Editorial Policies

1. Reporting Standards: 
   Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
2. Data Access and Retention: 
   Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
3. Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: 
   An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
5. Acknowledgment of Sources: 
   Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
6. Authorship of the Paper: 
   Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
7. Fundamental errors in published works: 
   When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains an error, it is the obligation of the author to cooperate with the editor, including providing evidence to the editor where requested.
8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: 
   
   1. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
   2. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) have approved them. Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed and the confidential of human participants’ data is considered the norm for the conduct of research, both institutions and individual participants. This could involve employing ‘fictionalising’ approaches when reporting, and where using such approaches researchers should fully explain how and why they have done so. However, in some circumstances individual participants, or their guardians or responsible others, may want to specifically and willingly waive their right to confidentiality and anonymity: researchers should recognise participants’ rights to be identified in any publication of their original works or other inputs if they so wish. This statement based on the ethical guidance of the privacy and data storage from BERA Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (4th ed.).

Duties of Editors

1. Fair Play: 
   An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2. Confidentiality: 
   The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 
   Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
4. Publication Decisions: 
   The editor board journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
5. Review of Manuscripts: 
   The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
   Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
2. Promptness: 
   
   1. Only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner. Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process
   2. Acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
3. Standards of Objectivity: 
   
   1. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Reviewers are not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations 
   2. Be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewer should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
4. Confidentiality: 
   Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal, except as authorized by the editor.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: 
   
   1. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not use the for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
   2. Reviewers should not consider 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, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
6. Acknowledgment of Sources: 
   Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Allegations of Research Misconduct
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing an article by authors, or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, Editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them to resolve the complaint and address the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the Editors. A submitted manuscript that is found to contain such misconduct will be rejected. In cases where a published paper is found to contain such misconduct, a retraction can be published and will be linked to the original article.

The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and an assessment of whether the allegation is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest.

If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the coauthors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor, and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article are sufficient.

Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, journals, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct, and taking necessary actions based on evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, Industria will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.