Publication Ethics

The following duties outlined for editors, authors, and reviewers are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics COPE Code of Conduct.

Guidelines for authors

Authorship and contributorship

  • Listed authors in a manuscript should be those who made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research.
  • Authors are free to set the order of names, which should be clear from the submission process.
  • Authors are free to define their roles and contributions. In that case, the Credit taxonomy can be used. Roles and responsibilities can be presented in the Contribution Statement section, which should be placed before the References.
  • The corresponding authors must be defined before the manuscript submission. This person oversees all editorial communications between the editors and our editorial office.
  • Authors should provide their full name, affiliations, country, ORCID, and contact information to establish their credentials and facilitate communication with editors and readers.
  • Clearly distinguish between authors and contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship but have made valuable contributions. Before submission, encourage transparency about funding sources, technical assistance, or other support received.
  • Authors should be responsible for ensuring the integrity of their data and results.
  • Authors must adhere to our ethical guidelines, including obtaining informed consent (for human subjects), respecting copyright laws, and disclosing conflicts of interest.
  • All listed authors should have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript before submission.

Research involving human and animal subjects

  1. Ethical Approval and Informed Consent: Authors must affirm that their research involving human and animal subjects has received ethical approval from a relevant institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee. Additionally, informed consent must be obtained from all human participants or their legally authorized representatives, ensuring they are fully aware of the study's purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits. For animal studies, authors must comply with local and national regulations regarding the ethical treatment and care of animals.
  2. Privacy and Confidentiality: Authors must respect the privacy and confidentiality of human subjects. Personal identifiers should not be disclosed unless essential for the research, and consent for publication of identifying information should be obtained when applicable. Authors must also ensure the secure storage and handling of sensitive data, adhering to relevant protection laws and regulations.
  3. Conflict of Interest: Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence the research or its interpretation. This includes financial, professional, or personal relationships with individuals, organizations, or companies that may have a vested interest in the research findings.
  4. Reporting Guidelines: Authors should follow appropriate reporting guidelines for their study design, such as CONSORT for randomized controlled trials, STROBE for observational studies, ARRIVE for animal studies, etc. Transparent and comprehensive reporting allows for better evaluation and replication of the research.
  5. Minimizing Harm: Researchers should minimize harm to human and animal subjects. This includes avoiding unnecessary or excessive procedures that could cause physical or psychological harm. If unexpected adverse effects occur during the study, researchers must promptly address and report them to the appropriate authorities.
  6. Data Integrity and Reproducibility: Authors must maintain the integrity of the data presented in their manuscripts. Raw data should be preserved and available to reviewers and editors upon request. Researchers should strive for reproducibility by providing precise and detailed methodologies to enable other researchers to replicate the study.
  7. Plagiarism and Citation: Authors must ensure their work is original and properly cited. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are strictly prohibited. Proper attribution and citation of sources are essential to give credit to the original authors and previous studies that inform the current research.
  8. Retrospective Ethical Approval: In cases where authors present previously conducted research, retrospective ethical approval may be required to ensure that past studies met ethical standards and complied with applicable regulations.
  9. Non-Discrimination: Researchers should avoid any form of discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or other factors in the selection of research subjects and study design.

Guidelines for reviewers

Our reviewers are invited by the editors who manage the articles. A minimum of two external reviewers per paper is required. We select them based on their expertise on the topic addressed in the article. Reviewers are automatically added to our database. This means we might invite them to review works of their academic and research interest in the future. The review method that our journals follow is double-blind.

As a reviewer, it is crucial to consider the following during the review process:

  1. Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript as a confidential document and do not share the contents or discuss them with anyone else without explicit permission from the journal.
  2. Timeliness: Inform the journal if you need more time to meet the review deadline. If you accept the invitation to review, commit to providing the evaluation within the agreed-upon timeframe.
  3. Competence and Expertise: Have the necessary expertise and knowledge in the subject area of the manuscript you are reviewing. If you feel unqualified to review the submission, please inform the journal editor promptly.
  4. Impartiality and Objectivity: Evaluate manuscripts objectively without personal bias or conflict of interest. If you identify any potential conflict, you must disclose it to the journal.
  5. Ethical Concerns: Be vigilant in identifying potential ethical concerns in the manuscript, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or unethical research practices. Report such issues immediately to the journal editor or the EAI Publications Department (
  6. Constructive and Professional Feedback: Provide constructive and detailed feedback to authors, outlining the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses. Be professional, courteous, and respectful.
  7. Transparency: Disclose the sources of information or references used to support your comments or suggestions.
  8. Relevance and Originality: Assess the significance of research and its contribution to the field. Also, consider whether the work is original and sufficiently advances the existing knowledge.
  9. Ethical Approval and Informed Consent: Check whether studies involving human, or animal subjects have obtained ethical approval and informed consent and whether the authors have adhered to relevant ethical guidelines.
  10. Adherence to Journal Guidelines: Ensure the manuscript meets the journal's formatting, ethical, and reporting standards. If essential information needs to be included, they should request clarification from the authors.
  11. Respect for Authorship: Respect the contributions of the authors and avoid making any personal remarks or derogatory comments.
  12. Recommendations for Improvement: Provide clear and specific recommendations for improvement. If you recommend rejection, you should justify your decision with appropriate reasoning.
  13. Recognition of Limitations: Recognize that your assessment is not infallible, and authors may hold different perspectives. You should remain open to discussions and debates regarding your evaluations.
  14. Reviewer Anonymity: Our journal follows a double-blind review process, so please maintain your anonymity and do not disclose your identity to the authors.
  15. Appeals: Be aware of the journal's appeal process and be willing to consider author responses to your reviews, engaging in a constructive dialogue when necessary.

Guidelines for Editors

Our ethical guidelines are oriented to editorial boards. These are the roles and responsibilities of our editors:

  • Editors-in-Chief (EiCs) have full administrative rights over the publication to which they are appointed. The initial term for the Editor-in-Chief position is two years and can be renewed under the consideration of the EAI Publications Department. Their rights include the right to set the description and keywords for the publication, to add and remove members to the Editorial Board, and to determine the Handling Editor (HE) for individual submissions. EiCs have administrative rights over all submissions and can make editorial decisions if the HE's duties are not fulfilled. Editors-in-Chief privileges in the Open Journal Systems (OJS) can only be granted by the EAI Publications Department.
  • Co-Editors-in-Chief (co-EiCs) have identical administrative rights to EiCs, with the difference being semantic rather than practical.
  • Area Editors (AEs) are regular members of the Editorial Board, appointed by the EiC or co-EiC. Area Editors do not have administrative rights over the publication but can be appointed as Handling Editors for individual submissions.
  • Handling Editors (HEs) are members of the Editorial Board appointed to oversee the review process of a given individual submission. Any editorial board member (EiC, co-EiC, or AE) may be appointed as Handling Editor for a submission.
  • Guest Editors (GEs) organize a Special Issue on an emerging topic that advances science within the journal’s scope. A guest editor’s issue is based on the reception and approval of a Special Issue Proposal Form approved by the EiC. In the approval process, the EiC considers the proposed GE's scope, proposed content, authors, and background. Upon approval, the GE is solely responsible for the issue creation and its content. The guidelines related to the editorial process are the same for the special issue process.

Editors oversee and report concerns about plagiarism, data fabrication, authorship, conflicts of interest, and ethical treatment of human or animal subjects. These guidelines apply to regular submissions and special issues.

  1. Pre-Submission Checks: Before the peer review, please employ our plagiarism detection software to identify potential plagiarism or duplicate publication cases. Additionally, check the submitted manuscripts for adherence to ethical guidelines and proper reporting of ethical approval and informed consent.
  2. Peer Review: Reviewers play a critical role in identifying ethical issues in the manuscript. They should be vigilant in detecting any ethical concerns and report them to the journal editor. Reviewers must involve the EAI Publications Department when they notify Editors about any misconduct.
  3. Addressing Ethical Concerns: As an Editor, you should contact the corresponding author for clarification or additional information when raising ethical concerns. In cases of suspected ethical violations, the editor may also seek input from the EAI Publications Department.
  4. Author Response: We ask authors to explain if ethical concerns are raised during the peer review. We foster a transparent and fair dialogue between the authors and the editorial team.
  5. Investigations and Resolutions: We will take appropriate action if serious ethical violations are confirmed. This may include retraction of the paper, correction of the published article, or notifying the author's institution or funding agencies.
  6. Retractions and Corrections: If a published article contains significant ethical issues or errors, we consider issuing a retraction or publishing a correction as appropriate. Specifically, we consider retraction when there is miscalculation, data manipulation, plagiarism, redundant publication, copyright infringement, unethical research, peer-review manipulation, and conflicts of interest. Every retraction or correction involves the respective Editor(s)-in-Chief and the EAI Publications Department. An email must be sent to, and we will proceed after investigating the reported case. The retraction or correction is clearly stated to maintain transparency.