Code of Ethics

SPAMAST Research Journal Code of Ethics

The SPAMAST Research Journal (SRJ) upholds the highest standards of ethical conduct in scholarly publishing. The journal adheres to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Guidelines on Good Publication Practice and expects all stakeholders involved to comply rigorously with these principles.

Ethics for Authors

  • Authors must submit original work that has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere.
  • All submissions should comply with SRJ's Guide for Authors, including formatting and ethical standards.
  • Manuscripts must be free of plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification. All sources must be properly and fully acknowledged.
  • Authors are responsible for the accuracy of their work, including language and technical presentation. Manuscripts should be written in clear English and professionally proofread where appropriate.
  • Each author listed must have made a significant contribution to the research or writing. Specific roles should be described in the manuscript. All others should be listed under Acknowledgments.
  • The corresponding author is responsible for all communications with the journal and for ensuring co-authors approve all stages of the review and publication process.
  • Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest and comply with all applicable ethical and legal standards in their research (including ethical clearance for studies involving humans or animals).
  • If errors or significant issues are identified after publication, authors must promptly notify the editors to correct or retract the publication as needed.
  • Authors may suggest appropriate reviewers, but the editorial board reserves the right to select independent experts to ensure impartial evaluation.

Ethics for Reviewers

  • Reviewers should accept reviews only for manuscripts where they possess appropriate expertise and can provide unbiased, constructive feedback.
  • Potential reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and decline reviews when such conflicts exist or if they cannot complete the review within the specified timeline.
  • Reviews should be conducted objectively, fairly, and promptly, focusing on the scholarly merit, clarity, and originality of the work, and providing actionable feedback for improvement.
  • Reviewers must treat all materials in strict confidence and not use or disclose any unpublished data or ideas for personal advantage.
  • Reviewers should avoid personal criticism of the authors and should follow the peer review guidance provided by SRJ and the highest ethical standards.
  • If a reviewer observes any breach of ethics, they should notify the editor immediately and provide relevant details.

Ethics for Editors

  • Editors are responsible for all content published in the journal and must act in the best interest of the scientific record and the academic community.
  • All manuscripts should be evaluated solely on their scholarly merit, relevance, novelty, and quality, without bias based on personal characteristics or institutional affiliation of the authors.
  • Editors must ensure confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts and reviewer identities.
  • Editors provide clear guidance to reviewers regarding their responsibilities, including confidentiality, impartiality, and the need to declare conflicts of interest.
  • The editorial team strives to make prompt and transparent editorial decisions and communicates them clearly, including sharing reviewers’ feedback with authors.
  • Editors must uphold the journal’s editorial policies, international standards, and legal requirements.
  • Any alleged misconduct or ethical breach will be investigated thoroughly. Editors will pursue appropriate action, which may include correction, retraction, or notification of institutional authorities if necessary.