half but more than one-tenth (10% - 50%) of the paper.
• Minor Plagiarism: Self-plagiarism strictly confined within the methods section.
• Repeated Misconduct: If a second case of severe plagiarism by the same author(s) is validated, the Editorial Board reserves the right to implement a complete ban forbidding further submissions for a specified timeframe.

Conference Proceedings & Translations

In the case of manuscripts originally published in conference proceedings and later submitted to IJORTAS in identical or expanded form, authors must identify the name of the conference proceedings and the date of publication, as well as obtain official permission to republish from the copyright holder. The editor reserves the ultimate decision on acceptance.

For papers originally published in another language and translated for submission, the title, date, and journal of the original publication must be fully disclosed by the authors, and the necessary copyright permissions must be secured prior to evaluation.

Conflicts of interest can derive from any relationship or association that may influence authors’ or reviewers’ opinions about the subject matter of a paper. The existence of a conflict – whether actual, perceived, or potential – does not preclude publication of an article. However, we aim to ensure that, in such cases, readers have all the information they need to make an informed assessment of a publication’s message and conclusions.

We require that both authors and reviewers declare all sources of support for their research, any personal or financial relationships (including honorarium, speaking fees, gifts received, etc.) with relevant individuals or organizations connected to the topic of the paper, and any association with a product or subject that may constitute a real, perceived or potential conflict of interest. Don't hesitate to contact the editorial team for advice if you are unsure whether a specific relationship constitutes a conflict. Suppose a conflict remains undisclosed and is later brought to the editorial team's attention. In that case, it will be considered a serious issue, prompting an investigation with the possibility of retraction.

The journal follows the Core Practices outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). IJORTAS is committed to maintaining the highest standards of transparency and ethical conduct in scholarly publishing. This policy outlines the definitions of conflicts of interest and the processes for handling conflicts of interest for authors, reviewers, editors, journals, and publishers, whether identified before or after publication. The authors should write the conflict of interest statements as a new section in the manuscript (before the references list). For example:

Definition of Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest arises when an individual or entity has financial, personal, professional, or academic relationships or interests that could influence or be perceived to influence their objectivity, integrity, or decision-making in the context of research, review, editorial, or publishing processes.

Identification of Conflict of Interest

Authors, reviewers, editors, and others involved in the publication process must disclose all potential conflicts of interest that could be relevant to the work they are submitting, reviewing, editing, or publishing. These conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to:

• Financial interests: Funding sources, stock ownership, employment, consultancy, or other financial relationships related to the research.
• Personal relationships: Close personal relationships or family ties with individuals involved in the research or publication process.
• Academic relationships: Collaborations or academic affiliations that may influence objectivity or perceptions of bias.
• Competing affiliations: Affiliations with competing organizations that may have conflicting interests in the research or its outcome.
• Intellectual property: Any patents, copyrights, or intellectual property rights that could be affected by the research or publication.

Handling Conflicts of Interest

IJORTAS will handle conflicts of interest with the utmost diligence and transparency.

Transparency and Disclosure

IJORTAS will clearly state its policy on conflicts of interest, and relevant stakeholders will be informed of the requirements for disclosure. Conflicts of interest disclosures will be published alongside the respective articles, reviews, or editorials to ensure transparency. IJORTAS will limit/prevent its editors, reviewers, and relevant stakeholders' access to the publication process, should they co-author articles submitted to IJORTAS.

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research, writing an article by authors, or reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles published in scientific journals, Editors are responsible for ensuring the scientific record's accuracy and integrity.

Investigation Protocol

The Editorial Board follows a structured process to handle allegations of scientific misconduct:

• Step 1: Initial Assessment

  The editors first determine the validity of the allegation and assess whether it matches the definition of research misconduct. This step also includes checking if the individuals raising the allegation have any relevant conflicts of interest.

• Step 2: Author Notification & Response

  If a substantial irregularity is possible, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author. On behalf of all co-authors, the corresponding author is required to provide a comprehensive, detailed response.

• Step 3: Expert Evaluation

  After the author's response is received, additional evaluation and the involvement of external experts (such as specialized statistical reviewers) may be requested to assist in the final assessment.

• Step 4: Resolution for Minor Issues

  For cases where a deliberate misconduct is unlikely but errors are present, clarifications or additional analyses may be published as letters to the editor, accompanied by a formal correction notice to the published article.

Institutions are expected to conduct appropriate and thorough investigations into allegations of scientific misconduct. Authors hold an essential obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. IJORTAS will continue to fulfill its responsibilities in safeguarding the validity and integrity of scholarly publishing.

Policy Statements

We understand that the authors have worked carefully in preparing manuscripts, and we have carried out peer review processes. However, sometimes there is the potential for published articles to be withdrawn or even deleted for scientific reasons. It should not be done lightly and can only occur under extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed will be carried out with strict standards to maintain confidence in the authority of its electronic archives. It is our commitment and policy to maintain the integrity and completeness of important scientific records for researchers' and librarians' archives.

Content Integrity and Maintenance

IJORTAS maintains the content published and alerts readers to changes if and when they occur. It provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of a document. IJORTAS recognizes the importance of the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record to researchers and librarians and attaches the highest importance to maintaining trust in the authority of its electronic archive.

Article Retraction

IJORTAS is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record, therefore, on occasion, it is necessary to retract articles. Articles may be retracted if:

• Major scientific error: There is a major scientific error that would invalidate the conclusions of the article, for example, where there is clear evidence that findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error).
• Redundant publication: The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification.
• Ethical issues: There are ethical issues such as plagiarism (appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit, including those obtained through confidential review of others' manuscripts) or inappropriate authorship.

The Retraction Process:

• An article requiring potential retraction is brought to the attention of the journal editor.
• The journal editor should follow the step-by-step guidelines according to the COPE flowcharts (including evaluating a response from the author of the article in question).
• Before any action is taken, the Editor-in-Chief will assess and ensure a consistent approach per industry best practices.
• The final decision as to whether to retract is then communicated to the author and, if necessary, any other relevant bodies, such as the author's institution on occasion.
• The retraction statement is then posted online and published in the next available issue of the journal.

If authors retain the copyright for an article, this does not mean they automatically have the right to retract it after publication. The integrity of the published scientific record is of paramount importance.

Article Withdrawal

The author is not allowed to withdraw submitted manuscripts, because the withdrawal is a waste of valuable resources that editors and referees have spent a great deal of time processing submitted manuscripts, and the work invested by the publisher. Before the author submits the manuscript through the IJORTAS system, the author is obliged to approve the checklist provided during submission. IJORTAS strongly encourages authors to read the following terms carefully:

Article Correction

IJORTAS should consider issuing a correction if:

• A small part of an otherwise reliable publication reports flawed data or proves to be misleading, especially if this is the result of honest error.
• The Author or Contributor list is incorrect (e.g., a deserving Author has been omitted or someone who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

Corrections to peer-reviewed content fall into one of three categories:

• Publisher correction (erratum): To notify readers of an important error made by publishing/journal staff (usually a production error) that harms the publication record, scientific integrity, or the reputation of the authors/journal.
• Author correction (corrigendum): To notify readers of an important error made by the authors which harms the publication record, scientific integrity, or the reputation of the authors/journal.
• Addendum: An addition to the article by its authors to explain inconsistencies, expand the existing work, or otherwise update the information in the main work.

The decision on whether a correction should be issued is made by the Editor(s) of a journal, sometimes with advice from Reviewers or Editorial Board members. Handling Editors will contact the Authors of the paper concerned with a request for clarification, but the final decision about whether a correction is required and, if so, which type, rests with the Editors.

Article Removal

In an extremely limited number of cases, it may be necessary to remove a published article from our online platform. This will only happen if an article is defamatory, infringes others’ legal rights, or where the article is (or we have good reason to expect that it will be) the subject of a court order, or where the article, if acted upon, may pose a serious health risk. In such circumstances, while the metadata (i.e., title and author information) of the article will be retained, the text will be replaced with a screen indicating that the article has been removed for legal reasons.

Article Replacement

In cases where an article, if acted upon, may pose a serious health risk, the authors of the original paper may wish to retract the flawed original and replace it with a corrected version. Under such circumstances, the above procedures for retraction will be followed with the difference that the article retraction notice will contain a link to the corrected re-published article, together with a history of the document.

Authors must declare the use of generative AI in scientific writing upon submission of the paper. The following guidance refers only to the writing process, and not to the use of AI tools to analyse and draw insights from data as part of the research process:

• Readability and Language: Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies should only be used in the writing process to improve the readability and language of the manuscript.
• Human Oversight and Accountability: The technology must be applied with human oversight and control, and authors should carefully review and edit the result, as AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that may be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work.
• AI Screening Threshold: An AI screening report generated using a recognized AI-detection tool must be submitted together with the manuscript, demonstrating that the AI-generated content score does not exceed 20%.
• Authorship Restriction: Authors must not list or cite AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author on the manuscript, since authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans.

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in scientific writing must be declared by adding a statement at the end of the manuscript when the paper is first submitted. The statement will appear in the published work and should be placed in a new section before the references list.

The declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools, such as tools used to check grammar, spelling, and references. If you have nothing to disclose, you do not need to add a statement.