Editorial Policies & Publication Ethics
1. Journal Contents and Practices
Publication Ethics Statement
This journal recognizes and upholds the principles of transparency and best practices in scholarly publication as recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), applying to all published content, including special issues and conference proceedings. It follows the COPE ethical guidelines on the conduct of research by authors, the performance of review and evaluation by reviewers, and the maintenance of the highest standards in the publication of research works.
Statement of Open Access
This journal upholds and supports open-access publishing, allowing the global sharing of scholarly information without restrictions. Through this platform, free access to shared information promotes knowledge and education. As such, this journal publishes open-access research articles that anyone can reproduce, redistribute, and transform, commercially or non-commercially, with proper attribution. The articles’ first publication in the journal should always be acknowledged.
License & Copyright
The authors retain the copyright to the work while granting the journal the right to the first publication. The open-access articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which grants anyone to reproduce, redistribute and transform, commercially or non-commercially, with proper attribution. Authors can use any contents of the article provided there is proper acknowledgement. Reprint and reproduction of the article does not require prior permission. Read full license details here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The authors are allowed to upload and post their works online including, but not limited to, institutional website, personal website, social media and professional networking sites with proper attribution. Authors are encouraged to use the article Digital Object Identifier (DOI).
Repository Policy
The authors are allowed to deposit the published, accepted and submitted versions of the article in any repository and archive, institutional repositories and website, and upload in social networking sites with proper attribution.
In addition, this journal uses OJS/PKP submission that allows the archive of pre-print and approved manuscripts. The post-print in PDF version is also deposited in Internet Archive for long-term preservation.
Privacy Statement
The Institute and this journal respect and protect the privacy of its users. It does not sell or give any information to any external bodies. This website does not use tracking cookies except the requirement for online payments. This website is protected with Secure Socket Layer (SSL).
Any information collected from authors are protected and stored in a database and shall be used only for the purposes of dealing with the article publication. If you have any concerns on Privacy Policy, contact us at support@iiari.org.
2. Author Responsibilities & Ethics
Conflict of Interest
This journal adheres to the COPE guidelines on conflicts of interest. COPE defines conflicts of interest as those that may not be immediately apparent but could influence the judgment of authors, reviewers, or editors, and which, if disclosed later, might lead a reasonable reader to feel misled or deceived. Such conflicts may be personal, commercial, political, academic, or financial in nature.
All authors are required to disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could have influenced the results, interpretation, or presentation of their study. These may include, but are not limited to, financial support or compensation (e.g., funding, grants, or commissioned research), political or institutional affiliations, or relationships that could introduce bias, particularly in studies involving the authors’ own institutions or organizations in which they hold leadership or influential positions. Full and transparent disclosure ensures the integrity of the scholarly record and allows readers to make informed judgments about the research.
All manuscripts must include a Disclosure Statement. Authors are required to explicitly declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may have influenced the research, its interpretation, or presentation. If no conflicts of interest exist, authors must include the statement: "No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors."
Authors must also disclose all sources of financial support related to the research, including funding, grants, sponsorships, or any form of compensation. The role of the funding source, if any, in the design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or publication of the study should be clearly stated. If the research did not receive any external funding, authors must include the statement: “This work was not supported by any funding.”
Full and transparent disclosure of conflicts of interest and funding sources is essential to ensure the integrity, transparency, and credibility of the published work.
Ethical Responsibilities
The author confirms that the submitted manuscript is original and entirely his or her own work. In the case of multi-authored submissions, the corresponding author affirms that all listed co-authors have made significant contributions to the work and have given their consent for submission. The corresponding author is responsible for providing accurate contact details of all co-authors. Upon submission, all co-authors will be notified. Any objection or disapproval from a co-author must be formally communicated to the journal via email within seven (7) days from the date of submission.
The author further confirms that the manuscript has not been previously published, in whole or in part, nor is it under consideration for publication elsewhere. As the journal publishes only original research, duplicate or redundant publication is strictly prohibited. Authors must obtain prior permission for any use of copyrighted material owned by others. All images, figures, tables, frameworks, and diagrams must be properly cited, and sources must be clearly acknowledged.
The author ensures that the manuscript is free from plagiarism. The journal may screen submissions using Plagiarism Checker X. While editorial discretion is applied in assessing similarity reports, a maximum similarity index of 30% may be considered acceptable, provided that text is properly cited and appear in various sources. If plagiarism or unethical overlap is identified at any stage of the publication process, the author will be required to revise or withdraw the manuscript accordingly.
The author attests to the authenticity, accuracy, and integrity of all data presented in the manuscript. Data must not be fabricated, falsified, or misrepresented. Any breach of research integrity, including data manipulation or dishonesty, will result in appropriate action, including rejection or retraction, in accordance with COPE guidelines.
The author is responsible for ensuring that the manuscript meets high standards of academic writing, including clarity, grammar, and proper language use. The manuscript must not contain any hateful, discriminatory, defamatory, or inappropriate content. Authors must avoid language that demeans or targets individuals or groups based on gender, race, religion, disability, or other protected characteristics. Discussions should be balanced, objective, and respectful, and should include all relevant perspectives on the research problem.
Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)
This journal recognizes the responsible and ethical use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools as potentially valuable in supporting research and academic writing. However, the use of AI must not compromise the integrity, originality, or credibility of the research. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, validity, and originality of all content submitted.
AI tools may be used in a limited and transparent manner to support tasks such as literature searching, organization of ideas, or language refinement. However, authors must not rely on AI to generate substantive intellectual content, including core arguments, analysis, interpretations, or conclusions of the manuscript. AI tools must not be listed as authors, as they cannot take responsibility for the work.
Authors are required to disclose any use of AI that contributes to the generation of manuscript content. The disclosure must clearly identify the AI tool(s) used and specify the purpose of their use (e.g., summarizing literature, assisting with drafting text, or paraphrasing). The declaration should apply only to AI-generated or AI-assisted content that contributes to the intellectual substance of the manuscript.
The use of AI tools solely for grammar checking, spelling correction, proofreading, or language editing does not require mandatory disclosure. However, authors are encouraged to disclose such use in the interest of transparency.
Authors are fully accountable for reviewing, verifying, and editing any AI-assisted content and must ensure that it is accurate, properly cited, and free from plagiarism, bias, or misinformation.
Example of AI Disclosure Statement
“The authors declare the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the preparation of this manuscript. Specifically, [name of AI tool] was used for [state purpose, e.g., literature search, summarization, or paraphrasing]. The authors take full responsibility for reviewing, verifying, and editing any content generated using AI."
Research Ethics
This journal adheres, as appropriate, to the ethical principles outlined in the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (1964) for research involving human participants, including identifiable human material and data; the Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46) on the protection of vulnerable populations; and the Center for Open Science Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines (2025) to support the transparency and verifiability of empirical research.
Research Involving Human Participants
In accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (1964), the journal requires that research involving human participants protects their life, health, dignity, integrity, autonomy, privacy, and confidentiality. Authors must also consider applicable ethical, legal, and regulatory requirements in the country where the research is conducted, as well as relevant international standards. All studies must be scientifically sound, undergo independent ethical review, be conducted by qualified researchers, and be designed to minimize risks while ensuring that potential benefits justify participation.
In line with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for research involving clinical trials, studies must be scientifically valid, ethically justified, and approved by an independent ethics committee. Authors are required to provide clear statements on informed consent, protection of participants’ rights and safety, and safeguards for vulnerable populations. Where applicable, studies must include trial registration, transparent reporting of results, and consideration of benefits to participating populations, including access to effective interventions.
Protection of Vulnerable Populations
Consistent with 45 CFR 46, the journal recognizes the need for additional protections for vulnerable populations, including pregnant women, prisoners, and children (persons under 18 years of age). Such participants must not be subjected to coercion or undue influence. Research involving vulnerable populations must include appropriate safeguards, justified inclusion, and, where applicable, assent from minors and permission from legal guardians. Studies must minimize risk, ensure equitable participant selection, and provide additional protections for individuals with limited autonomy.
Verifiability of Empirical Research Claims
The journal adopts a tiered approach to the TOP Guidelines (2025) to ensure appropriate levels of transparency:
Level 1 (Disclosure): Applied to studies using basic methodologies such as surveys, observations, and interviews. Authors must provide statements on data availability, research materials, and methodological transparency.
Level 2 (Requirement): Applied to medical research involving human participants and clinical trials. Authors are required to share data, analytic methods, and research materials in recognized repositories, subject to ethical and legal constraints, and to provide evidence of ethical approval and trial registration.
Compliance with these requirements is assessed during the editorial and peer review process.
Required Ethical Discussions and Declarations
Ethics Approval. Authors must provide an Institutional Review Board (IRB) statement indicating the approving institution. For studies derived from theses or dissertations, the approving university ethics committee must be identified. The ethics statement must be included in both the methodology section and as a separate statement before the reference list.
Example:
“This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines of [institution name] (Approval No. XXX). Ethical clearance was granted by [name of approving body].”
For studies using basic methodologies (e.g., surveys, observations, interviews), a clear statement on informed consent, participant welfare, confidentiality, and data protection is required.
Data and Materials Availability. For studies using basic methodologies, authors must include a data availability and materials statement.
Examples:
“The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author ([author initials]) upon reasonable request.”
“The data supporting the findings of this study are openly available in [repository name] at https://doi.org/[DOI], reference number [reference number].”
“The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are included within the article.”
For medical and clinical research, authors must provide a data availability statement indicating deposition in a recognized repository, subject to ethical and legal considerations, and include evidence of ethical approval and trial registration.
Informed Consent. In accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, authors must clearly describe how informed consent was obtained, ensuring that participation was voluntary and that the study’s purpose and procedures were explained prior to data collection.
In addition to the methodology section, studies involving human participants, particularly clinical research and those involving vulnerable groups, must include a consent statement.
Example:
“Informed consent was obtained from all participants [or from parents/guardians, where applicable].”
Participants’ Safety and Welfare. Authors must describe how the study safeguarded participants’ safety and welfare, including adherence to appropriate ethical protocols, particularly when involving vulnerable groups.
Confidentiality and Data Protection. Authors must confirm compliance with applicable data protection laws and regulations and ensure the confidentiality of participants’ information.
Appeal, Complaints and Corrections
This journal is committed to addressing appeals, complaints, and post-publication issues in a fair, transparent, and timely manner, in accordance with COPE guidelines. All concerns must be submitted via email to the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor. If the concern involves any member of the editorial team or cannot be resolved at the editorial level, it may be escalated to the Publisher through the Office of the President
a. Publication Concerns
Appeals. Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. The journal ensures that decision letters include the reasons for rejection, along with constructive feedback where applicable.
Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor, clearly stating the grounds for the appeal and providing justification for reconsideration. Upon receipt, the Editorial Board will constitute a three-member ad hoc committee with no conflict of interest to evaluate the appeal. The committee’s decision shall be final and will be formally communicated to the author.
Corrections and Retractions. The journal ensures that authors are provided with manuscript proofs prior to publication for review and approval. Pre-publication corrections must be communicated to the Copyeditor or Managing Editor. Post-publication corrections must be reported to the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, or Editorial Office.
Minor errors (e.g., typographical or formatting issues) will be corrected through in-line amendments or the issuance of an erratum. On the other hand, major errors that affect the integrity, reliability, or ethical standing of the work, including but not limited to plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, and significant misrepresentation, may result in correction, expression of concern, or retraction, as appropriate.
Retraction and correction procedures will follow COPE guidelines. Authors will be notified of the concerns, given an opportunity to respond, and allowed to provide clarifications or corrections where appropriate. If issues can be resolved through correction, a formal corrigendum or erratum will be issued. Failure to adequately address serious concerns may result in retraction. All decisions will be formally communicated and documented.
b. Editorial Concerns
The journal upholds the highest standards of editorial integrity and professional conduct. Complaints regarding the Editor-in-Chief or any member of the editorial staff must be submitted to the Publisher through the Office of the President (president@iiari.org), particularly in cases involving alleged misconduct, conflicts of interest, or serious ethical violations.
Upon receipt of a complaint, the Publisher will establish a three-member independent ethics committee to investigate the matter impartially and in accordance with COPE principles.
Unethical or inappropriate conduct includes, but is not limited to: Solicitation of bribes or improper incentives in exchange for editorial decisions; Discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or abusive behaviour; and Use of offensive or discriminatory language based on gender, race, religion, disability, or other protected characteristics.
All complaints will be handled with strict confidentiality, fairness, and due process. Outcomes and decisions will be formally communicated to the concerned parties.
3. Editorial Policies
Peer Review Process
a. Type of Review
The journal employs a double-blind peer review process, in which neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identities. To ensure anonymity, authors are required to submit separate files for the anonymous manuscriptand the title page.
b. Recruitment and Selection of Reviewers
The journal engages qualified experts with relevant academic and professional expertise to support the peer review process. Reviewers are selected based on their subject knowledge, research experience, and area of specialization. All reviewers are required to register in the OJS/PKP submission system. Upon registration, reviewers should indicate their willingness to review by selecting the option: “Yes, I would like to be contacted with requests to review submissions to this journal.” The Editorial Office assigns review invitations based on reviewer expertise and the absence of potential conflicts of interest.
c. Review Process
All submitted manuscripts undergo a two-stage evaluation process:
Preliminary Evaluation (Editorial Screening): The Editor-in-Chief and/or Associate Editor assesses the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with submission guidelines, and overall readiness for peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to the author or declined without external review.
Peer Review: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent to at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers provide detailed, constructive feedback based on the journal’s evaluation criteria and make recommendations regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication.
Only reviewers who have accepted the invitation are granted access to the anonymized manuscript. The Editorial Office ensures that reviewers are selected appropriately, with due consideration to expertise and potential conflicts of interest.
The peer review process typically takes one (1) to four (4) weeks, although timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and other factors beyond the journal’s control. The journal strives to complete the entire review and decision process within sixty (60) days from the date of submission.
d. Review Criteria and Results
Reviewers evaluate submitted manuscripts based on the following criteria: originality, relevance of the research background, adequacy of the literature review, methodological rigor, clarity and validity of results and discussion, strength of conclusions, and overall quality of presentation. While reviewers are provided with guiding questions, they retain the flexibility to exercise independent academic judgment in assessing the manuscript.
Based on the reviewers’ evaluations, the editorial decision may fall under one of the following categories: accept submission, revision required, resubmit for review, submit elsewhere, or decline submission. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor after considering at least two independent peer review reports. The decision is formally communicated to the corresponding author through the journal’s official communication channels.
Accept Submission. The manuscript is accepted for publication and proceeds to the copyediting stage. The author is required to pay the Article Processing Charges (APC) and sign the open access agreement form.
Revision Required. The manuscript requires minor or major revisions. It is returned to the author with reviewers’ and editors’ comments for improvement. Authors are normally given two (2) weeks to submit the revised manuscript. Requests for extension may be considered if justified. The revised manuscript will be evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board, and may undergo further rounds of revision if necessary. Upon final acceptance, the author is required to pay the APC prior to publication and sign the open access publishing agreement.
Resubmit for Review. The manuscript requires substantial revisions and must undergo a new round of peer review. Reviewers’ comments are provided to guide the author in revising the manuscript. Authors are given sufficient time to address the required changes and may request an extension if necessary. The revised submission will be treated as a new review cycle.
Submit Elsewhere. The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal’s scope or standards. Authors are encouraged to consider submission to a more appropriate journal.
Decline Submission. The manuscript is rejected due to significant concerns regarding quality, originality, methodology, or ethical compliance. The submission will not be reconsidered for publication in the journal.
The journal uses the OJS-PKP platform and workflow platform for manuscript submission, peer review, and editorial processing. Authors and reviewers are encouraged to consult the journal’s workflow guidelines for assistance in navigating the system.
Editorial Independence
The Editorial Board has full authority over the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts without interference from the publisher and/or external bodies. All editorial decisions must be made impartially, based solely on the scholarly merit, originality, and relevance of the submission, and in accordance with the journal’s publication standards and ethical guidelines.
Members of the Editorial Board may submit manuscripts to the journal; however, to avoid potential conflicts of interest, such submissions must be limited to one (1) research article per year. All submissions from Editorial Board members must be treated as regular manuscripts and undergo the standard peer review and editorial process, without any preferential treatment.
To ensure transparency and objectivity, any manuscript submitted by a member of the journal’s editorial team (e.g., Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, Managing Editor, or Journal Manager) must be handled by an independent and qualified editor with no conflict of interest. The submitting editor must not be involved in any stage of the editorial decision-making process for their manuscript.
All editorial practices must adhere to the principles of fairness, transparency, and integrity, in line with COPE guidelines.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest related to a manuscript under review. In accordance with the COPE guidelines, conflicts of interest may arise from personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious relationships or considerations that could influence, or be perceived to influence, the reviewer’s judgment.
Reviewers are required to declare such conflicts through the OJS/PKP submission system by selecting the option, “I may have competing interests,” and providing relevant details where applicable. If a significant conflict exists, reviewers should decline the review assignment.
Full and transparent disclosure of conflicts of interest is essential to maintain the integrity, objectivity, and credibility of the peer review process.
Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Review Process
This journal recognizes the potential role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in supporting the peer review process. However, their use must be responsible, limited, and must not compromise the confidentiality, integrity, or independence of the review.
Reviewers are expected to exercise independent scholarly judgment in evaluating manuscripts. AI tools may be used only for limited and general assistance (e.g., improving clarity of language in the review report), and must not replace the reviewer’s critical assessment.
To protect confidentiality and intellectual property, reviewers must not upload, share, or input any part of the manuscript, including text, data, figures, or supplementary materials, into any AI tool or external platform. This restriction applies to both public and private AI systems.
Reviewers must not use AI to generate substantive content of the review report, including evaluations, interpretations, or recommendations. The review must reflect the reviewer’s own expertise and original assessment.
The use of AI tools solely for grammar checking, proofreading, or language editing of the review report is permitted. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, and integrity of their review.
Failure to comply with these guidelines may be considered a breach of ethical review standards and will be addressed in accordance with COPE principles.
Editorial Misconduct
This journal systematically handles issues and concerns related to editorial misconduct. All allegations of misconduct involving members of the editorial staff or reviewers must be reported directly to the Publisher through the Office of the President (president@iiari.org). Upon receipt of a complaint, the Publisher shall constitute a three-member independent ethics ad hoc committee to investigate and evaluate the case in accordance with COPE guidelines. The investigation will be conducted with due process, fairness, and confidentiality.
Editorial and reviewer misconduct includes, but is not limited to: Soliciting bribes or any form of improper incentive in exchange for favorable editorial decisions; Discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or demeaning conduct; Use of hateful, offensive, or discriminatory language based on gender, race, religion, disability, or other protected characteristics; Breach of confidentiality in handling manuscripts or peer review materials; Negligence or failure to perform assigned editorial or review responsibilities in a timely and professional manner; and Abuse of authority or misuse of privileged information obtained through the editorial or peer review process
If misconduct is substantiated, appropriate administrative actions will be taken. These may include removal from the Editorial Board or reviewer pool, suspension of duties, or other corrective measures deemed necessary by the Publisher.
All outcomes will be formally documented and communicated to the concerned parties.
Editorial Code of Conduct
Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct in the peer review process, in accordance with COPE guidelines.
Confidentiality. Reviewers and editors must treat all submitted manuscripts with strict confidentiality. They must not disclose, discuss, or share any information about the manuscript or its review with others, except as authorized by the journal. This obligation applies both during and after the peer review process. Reviewers must not use any part of the manuscript, including data or ideas, for personal advantage or the advantage of others.
Reviewers may share or upload certificates of recognition or merit related to their review activity on professional platforms or social media, provided that no confidential information about the manuscript, authors, or review process is disclosed.
Timeliness. Reviewers and editors are expected to respond promptly to review invitations and to complete their evaluations within the agreed timeframe. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review on time, they should promptly inform the editor. All participants in the editorial process must act efficiently and responsibly to ensure the timely handling of manuscripts.