Ethics and Integrity

On this page, you will find information about the following ethics and integrity policies:

For details on Open Access Policy; License and Permission; Copyright; Embargo Policy; Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted Technology; Author Fees and Payment Policy; Digital Archiving and Preservation; and Statement on Accuracy and Responsibility, please visit the Publication Policies page.

For more on editorial policies, such as Aim and Scope; Peer Review Process; Appeals Process; and Plagiarism Policy, please visit the Editorial Policies page.

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

This statement outlines the ethical responsibilities of all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, peer reviewers, and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Duties / Responsibilities of Authors

  1. All manuscripts must be the original work ofthe  authors and not plagiarized. A zero-tolerance approach will be taken to plagiarized manuscripts.
  2. Authorship of a manuscript should be limited to authors who have made significant contributions. For further information, refer to ICMJE Authorship Criteria and Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT).
  3. Authors must properly and accurately acknowledge the work of others.
  4. Authors should disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript and acknowledge individuals or organizations that have provided financial support for research.
  5. Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with manuscripts for editorial review and should prepare to provide public access to such data if possible.
  6. All manuscripts must be previously unpublished and not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Duties / Responsibilities of Editors

  1. The Editor-in-Chief, the Section Editor, or the assigned editorial board member(s), from time to time, are responsible for making objective decisions on the scope, size, and content quality of the manuscripts submitted to the journal within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The Editor-in-Chief, the Section Editor, or the assigned editorial board member(s) shall refuse to handle the assigned manuscript if they believe they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
  3. The journal utilizes a single/double-blind peer review process (per the authors' request and/or editor's decision). The Editor-in-Chief and members of the Editorial Board ensure the integrity of the publication review process by not revealing either the identity of the authors of manuscripts to the reviewers (in the case of double-blind peer review) or the identity of reviewers to the authors.
  4. The members of the Editorial Board receive all manuscripts for review in confidence and do not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other external referees sought from time to time, and the publisher.
  5. Any of the editorial board members must not use materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript (published or unpublished) for their own research without the author's written authorization.
  6. Editors shall conduct a proper and fair investigation into ethical complaints.

Duties / Responsibilities of Reviewers

  1. Reviewers keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
  2. Reviewers conduct their business of review objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments that will constructively guide the editorial decision by the Editor-in-Chief or his or her nominee.
  4. Reviewers should complete their reviews within the journal's stipulated timeframe.
  5. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
  6. Reviewers should refuse to review manuscripts in which they believe they do not have enough credentials/knowledge regarding the topic of the paper (or, in the case that the paper's topic is out of their scope/expertise).
  7. See complete reviewer guidelines.

    <top>

 

Research Involving Human and Animal Subjects

Human Subjects

Authors of manuscripts describing research involving human subjects must obtain review and approval (or review and waiver) from their Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to manuscript submission. Authors of manuscripts that describe multisite research must obtain approval from each institution's IRB. Documentation of IRB status must be made available upon request. In the event that institutional review boards or committees do not exist, the authors must ensure that their research is carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in 2013. A statement of IRB approval or waiver (and reason for waiver) or a statement of adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki must be included in the Materials and Methods section (or at the end of the text for shorter article types: e.g., announcements, short-form papers, etc.).

Authors of manuscripts describing research involving human subjects must also ensure that the research described in their manuscript and the publication of their manuscript are and would be in compliance with all applicable laws within their locality.

Informed consent for publication is not needed if the participants cannot be identified from any material in a manuscript. In the absence of informed consent, identifying details, such as patient initials, specific dates, specific geographic exposures, or other identifying features (including body features in figures), should be omitted, but this must not alter the scientific meaning. Important information that is relevant to the scientific meaning should be stated so that the patient cannot be identified, e.g., by stating a season instead of a date or a region instead of a city. If a patient can be identified from the material in a manuscript, all efforts should be made to obtain informed consent to publish from patients or parents/legal guardians of minors. Informed consent requires that the patient have the opportunity to see the manuscript before submission. The written consent must state either that the patient has seen the complete manuscript or that the patient declines to do so. Patient consent should be archived with the authors and be available upon request. A statement attesting to the receipt and archiving of written patient consent should be included in the published article.

Animal Subjects

Authors of manuscripts describing research involving animal experimentation must obtain review and approval (or review and waiver) from their Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) prior to manuscript submission. Authors of manuscripts that describe multisite research must obtain approval from each institution's IACUC. Documentation of IACUC status must be made available upon request. In the event that institutional review boards or committees do not exist, the authors must ensure that their research is carried out in accordance with the International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals, as revised by the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) and the Councils for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) in 2012. A statement of IACUC approval or waiver (and reason for waiver) or a statement of adherence to the Guiding Principles must be included in the Materials and Methods section.

For more information, please see the ORI module on human subject research and the COPE guidelines.

<top>

 

Process for Identification of and Dealing with Allegations of Research Misconduct

The integrity of research is fundamental to the mission of this journal. We are committed to ensuring that all published work meets the highest ethical standards. Therefore, we take allegations of research misconduct seriously and have established the following procedures to address such concerns:

1. Initial Reporting

Any individual (e.g., authors, reviewers, readers) may report suspected research misconduct. Examples of research misconduct can be found here. Reports should be made in writing to the editorial office, detailing the nature of the alleged misconduct and any relevant evidence.

2. Preliminary Assessment

Upon receiving an allegation, the editorial team will conduct a preliminary assessment to evaluate the validity of the claim. This assessment will consider whether the allegation falls within the definitions of research misconduct, which may include fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other unethical behavior.

3. Notification

If the preliminary assessment indicates that the allegation has merit, the authors involved will be notified. They will be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and provide any relevant documentation.

4. Investigation

The editorial team will initiate a formal investigation. This may involve consulting with independent experts, institutional review boards, or other relevant bodies. The investigation aims to gather all pertinent information to reach a fair and informed conclusion.

5. Decision

Based on the findings of the investigation, the editorial team will determine whether the allegations are substantiated. If misconduct is confirmed, appropriate actions will be taken, which may include:

  • Issuing a correction, retraction, or expression of concern regarding the published work.
  • Reporting the findings to the authors' institutions or relevant authorities.
  • Banning the authors from submitting future manuscripts to the journal.

6. Confidentiality

All parties involved in the process will be treated with confidentiality, and every effort will be made to protect the identity of the whistleblower unless disclosure is necessary for the investigation.

7. Appeal Process

Authors found to be in violation of research ethics will have the right to appeal the decision. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office within 30 days of the decision, and will be reviewed by an independent committee.

8. Ongoing Review

The journal will periodically review its policies and procedures related to research misconduct to ensure they remain effective and in line with best practices in scholarly publishing.

<top>

 

Withdrawal, Retraction, and Correction Policy

Withdrawal Policy

Authors are strongly discouraged from withdrawing manuscripts after submission, as such actions waste the valuable time and effort invested by editors, reviewers, and the journal’s publishing team. Withdrawal is only considered in exceptional circumstances and must be accompanied by a formal, written justification.

Once a manuscript has been submitted and is under peer review, withdrawal is not permitted without the editorial board’s approval. Requests for withdrawal during this stage must be submitted via email to admin@journal.iistr.org, stating the reason for withdrawal and signed by all authors.

Unethical withdrawal practices, such as submitting a manuscript to another journal while it is still under consideration or accepted elsewhere, are strictly prohibited and violate publication ethics. If a withdrawal request is made without valid justification while the peer-review process is ongoing, the authors may be subject to a withdrawal penalty to compensate for the editorial and peer-review resources already expended.

The editorial board reserves the right to impose sanctions, such as a temporary submission ban, for authors who repeatedly withdraw manuscripts without ethical grounds.

Retraction Policy

Published articles may be retracted at the discretion of the Editorial Office or upon the authors' request under the following circumstances:

  • Scientific misconduct or ethical breaches: Including but not limited to data fabrication, data falsification, plagiarism, or unethical research practices.

  • Honest errors: Such as miscalculations, experimental flaws, or methodological errors that significantly affect the conclusions.

  • Redundant or duplicate publication: The article has been published elsewhere without proper disclosure, cross-referencing, or permission.

  • Legal or ethical issues: Including but not limited to copyright infringement or violations of human/animal research ethics.

Retraction notices will be published clearly, linked to the original article, and will state the reason for the retraction. Retracted articles will remain on the journal's website for transparency but will be marked as “Retracted” in both the PDF and HTML versions.

All retraction decisions are made in accordance with guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and aim to uphold the integrity of the academic record.

Correction and Erratum Policy

ESL is committed to ensuring the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. If a significant error or omission is identified in a published article, the journal will issue a correction or erratum as appropriate.

Types of Corrections

  • Erratum: Issued when the error originates from the journal’s editorial or production process (e.g., typesetting errors, author name misspelling, incorrect figure or table placement).

  • Corrigendum: Issued when the error originates from the authors (e.g., mislabeling of figures, errors in data or results that do not affect the overall conclusions).

Criteria for Corrections

Corrections will be published when:

  • The error affects the publication record, scientific integrity, or the reputation of the authors or the journal.

  • The correction does not undermine the validity of the study’s findings or conclusions. If it does, retraction may be more appropriate.

Process

Authors or readers who identify a significant error are encouraged to notify the editorial office via email at admin@journal.iistr.org. The editorial board will review the issue in consultation with the authors and, if warranted, will publish a correction note linked to the original article.

All corrections will be:

  • Published promptly upon verification of the error.

  • Linked to the original article online.

  • Indexed and clearly marked to distinguish them from the original version.

    <top>