PUBLISHING ETHICS

1. Purpose and Scope

MSAR Journals is committed to responsible scholarly publishing, research integrity, editorial independence, transparency and the fair treatment of authors, reviewers and readers. This policy establishes the ethical principles that govern manuscript submission, editorial assessment, peer review, publication and the handling of concerns arising before or after publication.

This policy applies to authors, co-authors, editors, editorial board members, peer reviewers, journal staff and the publisher. It applies to original research, review articles, case reports, editorials, letters, conference content and other material considered or published by MSAR Journals, as relevant to the article type.

The policy is informed by internationally recognized publication-ethics guidance, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing developed by COPE, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Applicable laws, institutional requirements and discipline-specific standards must also be observed.

2. Fundamental Ethical Principles

MSAR Journals expects all participants in the publishing process to uphold the following principles:

• Integrity: Research must be conducted and reported honestly, accurately and responsibly.
• Editorial independence: Decisions must be based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance and journal scope, without improper commercial, personal or political influence.
• Transparency: Authorship, funding, competing interests, ethical approvals, licensing and relevant research limitations must be disclosed accurately.
• Fairness and impartiality: Manuscripts must be assessed without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs or other irrelevant personal characteristics.
• Confidentiality: Unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports and editorial communications must be protected from unauthorized disclosure.
• Accountability: Authors and editorial participants must cooperate reasonably with legitimate inquiries concerning research integrity and publication ethics.

3. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts are original, accurately reported and prepared in accordance with the relevant journal's instructions.

• Authors must ensure that the work has not been published previously in a manner that constitutes redundant or duplicate publication and is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal, except where an expressly permitted arrangement has been disclosed and approved.
• Research findings, data, methods, images, tables and references must be represented honestly. Fabricated, falsified or deliberately misleading information is unacceptable.
• All relevant sources must be acknowledged, and quotations, paraphrased material, previously published figures and other third-party content must be attributed and licensed or permitted where required.
• Authors must disclose funding, relevant financial and non-financial relationships, competing interests, ethical approvals, consent and trial registration information, where applicable.
• Authors must ensure that all listed co-authors meet the journal's stated authorship criteria, approve the submitted and final versions, and accept appropriate accountability for the work.
• Authors must respond honestly to editorial queries and cooperate with reasonable requests for clarifications, supporting documentation, research records or corrections.
• Any significant error identified after submission or publication must be reported promptly to the journal.

4. Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship must reflect genuine intellectual or scholarly contributions and must not be granted as a favor, purchased, or withheld from a person who has legitimately earned authorship.

For biomedical journals adopting ICMJE recommendations, authorship should meet all four ICMJE criteria: substantial contribution to the work; drafting or critical intellectual revision; final approval of the version to be published; and agreement to be accountable for the work. Individual journals may specify additional contributorship disclosures.

People whose contributions do not meet the applicable authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately, with their permission where required. Funding acquisition, general supervision or administrative assistance alone does not automatically establish authorship.

Changes to authorship after submission must be justified and approved by all affected authors, including anyone being added or removed. The journal may request written confirmation. Disputes that cannot be resolved by the authors may be referred to the relevant institution for investigation; the journal is not ordinarily responsible for adjudicating employment or institutional disputes.

5. Plagiarism, Duplicate Publication and Research Misconduct

MSAR Journals does not accept plagiarism, substantial unattributed reuse, fabricated data, falsified results, manipulated images intended to mislead, deceptive authorship, citation manipulation, undisclosed duplicate publication or other forms of research and publication misconduct.

Textual similarity alone does not establish plagiarism. Editorial assessment should consider the nature, extent, attribution and context of the overlapping material. Legitimate quotation, properly attributed methods descriptions and other acceptable forms of reuse must be distinguished from misleading appropriation.

Where concerns arise, the journal may request original data, laboratory records, ethics documentation, image files, permissions, explanations or other relevant evidence. Appropriate similarity-checking or image-assessment tools may be used where available, but their outputs should be interpreted by a responsible human decision-maker.

Serious or unresolved concerns may lead to rejection, suspension of editorial processing, correction, retraction, an expression of concern or referral to an author's institution or other appropriate body. Decisions should be proportionate to the evidence and the reliability of the research record.

6. Human Participants, Ethics Approval and Informed Consent

Research involving human participants, identifiable human data, human biological materials or other ethically sensitive information must comply with applicable law, recognized ethical principles and the requirements of the relevant institution and journal.

Where required, authors must provide the name of the approving research ethics committee or institutional review board, the approval or reference number, and a statement describing informed consent or a formally approved waiver. The journal may request documentary evidence or clarification.

Research involving vulnerable populations, children, individuals unable to provide consent, sensitive personal data or potentially identifiable clinical information requires particular attention to safeguards, consent and confidentiality.

For case reports, clinical images or other material that could identify a patient, authors must obtain appropriate written consent for publication when required. Removing a person's name does not necessarily make clinical material anonymous. Identifying information should not be published unless it is necessary, appropriately authorized and handled in accordance with applicable requirements.

Ethics approval must not be claimed if it was not granted. A journal may decline research that lacks required approval or adequate ethical safeguards. Any exceptional circumstances must be assessed carefully and must not be used to retrospectively legitimize research that was conducted unethically.

7. Animal Research

Research involving animals must comply with applicable legislation, institutional requirements and recognized standards for humane animal care and use. Authors must identify the relevant ethics committee or approval authority and provide approval details where required.

Manuscripts should describe animal procedures sufficiently to permit scientific assessment and should explain relevant measures taken to minimize pain, distress and unnecessary use of animals. The journal may request additional information concerning housing, handling, anesthesia, analgesia, humane endpoints and euthanasia methods where relevant.

8. Clinical Trials and Research Reporting

Clinical trials must comply with applicable legal and ethical requirements and the journal's Clinical Trial Registration and Reporting Policy. Where required by the journal's adopted standards, prospective registration in an appropriate public registry must occur before enrollment of the first participant.

Authors must report trial registration details, ethical approval, informed consent, funding and relevant protocol information. Material differences between the registered protocol and the published report must be explained.

Authors are encouraged or required, as appropriate to the study design and journal instructions, to follow recognized reporting guidelines such as CONSORT for randomized trials, STROBE for observational studies, PRISMA for systematic reviews, CARE for case reports, STARD for diagnostic accuracy studies and ARRIVE for animal research.

Registration, ethics approval or compliance with a reporting checklist does not guarantee acceptance. The editorial team retains responsibility for assessing the quality, relevance, integrity and suitability of each manuscript.

9. Conflicts of Interest and Funding Disclosure

Authors, reviewers and editors must disclose financial or non-financial relationships that could reasonably be perceived to influence their work or judgment. These may include employment, consultancy, honoraria, grants, stock ownership, patents, personal relationships, academic competition or other relevant interests.

Authors must identify funding sources and, where relevant, describe the funder's role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation and the decision to submit for publication.

Editors and reviewers with a relevant conflict must inform the journal and withdraw from the affected decision or review when appropriate. The journal may appoint an independent editor or reviewer and may publish disclosures where necessary for transparency.

10. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts receive fair, timely and appropriately independent consideration. Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, ethical acceptability and journal scope.

• Editors must protect confidential manuscript information and use it only for legitimate editorial purposes.
• Editors must not use unpublished information or ideas obtained through editorial work for personal advantage.
• Editors must identify and manage conflicts of interest and arrange independent handling where necessary.
• Editors must not permit advertising, sponsorship, personal relationships or commercial interests to improperly influence editorial decisions.
• Editors must take credible allegations of misconduct seriously and follow a fair, documented process for assessment.
• Editors should correct the scholarly record when reliable evidence demonstrates that correction, an expression of concern or retraction is warranted.
• Editors should treat authors and reviewers professionally and avoid discriminatory or abusive conduct.

Editorial independence operates within the journal's published scope and policies. The publisher may address administrative, legal or ethical concerns through appropriate procedures but should not improperly dictate the scientific conclusions of editorial assessments.

11. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers should provide objective, constructive, evidence-based and timely assessments. Reviews should address the scientific quality, relevance, originality, methods, interpretation, reporting and ethical aspects of the manuscript within the reviewer's expertise.

• Reviewers must decline an assignment if they lack the necessary expertise, cannot meet the deadline or have a conflict that could compromise impartiality.
• Reviewers must treat the manuscript and review process as confidential and must not share, publish or exploit unpublished information without authorization.
• Reviewers must not use peer review to obtain ideas, data or other advantages for themselves or others.
• Reviewers should identify relevant uncited work and raise substantiated concerns about possible plagiarism, misconduct or ethical deficiencies privately with the editor.
• Reviewers must not use hostile, discriminatory or personally abusive language.
• Reviewers must disclose any assistance used in preparing a review where required by journal instructions and must not delegate a review without the journal's permission.

12. Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools

AI tools must not replace human accountability for research, editorial judgment or publication decisions. AI systems cannot be listed as authors because they cannot assume authorship responsibilities or accountability.

Authors must comply with the journal's Artificial Intelligence Usage Policy and disclose substantive AI assistance where required. Authors remain responsible for verifying the accuracy of generated text, references, analyses, images and other material.

Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, peer-review reports or unpublished research to external AI systems unless the journal authorizes the use and appropriate confidentiality, privacy and security safeguards are in place. Any permitted use must comply with journal instructions and applicable data-protection requirements.

AI-generated content must not be used to fabricate data, invent references, misrepresent research findings, create misleading scientific images or conceal material methodological limitations.

13. Data Availability, Reproducibility and Image Integrity

Authors must report methods and results accurately and provide sufficient methodological detail to support meaningful scientific evaluation. Data availability statements should accurately describe whether underlying data, code, protocols or materials are available and explain any legitimate restrictions.

Where ethically and legally permissible, authors should cooperate with reasonable requests for supporting data or documentation needed to assess concerns about published research. Patient confidentiality, consent restrictions, data-protection law and legitimate contractual obligations must be respected.

Images and figures must not be manipulated in ways that misrepresent the underlying evidence. Adjustments that affect scientific interpretation must be disclosed where appropriate. Original image files or other supporting records may be requested if concerns arise.

Failure to share data publicly is not automatically misconduct where a valid restriction applies. However, false data availability statements, fabricated supporting records or deliberate concealment of material evidence may constitute serious ethical concerns.

14. Confidentiality and Protection of Personal Information

Manuscripts under review, reviewer identities where confidential, editorial correspondence and unpublished research information must be handled confidentially. Information may be disclosed only to authorized participants or where disclosure is justified by a legitimate ethical, legal or research-integrity process.

Personal data collected during submission, peer review and publication must be handled in accordance with the journal's Privacy and Data Protection Policy and applicable law. Authors must ensure that research data and published materials do not improperly expose confidential or identifiable information.

15. Complaints, Appeals and Allegations of Misconduct

MSAR Journals provides a process for considering complaints about editorial conduct, peer review, publication ethics and the handling of manuscripts. Authors may submit a reasoned appeal against an editorial decision in accordance with the relevant journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy.

Allegations of misconduct may be raised by authors, reviewers, readers, institutions or other individuals with relevant information. Reports should include as much specific evidence as reasonably available. Anonymous reports may be considered where sufficient information is provided to permit a meaningful assessment.

The journal will assess concerns objectively and proportionately. Depending on the nature of the allegation, the process may include:

1. Initial assessment of the concern and available evidence.
2. Requesting an explanation or supporting information from the relevant authors or participants.
3. Consulting an independent editor, subject expert or other appropriate adviser where necessary.
4. Contacting a relevant institution or authority when the concern requires an investigation beyond the journal's remit.
5. Recording the assessment and deciding whether further editorial action is warranted.

Confidentiality will be maintained as far as reasonably possible, subject to the need to investigate and address the concern. Good-faith concerns must not result in retaliation. A report or allegation is not, by itself, proof of misconduct.

16. Corrections, Expressions of Concern and Retractions

MSAR Journals is committed to maintaining the integrity of the published scholarly record. If a published article contains an error or raises a credible concern about its reliability, the journal will assess the matter and take appropriate action in light of the evidence.

• Correction: Used when a specific error can be corrected without invalidating the overall reliability of the article.
• Expression of concern: May be issued when significant concerns exist but the available evidence or an ongoing investigation does not yet support a final determination.
• Retraction: May be required when findings are unreliable, serious misconduct has affected the work, or other substantial grounds undermine the integrity of the publication.
• Other editorial notices: May be used when appropriate to clarify the publication record or communicate a relevant editorial action.

Editorial notices should clearly identify the affected article and explain the reason for the action to the extent appropriate. Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record and does not necessarily imply that every author acted improperly.

Where appropriate, authors will be given an opportunity to respond. The journal may proceed with necessary action when the evidence warrants it, even if an author does not respond. Requests to withdraw an article after publication will be assessed under the journal's applicable withdrawal and retraction procedures.

17. Editorial Independence, Advertising and Commercial Influence

Editorial decisions must remain independent of advertising, sponsorship, publication charges, institutional pressure and other commercial interests. Funding and relevant commercial relationships must be disclosed transparently.

Where advertising or sponsored content is used, it must be clearly distinguishable from scholarly content. Advertisers and sponsors must not control peer review, manuscript selection, editorial conclusions or the timing of publication. See the MSAR Journals Advertising and Sponsorship Policy for further details.

18. Ethical Breaches and Possible Actions

When a credible ethical concern is identified, MSAR Journals will consider the seriousness, evidence, intent where relevant, impact on the scholarly record and applicable guidance. Depending on the circumstances, actions may include:

• Requesting clarification, correction or additional documentation.
• Rejecting a manuscript or suspending its processing while concerns are assessed.
• Requiring correction of a published article or issuing an appropriate editorial notice.
• Retracting an unreliable article where warranted.
• Referring substantiated concerns to a relevant institution, employer, ethics committee or other appropriate authority.
• Restricting future submissions or taking other proportionate editorial measures when justified by serious or repeated misconduct and consistent with applicable policy and law.

Actions will be proportionate and based on the available evidence. The journal will seek to distinguish honest error, differences of scientific interpretation and correctable deficiencies from deliberate or serious misconduct.

19. Policy Implementation and Review

The relevant journal's editorial leadership is responsible for applying this policy in editorial practice, with publisher-level oversight where appropriate. Journal-specific policies may provide additional requirements consistent with this framework and applicable standards.

MSAR Journals may revise this policy to reflect developments in research ethics, scholarly publishing, technology, recognized guidance or applicable law. The version published on the official website should be treated as the current policy.

20. International Guidance and Reference Resources

This policy is informed by the following publicly available resources. They are provided for reference and do not imply formal membership, certification or endorsement of MSAR Journals by these organizations.

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) — Core Practices
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) — Recommendations
• DOAJ — Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing
• World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
• EQUATOR Network — Health Research Reporting Guidelines