Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Journal: Journal of Law and Resilient Future (JLRF)
Publisher: Dealings Publishing

1. Publication Ethics and Editorial Standards

Journal of Law and Resilient Future (JLRF) is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal committed to maintaining academic integrity, transparency, accountability, and responsible publication practices in educational research and related fields.

This Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement establishes the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, peer reviewers, and the publisher throughout the manuscript submission, peer-review, publication, and post-publication processes.

JLRF is committed to ensuring that editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance to the journal's scope, and compliance with applicable ethical requirements.

The journal uses the Core Practices and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) as references for its publication ethics policies and procedures.

COPE Core Practices: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

The journal's ethical policies apply to all parties involved in the publication process. All published policies must accurately reflect the journal's actual editorial practices.

2. Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

2.1. Fair Play and Editorial Independence

Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts based on their academic merit, originality, methodological soundness, clarity, significance, and relevance to the journal's scope.

Editorial decisions must be made fairly and objectively, without discrimination based on authors' nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political views, institutional affiliation, or personal relationships.

Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly and ethical considerations rather than commercial interests or external pressure.

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the journal's editorial direction and final publication decisions in accordance with the journal's policies.

2.2. Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and related editorial communications.

Information about a manuscript may be disclosed only to the corresponding author, assigned reviewers, authorized editorial personnel, the publisher, or other appropriate parties when necessary for legitimate editorial purposes or ethical investigations.

Editors must not use unpublished information obtained through manuscript handling for personal or professional advantage without appropriate authorization.

2.3. Publication Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts may be accepted for publication.

Decisions are based on the manuscript's scholarly contribution, originality, methodological quality, relevance to the journal's scope, peer-review assessments, and compliance with applicable legal and ethical requirements.

The journal reserves the right to reject manuscripts that do not meet its academic, editorial, or ethical standards.

2.4. Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

An editor must not handle a manuscript when personal, financial, professional, institutional, or collaborative relationships could improperly influence the editorial decision.

Where a conflict exists, the manuscript must be assigned to an appropriately independent editor.

2.5. Handling Ethical Concerns

Editors are responsible for assessing allegations of research or publication misconduct involving submitted manuscripts and published articles.

When concerns arise, the editorial team may request explanations, supporting documents, research data, ethical approval records, or other relevant evidence.

The journal may consult independent experts, the publisher, or relevant research institutions when further investigation is necessary.

Appropriate editorial action will be determined according to the available evidence and the circumstances of each case.

3. Duties and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer reviewers assist the editorial team in evaluating the quality, originality, validity, and scholarly contribution of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers should provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments that help authors improve their work.

3.2. Promptness

Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate a manuscript or cannot complete a review within the agreed timeframe should notify the editor promptly and decline the invitation when necessary.

3.3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content to unauthorized individuals or use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

3.4. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews must be conducted objectively and professionally.

Reviewers should clearly explain their assessments and support their recommendations with relevant arguments. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

3.5. Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited.

They should notify the editor of substantial similarities, possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other concerns affecting the integrity of the manuscript.

3.6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality.

Reviewers should decline assignments when their independence may reasonably be questioned.

Unpublished information obtained through peer review must remain confidential and must not be used for personal advantage.

4. Duties and Responsibilities of Authors

4.1. Reporting Standards

Authors of original research must provide an accurate account of the research conducted, the methods used, the results obtained, and the significance of the findings.

Manuscripts should contain sufficient methodological detail and appropriate references to support scholarly assessment and, where applicable, replication.

Review articles must provide accurate and balanced assessments of the relevant literature. Opinion or perspective articles must be clearly identified as such.

Fabricated, falsified, or knowingly misleading statements are unacceptable.

4.2. Data Access and Retention

Authors must maintain appropriate research records and provide relevant supporting data or documentation when reasonably requested for editorial assessment or investigation.

Where practicable and ethically permissible, research data should be made available through appropriate repositories or other responsible data-sharing arrangements.

Data sharing must respect participant confidentiality, privacy, informed-consent conditions, intellectual property rights, and applicable legal requirements.

4.3. Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must submit original work and appropriately acknowledge the ideas, words, data, and findings of other researchers.

Plagiarism includes presenting another person's work as one's own, reproducing substantial material without appropriate attribution, and inappropriate paraphrasing without citation.

All forms of plagiarism are unacceptable.

The journal may use similarity-checking software and editorial assessment to identify potential plagiarism or inappropriate textual overlap.

Similarity reports must be interpreted in context. A similarity score alone does not establish misconduct.

4.4. Duplicate, Redundant, and Concurrent Submission

Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal.

Manuscripts must not present substantially the same research as new work without appropriate disclosure and acknowledgment.

Any relevant overlap with previously published articles, conference papers, preprints, or related manuscripts must be disclosed to the editorial team.

Secondary publication may be considered only where justified, transparently disclosed, and consistent with applicable publication ethics requirements.

4.5. Authorship and Contributions

Authorship must accurately reflect substantial scholarly contributions to the research and manuscript.

All listed authors must approve the final manuscript and agree to its submission to JLRF.

Gift authorship, ghost authorship, and the inappropriate exclusion of qualifying contributors are unacceptable.

Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet the applicable authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately, with their permission.

Changes to authorship after submission must be justified and approved by all affected authors before the journal considers the request.

4.6. Conflicts of Interest and Funding

Authors must disclose financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their research or its interpretation.

All relevant sources of financial support must be acknowledged, including grant numbers where applicable.

If no competing interests exist, authors should explicitly state that they have no competing interests to disclose.

4.7. Research Involving Human Participants

Research involving human participants, identifiable personal information, or other ethically sensitive activities must comply with applicable institutional and national requirements and relevant ethical standards.

Where ethical approval is required, authors must identify the approving institution or committee and provide the approval reference where applicable.

Authors must describe informed-consent procedures where relevant and explain any legitimate exceptions.

Researchers must respect participants' rights to privacy, confidentiality, dignity, and informed participation.

Where research involves children or other participants requiring additional safeguards, authors must comply with the applicable consent, permission, and protection requirements.

The journal may request supporting documentation when necessary.

4.8. Research Involving Animals

Research involving animals must comply with applicable animal-welfare regulations and relevant institutional ethical requirements.

Authors must provide appropriate information about ethical approval where required.

4.9. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and ethical acceptability of their manuscripts, including content prepared using artificial intelligence (AI) tools.

AI tools must not be listed as authors.

Where generative AI materially contributes to manuscript preparation, data analysis, image generation, or other relevant research activities, authors must disclose its use in accordance with the journal's applicable policy.

AI tools must not be used to fabricate data, invent references, misrepresent research findings, or manipulate evidence.

Authors must verify AI-assisted content and ensure that the use of such tools does not violate confidentiality, intellectual property rights, or research ethics requirements.

4.10. Acknowledgment of Sources

Authors must appropriately cite and acknowledge sources that influenced their research, analysis, and interpretation.

Information obtained privately through correspondence, interviews, conversations, or other confidential communications must not be used without appropriate permission when such permission is required.

5. Peer-Review Policy

JLRF is committed to independent peer review and appropriate editorial oversight of its scholarly content.

Manuscripts are initially assessed by the editorial team for relevance to the journal's scope, originality, completeness, and compliance with submission requirements.

The journal uses a blind peer-review process. Reviewers assess manuscripts without being provided with the author's identity, subject to the journal's implemented review procedures.

Primary research articles considered suitable for external review are evaluated by at least two qualified reviewers with relevant expertise, in accordance with the journal's review policy.

Reviewers are expected to assess the manuscript's relevance, originality, methodological soundness, significance, clarity, and scholarly contribution.

Possible editorial decisions include acceptance, acceptance subject to revisions, or rejection.

A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance. The final publication decision rests with the authorized editor after considering the reviewers' assessments, the authors' revisions, and the journal's editorial and ethical requirements.

The journal's published peer-review description must accurately reflect the procedures used in practice.

6. Research and Publication Misconduct

JLRF considers the following practices potential forms of research or publication misconduct:

• Plagiarism and inappropriate reuse of published material.

• Fabrication or falsification of research data.

• Duplicate or redundant publication.

• Inappropriate authorship attribution.

• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.

• Citation manipulation.

• Manipulation of peer review or editorial decisions.

• Misrepresentation of research methods, ethical approval, informed consent, or research findings.

• Inappropriate manipulation of images or other research materials.

• Other practices that materially compromise research integrity.

An allegation does not automatically establish misconduct. Each case must be assessed based on the available evidence and the circumstances involved.

7. Procedures for Handling Suspected Misconduct

JLRF will assess suspected research or publication misconduct in a fair, confidential, and evidence-based manner.

7.1. Initial Assessment

When an allegation is received, the editorial team will assess the information available and determine whether further examination is warranted.

Allegations may concern submitted manuscripts or articles that have already been published.

7.2. Evidence and Author Response

Where appropriate, the journal may request a written explanation, supporting documents, original research data, ethical approval records, or other relevant information from the authors or other parties concerned.

Individuals directly affected by an allegation should be given an appropriate opportunity to respond.

7.3. Further Investigation

If the matter cannot be resolved through preliminary assessment, the journal may consult independent experts, the publisher, the relevant research institution, or other appropriate authorities.

The journal will seek to distinguish genuine misconduct from honest errors, misunderstandings, or methodological disagreements.

7.4. Editorial Decision and Corrective Action

Following assessment of the available evidence, the authorized editor will determine the appropriate course of action.

Depending on the circumstances, actions may include:

• Dismissing an allegation when it is not substantiated.

• Requesting clarification or additional documentation.

• Requiring appropriate revisions.

• Rejecting a manuscript.

• Publishing a correction.

• Publishing an expression of concern.

• Retracting a published article.

• Referring the matter to an appropriate institution or authority.

Actions will be proportionate to the seriousness of the concern and consistent with recognized publication ethics guidance.

7.5. Documentation and Confidentiality

The journal will maintain appropriate records of significant ethical investigations and their outcomes.

Information will be disclosed only when necessary for the investigation, the protection of the scholarly record, or compliance with applicable legal and ethical obligations.

8. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

JLRF is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of its published scholarly record.

8.1. Corrections

A correction may be issued when an error in a published article requires clarification or amendment but does not warrant retraction.

The correction should identify the affected article and explain the nature of the change.

8.2. Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be published when credible questions about a published article remain unresolved and readers need to be informed while an investigation continues.

8.3. Retractions

Retraction may be considered when a published article contains seriously unreliable findings, plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, or other significant breaches of publication ethics.

A retraction notice must clearly identify the affected article and explain the reason for the retraction.

The journal will take appropriate steps to preserve the traceability and integrity of the scholarly record.

9. Complaints and Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned explanation supported by relevant evidence.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, publication procedures, or alleged breaches of publication ethics may be submitted through the journal's official editorial contact.

Complaints involving a potential conflict of interest by the Editor-in-Chief should, where practicable, be referred to an appropriately independent representative of the publisher.

The journal will assess complaints and appeals fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with the circumstances of each case.

10. Duties and Responsibilities of the Publisher

Dealings Publishing supports the editorial team in maintaining transparent publication policies and protecting the integrity of the scholarly record.

The publisher will cooperate with the editorial team in addressing allegations of misconduct and implementing appropriate corrective measures when necessary.

The publisher must not improperly interfere with independent editorial decisions.

The publisher and editorial team are responsible for ensuring that the information published on the journal website accurately reflects the journal's policies and editorial practices.

11. Access and Preservation of Published Content

JLRF is committed to maintaining the accessibility and integrity of its published scholarly content.

The publisher supports appropriate digital preservation and archiving arrangements to reduce the risk of permanent loss of published research.

Information about the journal's access model and preservation arrangements should be provided through the journal's official website and must accurately reflect the services in place.

12. Policy Implementation and Review

This policy applies to manuscripts submitted to JLRF and to published articles where post-publication ethical concerns arise.

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team are responsible for implementing this policy throughout the editorial and publication processes.

The policy may be reviewed and updated when necessary to reflect changes in recognized publication ethics guidance, applicable regulations, or the journal's editorial procedures.

JLRF is committed to maintaining accurate, accessible, and consistent publication ethics information.

13. Ethical Guidelines and References

JLRF uses recognized publication ethics resources to inform the development and review of its editorial policies.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) — Core Practices
https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) — Guidelines and Resources
https://publicationethics.org/guidance

These resources provide guidance on editorial responsibilities, peer review, authorship, conflicts of interest, research misconduct, and corrections or retractions.

Journal: Journal of Law and Resilient Future (JLRF)
Publisher: Dealings Publishing
Policy: Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement