Publications Ethics

1. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity and credibility of scholarly publishing. They are responsible for ensuring that their research meets the highest ethical and academic standards. The following principles must be strictly adhered to when submitting a manuscript to Research Nexus Publication Journal (RENP Journal):

1.1 Originality and Plagiarism

Originality is the foundation of academic research, and authors must ensure that their work contributes new knowledge or insights to their field.

Guidelines for Originality and Plagiarism:

• Ensuring Original Work:
  Authors must submit manuscripts that present entirely original research findings, analysis, or perspectives. The work should not have been published previously or under consideration elsewhere.
• Proper Citation of Sources:
  Any content, ideas, or data borrowed from existing literature, including direct quotes, paraphrases, tables, figures, or methodologies, must be properly cited using recognized citation styles (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago). Failure to acknowledge sources constitutes plagiarism.
• Plagiarism in Any Form is Prohibited:
  Plagiarism includes the direct copying of text, ideas, or research findings without proper attribution. It also includes subtle forms such as:

• Self-plagiarism (recycling one’s own previously published work without citation).
• Image or Data Manipulation (misrepresenting or altering figures, tables, or research findings).
• Patchwriting (changing a few words of another author’s work while maintaining the original structure).

• Use of Plagiarism Detection Software:
  RENP Journal employs plagiarism detection tools (e.g., Turnitin, iThenticate) to verify manuscript originality. If plagiarism is detected, the manuscript will be rejected or retracted if already published.
• Consequences of Plagiarism:

• Manuscripts found to contain plagiarized content will be immediately rejected without review.
• If plagiarism is discovered after publication, the article will be formally retracted from the journal, and a notice of misconduct will be issued.
• Authors guilty of plagiarism may face bans on future submissions and may be reported to their institutions.

1.2 Duplicate and Redundant Submission

Duplicate submission (also known as simultaneous submission) is when an author submits the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time, while redundant publication refers to republishing the same research with minimal changes.

Guidelines for Avoiding Duplicate and Redundant Submission:

• One Submission at a Time:
  Authors must submit their manuscript to only one journal at a time until an editorial decision is made (accepted or rejected). Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals violates ethical standards and wastes editorial and peer-review resources.
• No Overlapping Publications:
  If an author intends to expand on previously published research, the new manuscript must include substantial new findings and explicitly reference the prior work to avoid redundant publication.
• Preprints and Conference Papers:
  If an earlier version of the manuscript was published as a preprint or presented at a conference, the author must disclose this information and clarify any significant modifications or expansions in the submitted version.
• Consequences of Duplicate Submission:

• If a duplicate submission is identified, the manuscript will be automatically rejected.
• If discovered post-publication, the article will be retracted, and authors may face a submission ban for ethical violations.
• The author’s institution or funding body may be notified of the misconduct.

1.3 Authorship and Contributions

Authorship is a critical aspect of scholarly publishing, ensuring that individuals who have made significant contributions to a research study receive appropriate credit. The Research Nexus Publication Journal (RENP Journal) adheres to internationally accepted authorship guidelines, such as those established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Guidelines for Authorship and Contributions:

• Criteria for Authorship:
  Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant intellectual contributions to the research process. This includes:

• Research Design: Conception of the study idea, formulation of research hypotheses, and structuring the study.
• Data Collection & Analysis: Gathering, organizing, processing, and statistically analyzing research data.
• Interpretation of Results: Drawing meaningful conclusions, contextualizing findings within existing literature, and addressing implications.
• Manuscript Writing & Revision: Drafting the manuscript, making substantial edits, and refining content for clarity, accuracy, and coherence.

• Acknowledgment of Non-Author Contributors:

• Individuals who contributed to the research but do not meet the full criteria for authorship (e.g., technical assistants, funding providers, language editors, data collectors, or administrative support) should be acknowledged in the appropriate section of the manuscript.
• The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all contributors are properly recognized and that acknowledgments are made transparently.

• Authorship Changes & Disputes:

• Any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of authorship after manuscript submission must be justified in writing and approved by all listed authors.
• The corresponding author must provide a detailed explanation for any authorship modifications, and all authors must confirm their consent via written communication.
• In case of authorship disputes, the RENP Journal editorial board reserves the right to request supporting documentation, including signed statements from all authors. If necessary, conflicts will be referred to appropriate ethical committees for resolution.

1.4 Data Integrity and Transparency

Maintaining data integrity is fundamental to scholarly research, ensuring that findings are credible, reproducible, and valuable to the academic community. Authors bear full responsibility for presenting accurate, reliable, and verifiable data in their submissions.

Guidelines for Data Integrity and Transparency:

• Accuracy and Reproducibility:

• Authors must ensure that all data, figures, and results reported in the manuscript are accurate and free from errors.
• Data should be presented transparently, without manipulation, misrepresentation, or omission of critical findings that may alter the interpretation of the research.

• Data Availability and Verification:

• Upon request, authors should be prepared to provide access to raw data, supplementary materials, or supporting documentation to verify the validity of their findings.
• Data repositories, supplementary files, or well-documented methods should be included to facilitate replication by other researchers.

• Falsification and Fabrication:

• Any deliberate alteration, fabrication, or falsification of data is considered scientific misconduct and is strictly prohibited.
• If such misconduct is discovered, the manuscript will be rejected, or a published article will be retracted with a formal notice of retraction.

• Selective Reporting and Bias:

• Authors must present complete datasets without selectively omitting negative or contradictory results that may affect the interpretation of findings.
• Selective reporting of results to favor a particular hypothesis or funding source undermines scientific integrity and is unethical.

• Conflict of Interest Disclosure:

• Authors must disclose any financial, institutional, or personal relationships that could influence the interpretation or credibility of their research.
• Any potential conflicts of interest, including funding sources, consultancy roles, or affiliations, should be declared in the manuscript's conflict of interest statement.

1.5 Ethical Compliance in Research

Ethical considerations in research are crucial to maintaining the integrity and credibility of scholarly work. Research involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data must comply with internationally recognized ethical guidelines and institutional policies.

Guidelines for Ethical Compliance in Research:

• Human and Animal Research Ethics:

• Research involving human subjects must comply with ethical standards such as the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, or guidelines set by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee.
• Studies involving animals must adhere to protocols outlined by institutions such as the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) or national animal welfare regulations.

• Informed Consent for Human Participants:

• Authors must obtain written informed consent from human participants before conducting research involving personal data, medical procedures, or psychological assessments.
• Consent forms should clearly outline the study's purpose, potential risks, and the right to withdraw at any stage.
• For vulnerable populations (e.g., minors, patients), additional ethical approvals and guardian consent are required.

• Ethical Approval Documentation:

• Manuscripts involving human or animal research must include a statement confirming ethical approval from a recognized ethics committee or regulatory body.
• The approval number, institutional affiliation, and review details should be provided in the manuscript’s methodology section.

• Confidentiality and Data Protection:

• Researchers must protect the confidentiality and privacy of participants by anonymizing sensitive data and using secure data storage methods.
• Any study involving identifiable personal information must comply with data protection laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or national privacy laws.

• Addressing Ethical Concerns:

• If a study presents potential ethical concerns (e.g., high-risk procedures, deception in experiments, conflicts of interest), authors must transparently address how ethical considerations were handled.
• The editorial board reserves the right to request additional ethical justifications or reject manuscripts that fail to meet ethical standards.

2. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

Editors play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity, quality, and credibility of academic publishing. They are responsible for ensuring that the editorial and peer-review processes are conducted with the highest ethical standards, free from bias, conflicts of interest, or external influence.

2.1 Editorial Independence and Objectivity

• Fair and Unbiased Peer-Review Process:

• Editors must uphold a rigorous and impartial peer-review process, ensuring that all submitted manuscripts receive a fair evaluation based on their scholarly merit, originality, and contribution to the field.
• The peer-review process should be transparent and structured to minimize any biases or unfair advantages.
• Editors must ensure that reviewers assess manuscripts solely based on academic quality and not personal, political, institutional, or commercial interests.

• Editorial Decisions Based on Merit:

• Manuscripts should be evaluated and accepted or rejected based purely on their originality, significance, clarity, and alignment with the journal’s scope.
• Editorial decisions should not be influenced by external pressures, including financial or institutional considerations.
• Any changes to the journal's editorial policies or peer-review process should be made transparently and with academic integrity in mind.

• Avoiding Conflicts of Interest:

• Editors must disclose and avoid handling submissions where they have any personal, financial, or academic conflict of interest with the authors or institutions involved.
• If an editor has a potential conflict of interest, the manuscript should be reassigned to another qualified editor to ensure impartiality.
• Editors must not use unpublished materials or ideas from submitted manuscripts for their own research or personal gain.

Adhering to these principles, editors ensure that the publishing process remains ethical, transparent, and academically rigorous.

2.2 Confidentiality

Maintaining confidentiality is a fundamental responsibility of editors in scholarly publishing. Editors must uphold strict confidentiality standards to protect the integrity of the peer-review process, ensure fairness, and safeguard the intellectual property of authors.

• Protection of Submitted Manuscripts:

• Editors must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents.
• Manuscripts should not be disclosed, discussed, or shared with unauthorized individuals or external parties before publication.

• Restricted Access to Manuscript Information:

• Information regarding a submitted manuscript should only be shared with essential parties, including the corresponding author, peer reviewers, and relevant editorial board members.
• Editors must ensure that reviewers understand and adhere to confidentiality obligations, preventing unauthorized use or distribution of manuscript content.

• Handling Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality Breaches:

• Editors should recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have a potential conflict of interest, ensuring that sensitive information is not misused.
• If a breach of confidentiality occurs, editors must take immediate action to investigate and address the situation, preserving trust in the editorial process.

2.3 Handling Ethical Complaints and Retractions

Editors play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record by addressing ethical concerns and potential misconduct in published research. The Research Nexus Publication Journal (RENP Journal) follows internationally recognized guidelines, such as those set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), to ensure that ethical complaints and retractions are handled fairly and transparently.

• Immediate Action on Ethical Concerns:

• Editors must promptly investigate any allegations of ethical misconduct or concerns raised by readers, reviewers, or other stakeholders.
• Complaints may include plagiarism, data falsification, duplicate publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or breaches of research ethics.

• Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern:

• If an ethical violation is confirmed, editors will take appropriate corrective action, including issuing retractions, corrections, or expressions of concern, following COPE guidelines.
• A retraction will be issued in cases of severe ethical breaches, such as fraudulent data or plagiarism.
• Corrections will be made for honest errors that do not invalidate the overall findings of the research.
• An expression of concern may be published if an investigation is ongoing but inconclusive.

• Author Response and Due Process:

• Before making a final decision on retraction or correction, editors must notify the authors of the concerns raised and allow them to provide a response or explanation.
• Authors must cooperate with the editorial board to clarify any ethical concerns and provide supporting evidence if necessary.
• If the authors fail to respond or the explanation is unsatisfactory, the journal reserves the right to proceed with retraction or correction.

Enforcing strict ethical policies and adhering to best practices, RENP Journal ensures that the credibility, trustworthiness, and academic integrity of published research are upheld.

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring the integrity, quality, and credibility of scholarly publishing. Their assessments contribute to the editorial decision-making process and help maintain high ethical and academic standards. Reviewers for Research Nexus Publication Journal (RENP Journal) are expected to adhere to the following ethical responsibilities.

3.1 Objectivity and Confidentiality

• Fair and Unbiased Evaluation – Reviewers must assess manuscripts objectively, focusing on the quality of research, methodology, significance, and clarity. Personal biases, favoritism, or discrimination must not influence the evaluation process.
• Constructive and Professional Feedback – Reviewers should provide clear, reasoned, and constructive feedback that helps authors improve their work. Criticism should be fact-based and avoid personal or unprofessional remarks.
• Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest – Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest, whether professional, personal, or financial, that could affect their impartiality. If a reviewer feels unable to provide an unbiased assessment, they should decline the review.
• Confidentiality of Manuscripts – Manuscripts under review are confidential and must not be shared, discussed, or distributed to unauthorized individuals. Reviewers should not use any unpublished data, arguments, or interpretations for personal advantage.
• Timely Completion – Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the specified deadline. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should promptly inform the editor and, if necessary, decline the review request.

3.2 Identification of Ethical Issues

• Detection of Plagiarism and Data Integrity Concerns – Reviewers should carefully check for potential plagiarism, falsified data, or manipulated findings. If they suspect unethical practices, they should immediately notify the editorial team.
• Recognition of Redundant or Duplicate Publication – If a manuscript contains significant overlap with previously published works, reviewers should report this to the editor. Duplicate submissions are a violation of publishing ethics.
• Ethical Concerns in Research Methods – If a study involves human or animal subjects, reviewers should ensure that ethical approval and informed consent were obtained. Any concerns about ethical compliance should be raised with the editorial board.
• Reporting Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest – If a reviewer suspects that an author has not disclosed relevant conflicts of interest that could bias the research, they should inform the editor.

Reviewers are essential to the scholarly publication process, and their adherence to these ethical guidelines helps maintain the integrity of RENP Journal’s peer-review system.

4. Handling Misconduct Allegations

Maintaining the integrity of published research is a fundamental responsibility of Research Nexus Publication Journal (RENP Journal). Any suspicion or report of unethical behavior will be taken seriously and addressed systematically.

• Thorough Investigation: When an allegation of unethical conduct (such as plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or authorship disputes) is raised, the journal will initiate a formal investigation. This process may involve communication with the authors, reviewers, institutions, or other relevant parties.
• Fair Process: The accused parties will be given an opportunity to respond to allegations, and all claims will be assessed impartially, based on COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
• Corrective Actions: If misconduct is confirmed, appropriate corrective measures will be taken. These may include issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern. In severe cases, authors may be prohibited from submitting future manuscripts to the journal.
• Public Notification: In cases of retraction, the journal will publish a formal notice explaining the reason for the action, ensuring transparency and maintaining the credibility of published research.

5. Conflict of Interest Disclosure

To ensure objectivity and avoid bias in the publication process, all stakeholders involved in RENP Journal must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their contributions.

• For Authors: Authors must declare any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could affect the interpretation of their research. Funding sources, affiliations, or competing interests must be disclosed in the manuscript submission.
• For Editors: Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest, such as personal or financial relationships with the authors. They should ensure that an unbiased editor oversees the review and decision-making process.
• For Reviewers: Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. If a reviewer has a personal, academic, or financial relationship with the authors or institutions involved, they should decline the review to maintain impartiality.