In Accordance with COPE Principles and Best Practices

1. Introduction

IJVES is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and publication ethics. We follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and use COPE flowcharts when responding to ethical concerns or allegations of misconduct. All parties involved in the publication process - authors, editors, and reviewers - share responsibility for ensuring the reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record.

2. Duties of Authors

Authors submitting manuscripts to the journal must ensure that:

- the work is original, unpublished, and not under consideration elsewhere;
- data and results are presented honestly and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation;
- all sources are cited properly and permissions obtained for the reuse of copyrighted materials;
- authorship reflects genuine scholarly contributions, and contributors are accurately acknowledged;
- conflicts of interest are fully disclosed;
- research involving human participants, animals, or sensitive materials has received appropriate ethical approval.

Authors are expected to cooperate with any inquiries related to potential ethical issues and to provide raw data or supporting documentation upon request.

3. Duties of Editors

Editors are responsible for:

- ensuring fair, timely, and unbiased peer review;
- making publication decisions based on scholarly merit and ethical standards;
- preserving the confidentiality of submissions; declaring and avoiding conflicts of interest;
- taking active steps to detect and prevent research misconduct;
- addressing ethical concerns according to COPE guidelines.

Editors issue corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when necessary to maintain the integrity of the scholarly literature.

4. Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers must:

- provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations;
- maintain the confidentiality of the peer-review process;
- identify potential ethical issues such as plagiarism, redundant publication, or data inconsistencies;
- decline review assignments when conflicts of interest exist;
- avoid using unpublished materials for personal benefit.

5. Procedures for Addressing Misconduct

The journal follows COPE recommendations for handling allegations of misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, authorship manipulation, and undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Procedures may involve:

- preliminary assessment by the editorial team;
- written requests for clarification or original data;
- consultation with reviewers or subject experts;
- contacting authors’ institutions or funders when institutional investigation is warranted.

Possible outcomes include manuscript rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction.

 

6. Transparency, Accessibility, and Integrity

All editorial policies, peer-review guidelines, and ethical expectations are publicly accessible on the journal’s website. The editorial team routinely reviews and updates these policies in line with current best practices and COPE standards.

 

 

7. Post-Publication Discussions and Commentaries

The journal welcomes scientifically grounded post-publication dialogue. Substantive critiques are evaluated by the editorial team and may result in published responses, corrections, or other editorial actions. Readers may report concerns regarding published articles.

8. Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Notes

Corrections are issued for minor errors that do not compromise findings. Retractions are issued for major errors or misconduct that invalidate results, following COPE guidance. Expressions of Concern may be published during ongoing investigations. All notices are clearly linked to the original article and remain freely accessible.

9. Conclusion

By submitting a manuscript, authors acknowledge and accept these ethical and editorial policies. The journal remains dedicated to promoting responsible scholarship, ensuring fairness and transparency in editorial processes, and preserving the accuracy and credibility of the scientific record.