Publication Ethics & Research Integrity

Macaw Publications is committed to safeguarding the integrity, reliability, transparency, and permanence of the scholarly record. This policy establishes the ethical principles and procedures applicable to authors, editors, reviewers, editorial board members, guest editors, and publishing personnel involved in journals published by Macaw Publications.

Research Integrity • Independent Peer Review • Editorial Accountability • Transparent Scholarly Communication

POLICY FRAMEWORK

Scope and Ethical Standards

This Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy constitutes the publisher-level ethics and publication-malpractice framework for journals published by Macaw Publications. It applies to original research articles, review articles, short communications, technical papers, case studies, editorials, special issues, supplementary materials, corrections, retractions, and other scholarly content where relevant.

The policy is informed by internationally recognised principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing developed by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME. Discipline-specific standards, including appropriate biomedical, human-participant, animal-research, and professional ethical standards, are applied where relevant.

Reference to these principles does not imply organisational membership or endorsement. Macaw Publications remains responsible for implementing its own published policies and for ensuring that journal practices are consistent with the statements made on its websites.

SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

Responsibilities in Scholarly Publishing

Maintaining publication integrity is a shared responsibility. Authors, editors, reviewers, editorial board members, and the publisher have distinct but complementary responsibilities throughout the publication process.

Authors

Authors are responsible for the originality, accuracy, ethical conduct, appropriate authorship, transparent reporting, supporting evidence, and integrity of the work they submit.

Editors

Editors are responsible for fair and independent manuscript assessment, appropriate peer-review oversight, confidentiality, conflict management, and decisions based on scholarly merit and journal scope.

Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for providing objective, constructive, timely, confidential, and evidence-based assessments within the limits of their expertise.

Publisher

The publisher is responsible for supporting editorial independence, maintaining transparent policies, providing appropriate publication infrastructure, and supporting corrective action where the integrity of the scholarly record is at risk.

AUTHORSHIP & CONTRIBUTORSHIP

Authorship, Contributions and Accountability

Authorship must reflect genuine scholarly contribution and responsibility for the work.

All listed authors should have made a substantive contribution to the conception, design, execution, analysis, interpretation, preparation, or critical scholarly revision of the work, as appropriate to the discipline and article type.

All authors should approve the submitted version and, where applicable, the final version accepted for publication. Authors should be able to identify their contribution and accept appropriate responsibility for the integrity of the work.

Gift, guest, honorary, and ghost authorship are not acceptable.

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

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all listed authors are aware of the submission and that required declarations are complete.

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be supported by a reasoned explanation and agreement from the relevant authors. The journal may request additional documentation before approving such changes.

RESEARCH & PUBLICATION MISCONDUCT

Originality and Unacceptable Practices

Macaw Publications does not knowingly permit practices that compromise the authenticity, reliability, provenance, or interpretation of scholarly work.

Fabrication

Inventing data, observations, participants, experiments, results, references, or other information and presenting them as genuine research evidence.

Falsification

Manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, datasets, images, analyses, or results so that the published record no longer accurately represents the research conducted.

Plagiarism

Using another person's words, ideas, methods, data, figures, results, or other intellectual contributions without appropriate attribution.

Duplicate or Redundant Publication

Submitting or publishing substantially the same work in more than one publication without appropriate disclosure, justification, permission, and cross-reference.

Inappropriate Text Reuse

Reuse of previously published material must be transparent, appropriately cited, and consistent with copyright and journal requirements. Excessive undisclosed reuse may be treated as a publication-integrity concern.

Image and Data Manipulation

Images, figures, graphs, numerical results, or datasets must not be altered in a manner that fabricates, obscures, removes, or misrepresents significant research information.

Citation Manipulation

Authors, reviewers, and editors must not add, request, or coordinate irrelevant citations primarily to increase citation counts for an author, journal, editor, institution, or other entity.

Peer-Review Manipulation

Fabricated reviewer identities, impersonation, false contact information, undisclosed review arrangements, coordinated review manipulation, or interference with independent peer review are prohibited.

Similarity-detection or other screening methods may be used to support editorial assessment. Similarity percentages are not treated as automatic evidence of misconduct; editors assess the nature, context, attribution, and significance of identified overlap.

PEER-REVIEW INTEGRITY

Independent and Ethical Manuscript Evaluation

Primary research articles published in Macaw Publications journals are subject to external peer review in accordance with the peer-review model publicly stated by the respective journal. Editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the journal's authorised editorial leadership.

Reviewers should possess relevant subject expertise and should evaluate manuscripts for scholarly quality, methodological soundness, originality, clarity, relevance, ethical acceptability, and contribution to the field.

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, review reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished research information must be treated as confidential and must not be used for personal, academic, financial, or competitive advantage.

Reviewer Conflicts

Reviewers should disclose relevant personal, professional, financial, academic, collaborative, or institutional conflicts before accepting a review assignment.

Reviewer Suggestions

Author-suggested reviewers, where permitted, may be considered but are independently verified and are not automatically selected by the journal.

Editorial Oversight

Editors assess reviewer suitability and the quality, relevance, and independence of review reports. Editorial decisions are not determined solely by numerical reviewer recommendations.

EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE

Fairness and Independence of Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly characteristics of the manuscript, including originality, methodological quality, scientific validity, ethical acceptability, relevance, clarity, contribution to knowledge, and conformity with the journal's stated aims and scope.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by publication charges, advertising, sponsorship, commercial relationships, institutional pressure, or inappropriate publisher influence.

Manuscripts should not receive favourable or unfavourable treatment because of an author's institutional affiliation, geographical location, nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, political belief, or other characteristic unrelated to scholarly evaluation.

Editors should recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a relevant conflict prevents impartial editorial judgement.

Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, or individuals closely associated with the journal must be handled through an independent editorial process in which the conflicted individual does not participate.

COMPETING INTERESTS

Conflicts of Interest and Funding Disclosure

Authors, reviewers, editors, and other participants in the publication process must disclose relationships or interests that could reasonably influence, or appear to influence, their professional judgement.

Financial Interests

Relevant funding, employment, consultancy, shareholding, commercial relationships, patents, or other financial interests should be disclosed.

Academic & Professional Interests

Relevant collaborations, institutional relationships, academic competition, supervisory relationships, or professional associations should be disclosed where they could affect impartiality.

Funding Sources

Sources of financial support for the research should be acknowledged where applicable, together with the role of the funder where that role is relevant to the work.

No Competing Interest

Where no relevant competing interests exist, authors may be required to provide an explicit declaration to that effect.

ETHICAL OVERSIGHT

Human Participants, Animals, Privacy and Consent

HUMAN PARTICIPANTS

Research involving human participants should comply with applicable ethical principles, institutional requirements, national regulations, and relevant disciplinary standards. Appropriate ethics approval or exemption information should be reported where required.

INFORMED CONSENT

Authors should obtain informed consent where required for research participation and for publication of identifiable personal information, images, or case information.

ANIMAL RESEARCH

Research involving animals should comply with applicable welfare standards and institutional or regulatory approval requirements. Relevant approval information should be reported in the manuscript where applicable.

PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY

Personal, clinical, confidential, or identifiable information must be handled in accordance with applicable ethical, institutional, and legal requirements.

DATA & REPRODUCIBILITY

Research Data, Methods and Supporting Evidence

Authors are responsible for preserving the integrity and traceability of the data, analyses, methods, software, images, and other evidence supporting their reported findings. Manuscripts should contain sufficient methodological information to permit meaningful scholarly assessment.

Where appropriate, authors should provide a data-availability statement identifying whether supporting data are publicly available, available on reasonable request, restricted, or unavailable for justified ethical, legal, privacy, security, contractual, or intellectual-property reasons.

Editors may request underlying data, images, analysis files, protocols, ethics documentation, or other supporting information when reasonably necessary to evaluate a manuscript or investigate an integrity concern. Inability to provide supporting evidence may be considered when determining an appropriate editorial response.

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

AI and AI-Assisted Technologies

The use of generative artificial intelligence and AI-assisted technologies must not compromise authorship accountability, originality, confidentiality, data integrity, citation accuracy, or the reliability of the scholarly record.

Human authors remain accountable for submitted work.

AI systems cannot assume authorship responsibility and should not be listed as authors. Where AI-assisted technologies have been used in a manner that materially contributes to manuscript preparation, analysis, generation, or presentation, appropriate disclosure should be made in accordance with the journal's current AI policy.

Authors remain responsible for verifying the accuracy, originality, references, permissions, confidentiality, and integrity of all submitted content regardless of whether an AI-assisted technology was used.

MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS

Handling Research and Publication Integrity Concerns

Concerns may be raised regarding submitted manuscripts, published articles, peer review, editorial conduct, authorship, data, images, citations, or other matters affecting the integrity of the scholarly record. Concerns are considered on the basis of available evidence rather than the status or identity of the person raising them.

01Receipt

The concern is documented and assessed to determine whether it falls within the journal's or publisher's responsibility.

02Preliminary Review

Available information is evaluated to determine whether clarification or further evidence is required.

03Response

Relevant parties may be invited to provide an explanation, supporting evidence, data, or documentation.

04Independent Assessment

Where necessary, independent editorial, technical, ethical, or institutional expertise may be sought.

05Resolution

Appropriate editorial or post-publication action is taken according to the evidence and seriousness of the concern.

Macaw Publications does not substitute for an author's employer, university, ethics committee, funding agency, or other body with formal authority to investigate research misconduct. Where appropriate, substantive concerns may be referred to the relevant institution or competent authority.

COMPLAINTS & APPEALS

Independent Review of Editorial Concerns

Legitimate complaints and editorial appeals are considered through a documented and impartial process.

An appeal against an editorial decision should identify the manuscript, specify the decision being challenged, and explain the scholarly or procedural grounds for reconsideration. Disagreement with reviewer comments alone does not automatically justify reversal of an editorial decision.

Appeals should normally be submitted within 30 calendar days of the relevant editorial decision. Where feasible, an appeal should be reviewed by a senior editor or other qualified person who was not solely responsible for the original decision.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, ethical handling, conflicts of interest, peer-review integrity, or publisher procedures are considered separately from ordinary manuscript appeals and may be escalated where necessary.

POST-PUBLICATION DISCUSSION

Questions, Critiques and Scholarly Debate

Reasoned post-publication concerns regarding the accuracy, interpretation, methodology, ethics, or integrity of published research may be communicated to the journal or publisher. Submissions should identify the publication concerned and provide a clear scholarly basis and supporting evidence where applicable.

Depending on the nature of the matter, the journal may invite author clarification, seek independent expert advice, publish an appropriate scholarly response, issue a correction or other editorial notice, or initiate an integrity investigation.

Legitimate scholarly criticism is distinguished from abusive, defamatory, repetitive, irrelevant, or unsupported allegations. Editorial action is based on the substance and evidential basis of the concern.

CORRECTION OF THE SCHOLARLY RECORD

Corrections, Expressions of Concern and Retractions

Macaw Publications considers the preservation and correction of the scholarly record a continuing responsibility that extends beyond the date of publication.

Correction

A correction may be issued where an otherwise reliable publication contains an error or omission that materially affects part of the record but does not invalidate the principal findings.

Expression of Concern

An expression of concern may be issued when serious questions affect a publication but available evidence is inconclusive or a relevant investigation remains incomplete.

Retraction

Retraction may be appropriate when findings are unreliable because of major error or misconduct, plagiarism, serious redundant publication, unethical research, compromised peer review, fabricated or falsified evidence, or another integrity problem that substantially undermines the publication.

Removal

Removal of published content is exceptional and may be considered where continued availability creates substantial legal, privacy, safety, or other compelling harm that cannot be adequately addressed through a conventional editorial notice.

Correction, expression-of-concern, and retraction notices should clearly identify the affected publication, explain the reason for the action to the extent appropriate, and remain linked to the scholarly record. Retraction is a mechanism for correcting the literature and should not be treated as a means of concealing the existence of a published article.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Copyright, Permissions and Proper Attribution

Copyright

Copyright ownership and licensing conditions are stated by the respective journal and must be consistent with the publication agreement applicable to the article.

Third-Party Material

Authors are responsible for obtaining required permissions for copyrighted figures, tables, photographs, substantial extracts, datasets, or other protected materials.

Attribution

Sources must be acknowledged accurately and citations should represent genuine scholarly relevance to the work.

Licensing

Published articles must carry the copyright and licensing information applicable to the journal's publication model.

SPECIAL ISSUES

Ethical Standards for Special and Thematic Issues

Special issues, thematic collections, and guest-edited content are subject to the same standards of originality, peer review, research integrity, editorial independence, conflict disclosure, and post-publication accountability as regular journal content.

Guest Editors must be appropriately qualified for the subject area and must disclose relevant conflicts of interest. The journal's Editor-in-Chief or designated editorial leadership retains responsibility for oversight of the special issue and may intervene where editorial, ethical, or quality concerns arise.

INTEGRITY REPORTING

Confidentiality and Good-Faith Concerns

Publication-integrity concerns are handled with appropriate confidentiality and procedural fairness. Information is disclosed only to the extent reasonably necessary to assess, investigate, refer, or resolve the matter.

Concerns are evaluated according to evidence.

Good-faith concerns should not be disregarded solely because the individual raising the concern requests confidentiality or does not wish to be publicly identified. However, sufficient information or evidence must normally be available to permit meaningful assessment.

Individuals raising concerns should avoid public dissemination of confidential manuscript information or unsubstantiated allegations while a matter is undergoing formal assessment.

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Proportionate and Evidence-Based Action

Responses to publication-integrity concerns are determined according to the seriousness of the issue, strength of available evidence, stage of publication, potential effect on the scholarly record, responsibilities of the parties involved, and applicable ethical, institutional, disciplinary, and legal considerations.

EDITORIAL PRINCIPLE

Protection of the scholarly record takes precedence over reputational or commercial considerations.

Where credible evidence indicates that published literature requires correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction, the appropriate action should be taken transparently and without unnecessary delay.

POLICY CONTACT

Publication Ethics Enquiries and Integrity Concerns

Submitting an ethics or research-integrity concern

Correspondence should identify the journal and publication or manuscript concerned, describe the issue clearly, and provide supporting documentation or evidence where available.

Publication ethics and publisher-level research-integrity enquiries may be directed to:

Macaw Publications
Email: publisher@macawpublications.com

Policy version: 1.0 | Effective date: [Insert adoption date] | Last reviewed: [Insert review date]

REFERENCE FRAMEWORK

Recognised Scholarly Publishing Guidance

In developing and reviewing its publication-ethics policies, Macaw Publications refers, where relevant, to recognised international guidance for scholarly publishing and research integrity.

COPE

Committee on Publication Ethics — Core Practices, flowcharts, discussion documents, and guidance concerning publication ethics and correction of the scholarly record.

Transparency Principles

Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing developed collaboratively by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME.

ICMJE

Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, where relevant to biomedical and health-related research.

Discipline Standards

Applicable institutional, national, international, and discipline-specific standards are considered where the nature of the research requires additional ethical oversight.

PUBLICATION INTEGRITY COMMITMENT

Preserving Trust in the Scholarly Record

Macaw Publications is committed to maintaining scholarly publishing practices in which research is evaluated independently, authorship and competing interests are transparent, peer review is conducted responsibly, ethical concerns are investigated fairly, and the published record is corrected whenever credible evidence demonstrates that corrective action is required.

Integrity • Transparency • Independence • Accountability