ETHICS & MALPRACTICE STATEMENTS

SECTION 1: PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND VISION
1.1 Purpose
UMPSA Press, the publishing arm of Universiti Malaysia Pahang Al-Sultan Abdullah, publishes peer-reviewed papers with the utmost integrity, originality and importance. This Document Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement ('the Statement') is the core policy that guides all parties in the administration of UMPSA Press Academic Journals. It describes the expected standards of behaviour for UMPSA Press, its editors, authors, reviewers and institutional partners, based on principles that protect the integrity of the scholarly record. This is a binding policy. Everyone who interacts with a UMPSA Press journal as an author, peer reviewer, member of the editorial board, editor or employee of UMPSA Press has obligations under these policies.

This statement has the following main objectives.
i. To specify duties, it explicitly and concretely establishes the ethical responsibilities of each stakeholder group involved in the publication process.
ii. To ensure that clear statements of obligations foster trust, so that authors, readers, institutional partners and the wider scholarly community can rely on the integrity of work published in UMPSA Press journals.
iii. To reassure journals that UMPSA Press meets international standards established by COPE, maintaining high visibility, impact, and recognition of the journals.
iv. To enable holding any party accountable for their behaviour and to respond consistently and proportionally when obligations are unmet.

1.2 Scope
i. This statement applies to all journals published by UMPSA Press, both current and future, under the same imprint.
ii. It applies to all manuscripts submitted, currently being reviewed or published in these journals at any time, irrespective of their submission/acceptance/publication dates.
iii. This policy applies to all persons interacting with UMPSA Press journals: authors (all co-authors and corresponding authors), peer reviewers, editorial board members, editors at every level (such as Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Section Editors, Copy Editors), and UMPSA Press affiliates (which includes production and management).
iv. All scholarly content published in UMPSA Press journals includes original research articles, review articles, case studies, editorials, commentaries, and supplementary materials.
v. This Statement does not contravene or override any law of Malaysia or any other jurisdiction. The law shall control in the event of any conflict between this Statement and the law.

1.3 Vision
UMPSA Press is committed to acting as an academic publishing ecosystem in which:
i. Authors should know their papers will be reviewed fairly and thoroughly.
ii. Content Reviewers share their expertise in a trusted and appropriately credited environment.
iii. Editors are empowered to run the show while maintaining independence and integrity.
iv. Readers can be confident that the published record is accurate, verifiable and repeatable.
v. The act of publishing advances knowledge rather than destroying it.

This vision will be achieved by UMPSA Press through the policies outlined in this Statement, by instituting the procedures set out in its Misconduct Handling Policy, and by utilising resources made available to it through its publishing infrastructure. It takes institutional responsibility for applying these policies consistently and commits to an annual Transparency Report that allows the scholarly community to assess performance.

1.4 Relationship to Other UMPSA Press Documents
This declaration is the corresponding governance framework as outlined in the UMPSA Press.
i. Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, which elucidates the ethical responsibilities of all contributors and specifies the standards expected from editors, authors, reviewers, board members and the publisher.
ii. The Misconduct Handling Policy establishes the procedures for investigating violations of this Statement's obligations, including detailed sanctions matrices tailored for each stakeholder group.
iii. Author Guidelines implement the author obligations outlined in Section 7 of this Statement for each journal.
iv. The Peer Reviewer Guidelines implement the reviewer responsibilities outlined in Section  6 of this Statement.
v. The Editorial Guidelines implement the editor’s responsibilities described in Sections 4 and 5 for the editorial team.If there is a conflict between this Statement and a subordinate document, this Statement supersedes it regarding obligations. In cases where this Statement conflicts with the Misconduct Handling Policy, this Statement will clarify obligations, while the Misconduct Handling Policy will govern the investigation procedures and sanctions.

SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS
The following definitions govern the interpretation of all terms used throughout this Statement. Where terms are not explicitly defined here, the definitions provided by COPE in its Core Practices documentation shall apply.
Fabrication: The invention of data, results, or other aspects of research, including the creation of false experimental records.
Falsification: The manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or the alteration or omission of data or results such that the research record is not accurately represented.
Plagiarism: The use of another's words, ideas, data, methods, or findings without appropriate attribution, regardless of whether the source material is published or unpublished.
Self-plagiarism: The re-use of one's own previously published text, data, or figures without appropriate acknowledgement or disclosure, in a manner that misleads readers about the originality of the work.
Duplicate Submission: The simultaneous submission of a manuscript, or a substantially similar manuscript, to more than one journal without disclosure.
Redundant Publication: The publication of the same findings in more than one journal, or the fragmentation of a single study into multiple publications (salami slicing), without appropriate cross-referencing.
Ghost Authorship: The omission from the author list of an individual who made substantial intellectual contributions to the work.
Gift Authorship: The inclusion in the author list of an individual who did not make any substantive intellectual contribution to the work.
Conflict of Interest: Any financial, personal, institutional, or professional relationship that could unduly influence the design, conduct, review, publication, or evaluation of research.
Peer Review: The evaluation of a submitted manuscript by independent subject-matter experts who are not affiliated with the authors and who have no unmanaged conflict of interest.
Retraction: The formal withdrawal of a published article from the scholarly record due to serious flaws or misconduct that invalidate the findings or conclusions.
Erratum: A correction to a published article issued by the publisher to correct a production or typographical error.
Corrigendum: A correction to a published article issued by the author(s) to correct an error introduced by them in the original submission.
Expression of Concern: A statement issued by a journal editor alerting readers to potential integrity concerns about a published article pending investigation.

SECTION 3: EDITORIAL STRUCTURE AND GOVERNANCE
This section defines the editorial governance structure that governs all UMPSA Press journals. It works toward establishing clear roles and responsibilities, effective separation of duties, and adequate safeguards for editorial independence.

3.1 Editorial Roles and Authority
i. Editor-in-Chief (EIC): Holds the ultimate editorial authority. Makes all publication decisions, oversees peer review integrity, journal strategy and adherence to this Statement and Misconduct Handling Policy. Reports to the UMPSA Press Technical Head for operations-specific issues but enjoys editorial independence on matters relating substantively to academic content.
ii. Associate Editor-in-Chief (AEIC): Provides editorial oversight support to the EIC. Possibly assigned specific categories of manuscripts or thematic areas. Fills in for the EIC when they are away, otherwise unavailable, or recused.
iii. Section Editors: Subject experts coordinating manuscripts in defined sub-disciplines. They handle reviewer invitations and track review progress before recommending editorial decisions to the EIC.
iv. Copy Editors: They process accepted manuscripts for publication. Authority but are limited to linguistic, formatting and reference matters; they do not make publication decisions.
v. Editorial Board Members: Provide subject expertise, peer review services and strategic advice.

3.2 Appointment and Terms
i. All editorial appointments are made based on academic qualifications, publication record, recognised standing in the relevant discipline, and demonstrated commitment to publication ethics.
ii. Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editor-in-Chief appointments are made jointly by UMPSA Press and the outgoing EIC (where applicable), for renewable terms of three (3) years.
iii. Section Editor and Editorial Board appointments are made by the EIC in consultation with UMPSA Press, for renewable terms of three (3) years.
iv. All editorial appointees sign a written acceptance of the obligations established by this Statement and the Misconduct Handling Policy at the commencement of their term.
v. Removal from an editorial role is governed by the procedures established in the Misconduct Handling Policy. It may also occur due to sustained inactivity, expiry of academic affiliation, or mutual agreement.

3.3 Editorial Independence
UMPSA Press provides an unconditional, publicly stated guarantee of editorial independence. The following provisions operationalise this guarantee:
i. Editors make all publication decisions based on scholarly merit alone.
ii. UMPSA Press does not instruct editors to accept or reject specific manuscripts.
iii. UMPSA Press does not link editorial decisions to commercial considerations, including APC volume, advertising, sponsorship, or institutional reputation.
iv. Editors have the authority to publish editorial commentary, errata, corrections, and retractions without prior approval from UMPSA Press, provided such communications are factually accurate.
v. Disputes between editors and the publisher on editorial matters are resolved through the Ethics Advisory Panel, bypassing UMPSA Press management.

3.4 Ethics Advisory Panel
UMPSA Press maintains an Ethics Advisory Panel as the principal independent body responsible for ethics oversight across the Engineering and Technology Journal Series. The Panel:
i. Comprises at least five members, including senior scholars with expertise in publication ethics and at least one member external to Universiti Malaysia Pahang Al-Sultan Abdullah.
ii. Operates independently of UMPSA Press management and reports through the Panel Chair to the Universiti Vice-Chancellor's office on matters of policy and serious misconduct.
iii. Reviews systemic trends in publication ethics across all journals and recommends policy revisions.
iv. Conducts misconduct investigations involving senior parties, the publisher, or systemic concerns, in accordance with the Misconduct Handling Policy.
v. Reviews the Annual Transparency Report before publication.

SECTION 4: RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORS
This section outlines the ethical duties of all editorial positions at UMPSA Press journals, including Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors-in-Chief, Section Editors, and Copy Editors. Each position has particular responsibilities and a fair amount of authority, all of which are regulated by this Statement and the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.

4.1 Publication Decisions
The Editor-in-Chief has exclusive and final authority to determine which manuscripts are published in the journal. All publication decisions must be based solely on the following criteria:
i. The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) has the ultimate and exclusive authority over all publication decisions. While Associate and Section Editors can make recommendations and may be delegated authority for certain decisions, the final say always resides with the EIC.
ii. All decisions should be made solely based on scientific or technical validity, originality and novelty, relevance to the journal's readership, ethical standards, compliance with submission guidelines, and reviewer evaluations.
iii. No decision shall be influenced by authors' personal characteristics, institutional affiliations, nationality, political views, or any external commercial, political, or personal interests related to the work.
iv. All editorial decisions should be communicated to authors in writing along with a clear, professional explanation. Rejection decisions must include enough rationale to allow authors to understand the editorial reasoning.
v. The originality and novelty of the manuscript must provide a genuine, previously unpublished contribution to knowledge in its field.
vi. Research must comply with all relevant ethical, regulatory, and legal standards.
vii. The work should maintain enough interest and relevance for the journal's readership.
viii. The EIC may reject manuscripts at the desk if they are outside the scope, do not meet minimum quality standards, have unacceptable similarity scores, or lack originality. A written explanation must be provided to the corresponding author for such desk rejections.
ix. The EIC may seek advice from the Associate Editor-in-Chief, Section Editors, Editorial Board members, or trusted subject experts before making a decision. Still, the final authority remains solely with the EIC.

4.2 Peer Review Management
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for maintaining a peer review process that is fair, rigorous, timely, and respectful to all participants. The following standards guide the conduct of peer review in all UMPSA Press journals.
i. The EIC ensures that the peer-review process operates fairly, rigorously, and promptly for all manuscripts.
ii. Every manuscript that passes desk review must be evaluated by a minimum of two independent peer reviewers who hold relevant expertise in the subject matter of the submission.
iii. Reviewers must be free from any unmanaged conflict of interest with the manuscript's authors or funders. The editor is responsible for verifying this condition before assigning reviewers.
iv. All UMPSA Press journals employ a single-blind peer-review process. The EIC is responsible for protecting the confidentiality of both author and reviewer identities throughout the process.
v. EIC/Managing Editor must monitor the progress of all assigned reviews and follow up with reviewers who have not submitted their reports by the agreed deadline. If a reviewer fails to deliver a report within a reasonable extended period, appoint replacement reviewers where necessary.
vi. The EIC reads all reviewer reports critically before communicating decisions. Reports that are factually incorrect, excessively brief, personally offensive, or otherwise inadequate are not transmitted to authors without appropriate intervention.
vii. Editorial decisions must be communicated to authors in a timely manner, with clear and respectful explanations. Where a manuscript is rejected, the decision letter must provide sufficient rationale without being disparaging.
viii. Where reviewer opinions are substantially divided, the EIC may seek a third reviewer or consult the Associate Editors-in-Chief/Section editors/ Editorial Board, weighing all evidence to reach a final determination.
ix. Editors must ensure that revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the original reviewer(s) unless a different arrangement is operationally necessary or appropriate, such as when an original reviewer has become unresponsive.

4.3 Fairness, Objectivity, and Non-Discrimination
UMPSA Press editors are expected to maintain consistent, impartial, and non-discriminatory standards during the evaluation of all manuscripts. Specifically:
i. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on intellectual content, regardless of authors' race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, institutional affiliation, or political views.
ii. Editors apply consistent standards of scrutiny and timeline expectations to all manuscripts, regardless of the prominence of the authors or institutions.
iii. Unsolicited and invited manuscripts are subject to the same peer review standards. Invited papers receive no preferential treatment.
iv. Editors do not manipulate citation counts, reject competitors' work without legitimate academic grounds, or misuse editorial position to advance personal interests.

4.4 Confidentiality
Confidentiality is fundamental to the editorial process and must be upheld throughout all stages of manuscript handling. Editors are required to adhere to the following confidentiality obligations:
i. The existence of a submitted manuscript, its content, the identity of the reviewers assigned to it, and the substance of any reviewer reports are strictly confidential and must not be disclosed to any party beyond the editorial team, assigned reviewers, and the publisher, except as required by applicable law.
ii. Editors must not discuss submitted manuscripts at conferences, in public forums, on social media, or in any other setting outside the confines of the formal editorial process.
iii. Confidentiality obligations extend beyond the editorial process. Editors do not disclose details of peer review reports, rejected manuscripts, or unpublished research after the editorial process concludes.
iv. Editors handling manuscripts that may be the subject of legal proceedings or formal misconduct investigation seek guidance from the UMPSA Press Editorial Office before proceeding.

4.5 Conflicts of Interest
i. Editors must proactively identify and manage all potential conflicts of interest that could compromise the objectivity of their editorial decisions. The following rules apply:
ii. Editors recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have a direct or indirect personal, financial, collaborative, or competitive relationship with any author, co-author, or institution. This includes but is not limited to manuscripts authored by current or recent collaborators (within the past five years), current students or supervisors, family members, or close personal associates.
iii. Recused editors must transfer the manuscript to an alternative editor without disclosing the reason for recusal to the authors, unless the recusal itself is disclosed as a matter of editorial transparency.
iv. Editors must disclose to the EIC or publisher any personal or financial relationship that could be perceived to create a conflict, even where the editor believes the relationship would not affect their judgement.
v. Editors must not use information obtained from a manuscript under review to advance their own research without the explicit written consent of the corresponding author.
vi. Editors must never use unpublished data, ideas, or analytical frameworks from manuscripts they handle in their own research without the author's explicit written consent. A breach constitutes a serious ethical violation and is investigated under the Misconduct Handling Policy, Section 6.
vii. Editors must not solicit manuscripts from authors with whom they have an unmanaged personal or professional relationship in a way that creates a perception of bias in the publication process.

4.6 Integrity of the Published Record
i. Editors bear a professional and ethical duty to investigate, and where necessary escalate, all credible allegations or suspicions of research or publishing misconduct. The following procedure governs the handling of all misconduct concerns:
ii. Editors are responsible for issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern promptly when errors or misconduct are identified, in accordance with the Misconduct Handling Policy and COPE Retraction Guidelines (2019).
iii. Investigations into alleged misconduct proceed in accordance with the Misconduct Handling Policy Section 4 and the applicable COPE flowchart, regardless of when the misconduct is discovered.
iv. There is no statute of limitations on misconduct investigations. Editors investigate concerns about articles published years or decades previously with the same procedural rigour as pre-publication concerns.

4.7 Editorial Independence
UMPSA Press unconditionally guarantees the editorial independence of all journals it publishes. The following provisions give effect to this guarantee:
i. Editors exercise independent judgment on all editorial matters.
ii. No government body, funding agency, advertiser, institutional authority, or commercial entity shall have any influence over editorial decisions, reviewer selection, or the content of any journal.
iii. The publisher (UMPSA Press) shall not instruct editors to accept or reject any manuscript for commercial or reputational reasons unrelated to its scholarly merit.
iv. Editors shall not modify, suppress, or delay publication of a manuscript based on political, commercial, or personal considerations.
v. The EIC has the authority to issue editorial comments, letters, and corrections without prior approval from UMPSA Press, provided such communications are factually accurate and professionally worded.
vi. Editors who experience external pressure to influence a publication decision report the matter immediately to the Ethics Advisory Panel and document the incident.
vii. In the event of disagreement between the EIC and the publisher on editorial policy or specific decisions, the matter is referred to the Ethics Advisory Panel for resolution.

SECTION 5: RESPONSIBILITIES OF EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
The Editorial Board comprises distinguished scholars with recognised expertise in the disciplines covered by the journal. Board members serve as the journal's academic backbone, providing scientific credibility, subject expertise, and strategic guidance. Membership implies a commitment to the highest standards of scholarly conduct and publishing ethics.

5.1 Appointment, Tenure, and Renewal
i. Editorial Board members are appointed by the EIC in consultation with UMPSA Press based on their academic qualifications, publication record, and recognised standing in the relevant discipline.
ii. Appointments are made for a renewable term by mutual agreement of the board member and the EIC. Members are expected to remain active throughout their term and to communicate any change in their availability or expertise to the EIC.
iii. The composition of the Editorial Board must reflect genuine international representation and subject diversity commensurate with the journal's aims and scope.
iv. Board appointments should not be made solely based on institutional affiliation or personal acquaintance.
v. Board members may be removed from the Editorial Board by the EIC, with the approval of UMPSA Press, in cases of sustained inactivity, breach of this Statement, or conduct that damages the reputation of the journal.

5.2 Active Engagement
i. Board members are expected to remain actively engaged with the journal throughout their term: responding to communications, accepting peer review invitations consistent with their availability, and contributing to strategic discussions.
ii. Board members should be willing to review a reasonable number of manuscripts per year upon invitation from the EIC or Section Editors, provided there are no conflicts of interest.
iii. Board members who are unable to maintain active engagement are expected to resign formally rather than remain on a passive listing.
iv. UMPSA Press conducts annual reviews of board engagement and may decline to renew the terms of members who are consistently inactive.

5.3 Review Contributions
i. Reviews undertaken by board members must meet the same standards of quality, timeliness, and professional conduct required of all reviewers (see Section 8).
ii. Board members must decline review invitations where any unmanaged conflict of interest exists.
iii. Board members do not delegate peer-review responsibilities to students, postdoctoral researchers, or colleagues without the prior written notice and approval of the EIC. When the EIC approves a delegation, both the board member and the delegate are identified, and the delegate independently satisfies all reviewer obligations.

5.4 Strategic and Advisory Responsibilities
i. Board members contribute to the journal's strategic direction, including aims and scope, thematic focus, and academic positioning.
ii. Board members may recommend topics for special issues, identify potential guest editors, and suggest authors whose work would strengthen the journal.
iii. Board members are encouraged to promote the journal within their professional and institutional networks and to encourage submission of high-quality manuscripts, subject to appropriate conflict-of-interest management.
iv. Board members participate in periodic board meetings and respond constructively to the EIC's requests for input on policy matters.
v. Board members assist the EIC in adjudicating complex cases, including authorship disputes, appeals, and editorial complaints.

5.5 Confidentiality
i. The same confidentiality obligations as editors bind board members. All manuscripts, reviewer identities, review content, and editorial deliberations they encounter are strictly confidential.
ii. Board members must not share manuscript content, preliminary findings, or editorial decisions with any individual outside the editorial team, regardless of subsequent publication status.
iii. Board members do not use unpublished data, frameworks, or intellectual content from reviewed manuscripts for any personal or professional purpose without the explicit written consent of the corresponding author.

5.6 Conflicts of Interest
i. Board members must declare all potential conflicts of interest to the EIC at the time of appointment and update their declarations whenever a new conflict arises during their tenure.
ii. A conflict of interest declaration form is required of all board members at the commencement of each term. Declarations are reviewed by the EIC and retained by UMPSA Press.
iii. Board members must not handle, review, or advise on any manuscript in which they have a competing interest. They must recuse themselves immediately upon identifying such an interest and notify the EIC without delay.
iv. Board members with financial or commercial interests in research outcomes, including equity, consultancies, or patents, declare these interests and recuse themselves from related manuscripts.

5.7 Integrity of Board Affiliation
Board members may publicly state their affiliation with the journal in their professional profiles, CVs, and academic communications, accurately reflecting the role and term.
ii. Board members do not misrepresent the nature of their role, the date range of their service, or the journal's standards in any communication.
iii. Board members must not accept commercial benefits, consultancies, speaking fees, or other compensation from authors or institutions whose manuscripts they have access to in their board capacity, in a manner that creates a real or perceived conflict of interest.

SECTION 6: RESPONSIBILITIES OF PEER REVIEWERS
Peer reviewers hold the important responsibility of assessing unpublished research that could reflect years of work by other scholars. This trust comes with corresponding responsibilities. This section outlines the standards expected of all reviewers conducting peer reviews for UMPSA Press journals.

6.1 The Peer Review Standard
UMPSA Press journals use a single-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review. Reviewers contribute expert, evidence-based assessments that enable the EIC to make informed decisions and provide authors with constructive feedback to improve their work.

6.2 Accepting and Declining Review Invitations
Reviewers must assess their own suitability before accepting or declining a review invitation. Suitability requires: (a) subject-matter expertise in the area of the manuscript; (b) the availability to complete the review within the stipulated timeframe; and (c) the absence of any unmanaged conflict of interest.
i. Reviewers who lack the specific technical expertise required to evaluate a manuscript must decline promptly.
ii. Reviewers may suggest alternative reviewers with the requisite expertise when declining an invitation.
iii. Reviewers who accept an invitation and subsequently discover a conflict of interest, or who find that they are unable to complete the review in the required timeframe, must notify the editor immediately so that a replacement can be appointed.
iv. Reviewers must not accept an invitation and then delegate the review to a student, postdoctoral researcher, or supervisor without disclosing this to the editor and obtaining the EIC's prior explicit approval.

6.3 Conducting a Fair and Thorough Review
A high-quality review addresses the following dimensions:
i. The research explicitly outlines its scientific or technical objectives. The methods are appropriate, and the processes of data collection, analysis, and interpretation are thorough and accurate, with any noticeable errors.
ii. The originality and contribution of the work make an original, previously unpublished contribution to its field, and the novelty is clearly articulated.
iii. The findings are relevant and significant to the field, and the study’s rationale is well justified.
iv. Engagement with the literature is shown through a comprehensive, current, and accurately cited review that addresses important, relevant works.
v. The manuscript is clearly and logically organised, with figures, tables, and supplementary materials that meet the appropriate standards.
vi. Data integrity and reporting are assured through precise and transparent documentation, with all pertinent statistical measures, such as confidence intervals, effect sizes, and sample sizes, thoroughly reported.
v. The manuscript's ethical compliance includes appropriate ethics approval declarations and disclosures of conflicts of interest.

6.4 Standards of Professional Conduct
i. Reviewers must conduct their evaluations with intellectual honesty and professional courtesy. All comments directed at the work must be evidence-based, constructive, and respectful.
ii. Personal criticism of the authors is strictly prohibited under any circumstances. Reviews address the work, not the people behind it.
Reviewers must clearly state their recommendation: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Specific, detailed justifications must support recommendations.
iii. Rejection recommendations identify the fundamental deficiencies that cannot be resolved by revision.
iv. Reviewers must not recommend rejection purely on the grounds of negative or null results, provided the methodology is sound, and the research question is valid. Negative results that are rigorously obtained and honestly reported constitute a valid scholarly contribution.
v. Reviewers must not delay submitting their report without notifying the editor, and must not seek to prolong the review process for tactical reasons, including delaying the publication of competing work.
vi. Reviewers must not contact authors directly at any stage of the review process without the prior authorisation of the handling editor.
vii. Reviewers must never use the peer review process to extract credit for themselves, suppress competing research, or coerce authors into citing the reviewer's own work without genuine scientific justification. Coercive citation is investigated under the Misconduct Handling Policy Section 8 and is reported to COPE.

6.5 Confidentiality
i. All manuscripts submitted for review are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not disclose the existence, content, or conclusions of any manuscript they are reviewing to any third party.
ii. Reviewers must not retain copies of manuscripts beyond the conclusion of the review process without the explicit written consent of the editor.
iii. Reviewers must not discuss manuscripts under review at conferences, in public forums, on social media, or in any other external setting.
iv. Confidentiality obligations extend after the conclusion of the review process. Reviewers must not disclose the content of their own or other reviewers' reports after publication of the manuscript, unless permitted by the journal's review policy.
v. If a reviewer inadvertently identifies an author through the content of the submission or any associated materials, they must immediately notify the handling editor of this circumstance and seek guidance on whether to continue the review.

6.6 Conflicts of Interest
i. Reviewers decline invitations where any real or perceived conflict of interest exists. Conflicts include: current or recent direct collaboration with any author (within five years); a supervisor-student, mentor-mentee, or close personal relationship with any author; institutional affiliation that could affect impartiality; financial interest in research outcomes; and known strong personal or ideological opposition to the research area.
ii. Reviewers who become aware of a potential conflict during the review notify the editor immediately.
iii. The existence of a conflict does not imply impropriety. Reviewers who decline due to a conflict may suggest an alternative reviewer.

6.7 Acknowledgement of Sources
i. Reviewers identify relevant published literature that authors have not cited and recommend appropriate citations.
ii. Reviewers alert the EIC to any significant similarity between the manuscript under review and any previously published work of which they are aware.
iii. Reviewers do not exploit the privilege of early access to manuscripts by citing them in their own work in advance of publication, without the author's explicit consent.

6.8 Timely Review and Recognition
i. Reviewers are expected to submit their completed review by the deadline communicated at the time of invitation. If an extension is required, the reviewer requests it from the handling editor before the deadline expires, not after.
ii. UMPSA Press acknowledges the voluntary and essential contribution of peer reviewers to the scholarly publishing ecosystem. UMPSA Press acknowledges the voluntary and essential contribution of peer reviewers to the scholarly publishing ecosystem. Reviewers may, upon request, receive a formal acknowledgement letter upon completion of each review.
iii. The journal operates a Reviewer Recognition Programme that annually identifies outstanding reviewers.
iv. Anonymised lists of active reviewers may be published periodically as a collective acknowledgement, subject to reviewer consent.

SECTION 7: RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS
Authors are mainly accountable for the integrity of their submitted and published work. This section details the complete responsibilities of all manuscript authors for UMPSA Press journals, including corresponding authors and co-authors. These duties cover the entire process from initial submission to post-publication.

7.1 Reporting Standards and Data Integrity
Accurate, honest, and comprehensive reporting of research is the fundamental obligation of every author. The following standards must be strictly followed:
i. Authors must describe their methods with sufficient precision, clarity, and completeness to enable an independent researcher to replicate the study. Ambiguous or incomplete method descriptions that prevent replication are not acceptable.
ii. All data reported in the manuscript, including numerical values, statistical outputs, measurements, and experimental observations, must be accurate and must correspond faithfully to the original research records.
iv. Authors must not manipulate, adjust, enhance, or selectively crop images, figures, or graphical outputs in a manner that alters the scientific information conveyed. Acceptable image adjustments are limited to brightness, contrast, and colour balance modifications applied uniformly to the entire image, provided such adjustments do not obscure or misrepresent any feature of the image.
v. Authors must report all relevant results, including negative, null, or inconclusive findings. Selective reporting of results, the suppression of unfavourable data, and the post-hoc alteration of hypotheses to fit observed results are all forms of research misconduct.
vi. Where statistical methods are employed, authors must report all relevant statistical measures, including, as appropriate, sample sizes, effect sizes, confidence intervals, test statistics, and p-values.

7.2 Data Availability, Access and Retention
i. UMPSA Press strongly encourages open data practices that align with the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable).
ii. Authors may be required, at the editor's discretion, to provide raw data for editorial review during manuscript assessment.
iii. Where data cannot be publicly shared due to ethical constraints (e.g., confidentiality obligations to human research participants), legal restrictions, or proprietary considerations, authors must clearly explain the nature of those restrictions in the manuscript's Data Availability Statement and describe any conditions under which the data could be shared on a restricted basis.
iv. Authors retain all primary research data for a minimum of ten (10) years following publication, in accordance with applicable legal and ethical restrictions.
v. Where data cannot be publicly shared due to ethical, legal, or proprietary constraints, authors clearly explain the restrictions in the manuscript's Data Availability Statement.
vi. When research data are deposited in a recognised public repository, authors must include the repository name, the dataset DOI, and the access conditions in the Data Availability Statement.
vii. For computational research, authors are expected to provide analysis code, software scripts, and model parameters to enable independent reproduction of the reported results.

7.3 Originality, Plagiarism and Attribution
All submitted manuscripts must be completely original, unpublished elsewhere, and not reproduced from any source without proper attribution. UMPSA Press enforces a strict zero-tolerance policy on all forms of plagiarism.
i. All submitted manuscripts must be entirely original, previously unpublished, and not reproduced from any source without proper attribution.
ii. Every manuscript submitted to a UMPSA Press journal is screened using a recognised plagiarism detection system (Turnitin) immediately upon submission. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their manuscript does not contain unattributed text, and are advised to conduct their own plagiarism check before submission.
iii. The maximum permissible overall Similarity Index is 25%. The maximum similarity attributable to any single source is 5%. Manuscripts exceeding these thresholds will be returned to the authors or rejected at desk review, subject to the editor's assessment of the nature and distribution of the matches.
iv. Quotations from other works must be enclosed in quotation marks and attributed to the source in an inline citation. Extended quotations are discouraged; authors are expected to paraphrase and cite.
v. Self-plagiarism is prohibited. Authors must not reproduce substantial portions of their own previously published work in a new submission without appropriate attribution, cross-referencing, and a clear explanation of the new contribution made by the current manuscript.
vi. Paraphrasing without citation constitutes plagiarism. Authors must provide an appropriate citation for any fact, finding, argument, or idea derived from another source, whether or not the source text is directly quoted.
vii. All sources cited in the reference list must actually have been read and consulted by the authors. Citation fabrication is a form of academic dishonesty.
viii. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) language tools to generate text that is submitted as the original work of the authors constitutes a form of fabrication and is prohibited. AI-generated text that passes plagiarism detection but misrepresents the authors' intellectual contribution is a breach of this Statement.

7.4 Authorship and Contributorship
The criteria for authorship must be applied rigorously and consistently. UMPSA Press adopts the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, which require that each author must satisfy all four of the following conditions:
i. Substantial contributions to conception/design or to data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation.
ii. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
iii. Drafting the work or critically revising it for important intellectual content;
iv. Final approval of the version to be published; and
v. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Individuals who contributed to the study but do not meet all four criteria for authorship must be acknowledged in a dedicated Acknowledgements section, with a brief description of their contribution. Typical acknowledgeable contributions include: provision of funding, administrative support, acquisition of materials, technical assistance, or statistical advice that did not rise to the level of intellectual contribution.
i. The corresponding author acts as the primary point of contact between the author group and the editorial office. The corresponding author is responsible for: ensuring that all co-authors satisfy the authorship criteria above; obtaining the consent of all co-authors to the submitted version of the manuscript; managing all revision and resubmission tasks on behalf of the author group; ensuring that all required disclosures, declarations, and permissions are in order at submission; and notifying the editor of any authorship changes post-submission, which the editor must approve.
ii. Any change to the authorship list after submission, whether the addition or removal of an author, or a change in the order of authors, must be submitted in writing to the editor by the corresponding author, accompanied by a signed statement from all current and affected authors confirming their agreement to the change. The editor will review the request and may seek further information before approving or declining the change.
iii. UMPSA Press recommends using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to transparently document individual contributions.
iv. Ghost authorship (omitting a contributor who qualifies for authorship) and gift, guest, or honorary authorship (including an individual who does not qualify for authorship) are both serious forms of misconduct. Both practices misrepresent the intellectual contribution to the work and distort accountability for its integrity.
v. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the preparation of manuscripts must be disclosed transparently. The following rules apply to all UMPSA Press journal submissions.
vi. AI tools (including, but not limited to, large language models used for text generation or editing) cannot be listed as authors. Authorship requires the capacity to consent, to be accountable, and to take responsibility for the integrity of the work — capacities that AI systems do not possess.
vii. Any use of AI tools in the preparation of the manuscript, including for drafting text, generating figures, data analysis, or literature summarisation, must be disclosed in a dedicated statement in the Methods or Acknowledgements section. The disclosure must specify the tool used, the version, and the nature of its use.
viii. Authors are fully responsible for verifying the accuracy, originality, and appropriateness of any content generated or modified with AI assistance. AI tools do not assume responsibility for errors, fabrications, or copyright infringement in their outputs.

7.5 Multiple, Duplicate, and Redundant Submissions
Submitting the same work to multiple journals simultaneously, or splitting a single study into multiple publications without justification, wastes the finite resources of the peer-review system and constitutes a serious breach of publication ethics.
i. Authors must certify upon submission that their manuscript is not under review elsewhere. Submitting the same or very similar manuscripts to multiple journals simultaneously is strictly forbidden and may result in immediate rejection and reporting to the authors' institutions.
ii. Authors must not publish the same findings in another journal, whether in the same or a different language, without disclosing the prior publication and explicitly stating any new contributions.
iii. Salami slicing, the practice of dividing a single study into multiple papers to inflate publication counts, is prohibited. If separate publications are genuinely necessary for different parts of the study, authors should include cross-references to all related papers and justify why each must be published independently.
iv. A secondary publication is deemed legitimate when both editors-in-chief are informed, the original work is recognised, it targets a different audience, and written permission is explicitly obtained from the original publisher.

7.6 Ethics Approval, Informed Consent, and Animal Welfare
Research involving human participants or animal subjects carries specific ethical obligations that must be satisfied before submission.
i. Research involving human participants must have received prior written approval from an accredited Institutional Review Board (IRB), Ethics Committee, or equivalent body before data collection commenced. The manuscript must include: the name of the approving body; the assigned approval or reference number; and approval date; a statement confirming that all participants provided informed written consent (or that the requirement for consent was waived by the ethics committee with stated justification); and a statement confirming that participants' privacy and confidentiality have been protected throughout the research and in the reporting of results.
ii. Research involving children, prisoners, elderly participants, or any other potentially vulnerable population requires additional ethical safeguards. Authors must describe these safeguards explicitly in the manuscript.
iii. Research involving animal subjects must comply with all applicable national legislation, institutional guidelines, and internationally recognised principles for the ethical treatment of animals in research (e.g., the 3Rs principles: Replacement, Reduction, Refinement). The manuscript must identify the approving ethics committee, the reference number, and the approval date.
iv. Where research uses only secondary, publicly available data and is exempt from formal ethics review, authors must explicitly state the basis for the exemption and identify the relevant guideline or regulation.
v. Manuscripts that involve human participants or animal subjects but do not include the required ethics approval statement will be returned to the authors at desk review and will not be sent for external peer review until the required documentation is provided.

7.7 Conflicts of Interest and Funding Disclosure
Authors must proactively disclose all financial and non-financial relationships that might be seen as influencing the design, conduct, analysis, or reporting of their research. The following standards must be followed:
i. All funding sources for the research must be identified in a Funding Statement, including: the full name of the funding organisation; the grant number or project code; and the role of the funder in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or decision to publish, if any.
ii. Authors must declare all financial competing interests, including: employment or consultancy arrangements with organisations that have a financial interest in the research outcomes; equity ownership or stock options in relevant organisations; patent applications, licences, or royalties related to the subject of the research; and honoraria, speaker fees, or travel expenses paid by organisations with a financial stake in the research.
iii. Authors must declare all non-financial competing interests that could reasonably be perceived to influence the research, including: membership of advocacy organisations relevant to the research topic; personal, professional, or ideological commitments that could create a perception of bias; and ongoing regulatory or legal disputes involving the research area.
iv. If no competing interests exist, authors must include an explicit statement to that effect: 'The authors declare that they have no known financial or non-financial competing interests.'
v. Conflicts of interest are declared at submission and included as a disclosure statement in the published manuscript.

7.8 Participation in Peer Review and Revision
i. Authors are expected to engage constructively and promptly with the peer review process. Authors must respond to all reasonable requests from the editorial office for additional data, clarification, proof of ethics approval, patient consent documentation, or copyright permissions.
ii. When a manuscript is returned for revision, authors must submit a point-by-point response document that addresses each reviewer’s comment individually and explicitly. The response document must explain every change made to the manuscript and provide a detailed rebuttal with supporting evidence for any reviewer comment that the authors believe is incorrect or inapplicable.
iii. Revised manuscripts must be returned within the timeframe specified in the decision letter. Authors who require an extension must request one from the editorial office before the deadline. Manuscripts not returned within the maximum permitted revision period may be treated as withdrawn.
iv. Authors must not submit a revised manuscript to a different journal while the revision is under consideration at the original journal, without first formally withdrawing the manuscript from the original journal.

7.9 Hazardous Research and Dual-Use Considerations
i. Authors must prominently identify in the manuscript any significant hazards associated with chemicals, biological agents, procedures, materials, or equipment described in the work, including appropriate safety handling information.
ii. Authors must comply with all applicable national and international regulations governing the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous research materials. They must confirm in the manuscript that all required safety protocols were followed.
iii. Authors who are aware that their research has potential dual-use implications must notify the EIC at submission and engage in good faith with any editorial assessment of the dual-use risk.

7.10 Post-Publication Responsibilities
i. Authors retain a duty of integrity in relation to their published work. If an author discovers a significant error, inaccuracy, or misinterpretation in a published article, the author must notify the Editor-in-Chief as promptly as possible and cooperate fully with the editorial process for issuing a correction, corrigendum, or retraction, as appropriate.
ii. Where errors are brought to the editorial office by third parties, authors respond promptly and constructively to all enquiries and cooperate with any investigation.
iii. Authors must not attempt to suppress, delay, or otherwise obstruct the publication of a correction, corrigendum, or retraction once it has been determined by the editor to be warranted.
iv. Authors are encouraged to respond publicly and constructively to post-publication commentary and criticism of their work through the journal's published correspondence channels.

SECTION 8: RESPONSIBILITIES OF PUBLISHER
UMPSA Press, as the publisher of all journals covered by this Statement, bears institutional responsibility for creating and sustaining the environment in which ethical, high-quality scholarly publishing can flourish. The publisher's obligations are distinct from, and complementary to, those of editors. They do not diminish editorial independence; they provide the infrastructure within which it is exercised.

8.1 Guaranteeing Editorial Independence
i. UMPSA Press provides an unconditional, publicly stated guarantee that all editorial decisions, including the acceptance and rejection of manuscripts, the appointment of reviewers, and the content of editorial communications, are made exclusively by journal editors based on scholarly merit and in accordance with this Statement.
ii. UMPSA Press does not instruct, pressure, or otherwise influence editors to accept or reject any manuscript for commercial, political, reputational, or any other non-scholarly reason.
iii. UMPSA Press does not use advertising, reprint revenue, APC volume, or any other commercial consideration as a factor in any editorial decision.
iv. In the event of a dispute between the publisher and the EIC regarding editorial content or policy, UMPSA Press engages in a formal mediation process through the Ethics Advisory Panel before any unilateral action is taken.
v. Editorial independence interference is investigated as the most serious form of publisher misconduct under the Misconduct Handling Policy.

8.2 Publishing Infrastructure and Production Standards
i. UMPSA Press provides and maintains a professionally managed online manuscript submission, tracking, and editorial management system for all journals. The system is accessible to all parties involved in the publication process (authors, reviewers, editors) at all times, subject to planned maintenance.
ii. UMPSA Press ensures that all accepted manuscripts are copyedited, typeset, proofread, and formatted to professional academic standards before publication. Authors are allowed to review a typeset proof before final publication.
iii. Every published article is assigned a unique and permanent Digital Object Identifier (DOI) through a recognised DOI registration agency (CrossRef). DOIs are activated upon online publication.
iv. UMPSA Press ensures timely publication in accordance with the agreed publication frequency for each journal. Any deviation from the published schedule is communicated to authors and the scholarly community in a timely and transparent manner.

8.3 Discoverability and Compliance
i. The publisher actively supports all journal content to enhance its impact and visibility in relevant databases.
ii. The publisher monitors continued compliance of all journals with the evolving requirements of each indexing body and takes prompt corrective action when concerns are identified.
iii. The publisher monitors the continued compliance of all journals with the evolving requirements of each indexing body and takes prompt corrective action when compliance concerns are identified.
iv. The publisher deposits all published article metadata, including full citation information, abstracts, and author data,  with CrossRef to enable robust discoverability and citation tracking.
v. The publisher maintains a publicly accessible, machine-readable archive of all published articles and their associated metadata, in compliance with open-access best practices.

8.4 Digital Preservation
i. The publisher ensures the long-term digital preservation of all published content through participation in recognised preservation programmes, including PKP-PN, and equivalent digital archiving networks.
ii. Authors are guaranteed that published articles will remain permanently accessible regardless of changes to the publisher's technical infrastructure.
iii. The publisher’s digital preservation enrolment is publicly disclosed.

8.5 Open Access Policy and Author Rights
i. All UMPSA Press journals are fully open-access. All published content is freely and permanently accessible online to any reader, without charge, immediately upon publication.
ii. Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BYNC 4.0) licence, permitting unrestricted use, redistribution, adaptation, and building upon the work, provided the original is correctly cited.
iii. Authors retain copyright over their work. UMPSA Press is granted a non-exclusive, worldwide licence to publish, reproduce, distribute, and archive.
iv. Authors may deposit preprints, accepted manuscripts, and published versions in institutional or subject repositories at any stage, without embargo.
v. Article Processing Charges, fee waiver policies, and all financial arrangements applicable to authors are published transparently on each journal's website. There are no hidden fees.
vi. Waiver requests from authors in low- and middle-income countries are considered and do not affect editorial decisions.

8.6 Misconduct Handling and Corrections
i. UMPSA Press bears institutional responsibility for ensuring that all credible allegations of misconduct are investigated promptly and fairly in accordance with the Misconduct Handling Policy.
ii. Corrections, retractions, and Expressions of Concern are issued in full compliance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines.
iii. All correction and retraction notices are bidirectionally linked to the original articles and indexed in all databases where the original articles are listed, with confirmation within a stipulated timeframe.
iv. UMPSA Press cooperates fully with external investigations by institutional research integrity officers, funding bodies, regulatory authorities, and professional organisations.

8.7 Anti-Predatory Publishing Commitment
i. UMPSA Press operates exclusively as a legitimate, ethics-compliant publisher. All journals are subject to original peer review, edited by qualified academics, and publish only original, validated content.
ii. UMPSA Press does not solicit manuscripts through mass unsolicited emails or offer acceptance guarantees before editorial review.
iii. UMPSA Press does not publish special issues without the same level of editorial oversight as regular issues.
iv. UMPSA Press does not charge submission fees. APCs are payable only upon acceptance and are disclosed in advance.

8.8 Staff Conduct and Training
i. Publication ethics, specifically the COPE Core Practices and the requirements of this Statement, are included in the training for all editorial and production staff upon appointment and at least once every two years.
ii. Staff of UMPSA Press are held to strict confidentiality obligations similar to those required of editors and reviewers.
iii. The UMPSA Press production team does not alter any text without proper justification.
iv. Investigations into staff misconduct are conducted in accordance with the Misconduct Handling Policy.

8.9 Transparency and Accountability
i. An Annual Transparency Report detailing key editorial figures for each journal, including submission volume, acceptance rate, average review time from submission to decision, number of corrections and retractions issued and number of complaints received and resolved.
ii. UMPSA Press records all substantive policy changes (with appropriate redaction) and publications, along with version history.
iii. UMPSA Press takes institutional responsibility for the entire quality (and lack thereof) of misconduct investigations conducted under the UMPSA Press imprint.

Updated: 1 January 2026