Editors are responsible for protecting the integrity of the scholarly record and for ensuring a fair, confidential, and evidence-based editorial process. Decisions must be based on scholarly merit, scope, originality, methodological and evidentiary quality, ethical compliance, and relevant peer-review reports. Commercial interests, APC payment, institutional pressure, nationality, religion, gender, political views, or personal relationships must not determine outcomes.
Where research involves humans, identifiable individuals, vulnerable groups, sensitive personal information, or other ethically regulated materials, authors must follow applicable institutional and legal standards and report approval and informed consent where required. Identifiable information must not be published without appropriate consent. Community-based, ethnographic, and culturally sensitive research must address confidentiality, power relations, and potential harm appropriate to the research context.
Every published article should contain an easy-to-find statement on AI use or non-use, author contributions, funding, and conflicts of interest. Additional ethics, consent, and data-availability statements should be included when relevant. AI systems cannot qualify for authorship.
Allegations are handled through documented initial assessment, preservation of evidence, conflict checks, author clarification, investigation where warranted, decision, and corrective action. The journal distinguishes honest error from misconduct and provides affected parties a reasonable opportunity to respond. Serious or unresolved cases may be referred to authors' or reviewers' institutions, funders, ethics bodies, or other appropriate authorities.
Errors or integrity concerns discovered after publication are addressed through correction, expression of concern, retraction, or exceptional removal as appropriate. Retraction does not erase the scholarly record: the original article remains accessible and clearly marked, with a freely available notice linked to the article and updated DOI/metadata.
Complaints concerning journal conduct and appeals against editorial decisions are considered through a defined process that is independent from the original decision maker where practicable. An appeal is not a second peer-review round by default and must identify a material error, procedural problem, conflict, or overlooked evidence.
