Publication Ethics and Malpractice

The integrity of scholarly publishing depends on the commitment of all parties involved - authors, peer reviewers, editors, and the publisher - to uphold the highest standards of ethical behavior. This journal adheres to internationally recognized principles of publication ethics to ensure the credibility, transparency, and reliability of the scientific record.

The ethical guidelines of Infinite Science Publishing are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, and we strive to align our practices with the COPE Core Practices.

In particular, our publication ethics and malpractice policies reflect the responsibilities of:

• Authors, who must ensure that submitted work is original, accurate, properly cited, and ethically conducted;

• Reviewers, who play a critical role in maintaining scientific quality and must conduct reviews with integrity, objectivity, and confidentiality;

• Editors, who are expected to make unbiased decisions and maintain confidentiality throughout the editorial process;

• Publisher, who must support editorial independence and handle ethical violations appropriately.

In cases of suspected ethical misconduct - including plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, or authorship disputes - Infinite Science Publishing follows COPE-recommended procedures.

Responsibilities of the Authors

1. Reporting Standards
Authors must present an accurate and complete account of their research, including data, methodology, and findings. The manuscript should provide sufficient detail to allow replication. Deliberate falsification or misrepresentation constitutes unethical behavior.

2. Originality and Plagiarism
Submitted work must be original and appropriately cite all sources and contributions from others. Plagiarism in any form, including self-plagiarism, is unacceptable.

3. Redundant or Concurrent Publication
Authors must avoid submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously. Submitting the same or similar content to more than one journal without disclosure is considered unethical.

4. Acknowledgement of Sources
All sources that significantly influenced the research must be appropriately cited. Proper acknowledgment of others’ work is essential.

5. Authorship Criteria
Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All co-authors must approve the final version of the manuscript and agree to its submission. Contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately.

6. Use of Hazardous Materials or Human/Animal Subjects
If the research involves hazardous materials, human participants, or animal subjects, this must be clearly stated in the manuscript. Research involving human participants, human-derived materials, identifiable human data, or animals must comply with applicable ethical and legal requirements and internationally recognized standards. Manuscripts involving human participants must state the name of the approving ethics committee or institutional review board and, where applicable, the approval number. Authors must confirm that informed consent was obtained where required. Research involving animals must state the relevant institutional or governmental approval and demonstrate compliance with applicable animal-welfare regulations and recognized reporting standards. Where ethical approval was not required, authors should provide an appropriate explanation

7. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
Authors must disclose all financial, personal, professional, institutional, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the conduct, interpretation, or presentation of the reported research. A Conflict of Interest Statement must be included in every manuscript. Where no conflicts exist, authors should state:

“The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to this work.”

Reviewers and editors must likewise disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline involvement where impartial assessment cannot reasonably be assured.

8. Correction of Errors
If authors discover a significant error in their published work, they are obligated to notify the Editor-in-Chief or publisher promptly and cooperate in correcting or retracting the article.

9. Author Contributions
All listed authors must have made a substantial contribution to the work, approve the final version of the manuscript, and agree to be accountable for their contributions. Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately.

10. Changes in Authorship
Any request to add, remove, or rearrange authors after initial submission must be justified and approved by all authors, including any author being added or removed. Requests made after acceptance will be considered only in exceptional circumstances and may delay publication. Changes to authorship after publication will be considered only where necessary to correct the scholarly record and will normally require a formal correction.

Responsibilities of the Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Reviewers play a critical role in supporting the editorial process. Their evaluations guide the Editors-in-Chief in making publication decisions and assist authors in improving their work through constructive feedback.

2. Timeliness
Reviewers should respond to invitations promptly. If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess a manuscript or is unable to complete the review within the agreed timeframe, they must inform the Editors-in-Chief without delay to allow for alternative arrangements.

3. Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared or discussed with others without prior authorization from the Editors-in-Chief.

4. Objectivity and Constructive Criticism
Reviews should be conducted impartially and objectively. Criticisms must be clearly stated and supported by evidence. Personal remarks or derogatory comments directed at the authors are unacceptable.

5. Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers are expected to identify relevant prior work that has not been cited by the authors. They should inform the editor of any suspected plagiarism or substantial overlap with previously published work.

6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that might affect their objectivity, including personal, financial, or professional relationships with any of the authors or affiliated institutions. Privileged information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal benefit.

Responsibilities of the Editors-in-Chief

1. Editorial Independence and Fair Evaluation
Manuscripts submitted to the journal must be evaluated solely on the basis of their academic merit, including originality, methodological rigor, and scientific significance. Editorial decisions shall not be influenced by the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

2. Confidentiality
The Editors-in-Chief and all editorial staff are required to maintain strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts. Manuscript details must only be shared with those directly involved in the editorial process, including corresponding authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisors, and the publisher, when appropriate.

3. Conflicts of Interest and Use of Unpublished Work
Editors must refrain from using unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscripts for their own research without the explicit written consent of the authors. Any potential conflicts of interest must be declared and managed appropriately.

4. Publication Decisions
The Editors-in-Chief bear full responsibility for deciding which submissions are accepted for publication. These decisions must be informed by peer review, editorial board policies, legal requirements (e.g., regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism), and scholarly standards. Consultation with associate editors and reviewers may support this decision-making process.

5. Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct
The Editors-in-Chief are responsible for ensuring that submitted content is original and free from plagiarism. All forms of plagiarism, including verbatim copying, improper paraphrasing, and the uncredited use of others’ ideas or data, are strictly prohibited.

Responsibilities of Infinite Science Publishing

In the case of alleged or confirmed scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, Infinite Science Publishing - working closely with the Editors-in-Chief - will take all necessary actions to clarify the issue and correct the scientific record. Measures may include issuing an erratum, expression of concern, or retraction of the article.

Infinite Science Publishing is committed to upholding ethical publishing practices and does not discriminate on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, or political belief in its editorial and publishing activities.

Post-Publication Discussions, Corrections, Expression of Concerrn, and Retractions

Transactions on AMMM is committed to maintaining the integrity and accuracy of the published scientific record, and encourages constructive scientific discussion of published work.

Readers or Authors who identify potential errors, methodological concerns, ethical issues, or other matters affecting the interpretation or integrity of a published article are encouraged to contact the Editors-in-Chief. Substantive concerns will be evaluated by the Editors-in-Chief and, where appropriate, may be referred to the authors, independent experts, or relevant institutions. Depending on the outcome, the journal may publish a correction, response, expression of concern, or retraction.

Post-publication concerns will be assessed on their scientific merits irrespective of the identity or affiliation of the person raising them.

When an error is identified after publication that does not invalidate the main findings of an article, the journal may publish a formal correction. Corrections will be clearly identified, assigned a persistent identifier where appropriate, and linked to the original article.

An Expression of Concern may be issued when serious questions have been raised regarding the integrity or reliability of an article but an investigation has not yet reached a definitive conclusion.

An article may be retracted when there is clear evidence that its findings are unreliable as a result of major error or misconduct, when plagiarism or redundant publication has occurred, when unethical research is identified, or in other circumstances in which retraction is necessary to preserve the integrity of the scientific record.

Retracted articles will remain part of the permanent scholarly record but will be clearly identified as retracted and linked to a retraction notice explaining the reason for the action.

Decisions concerning corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions follow applicable COPE guidance.

Complaints and Appeals

Transactions on AMMM is committed to handling complaints and appeals fairly, transparently, and in a timely manner.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that a significant error occurred during the editorial or peer-review process. Appeals must provide a clear scientific justification and address the reasons given for the editorial decision. Disagreement with a reviewer's assessment alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for an appeal.

Appeals are assessed by an Editor-in-Chief or another senior editor who was not directly involved in the original decision whenever possible. Additional independent expert advice may be sought where appropriate. The outcome of the appeal constitutes the journal's final editorial decision.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer review, publication ethics, or journal procedures should be submitted to the Editorial Office. Complaints involving an Editor-in-Chief will be handled by another independent senior editor or, where appropriate, by the publisher.

The journal follows applicable COPE principles and guidance when investigating complaints and appeals.

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Transactions on AMMM takes allegations of research and publication misconduct seriously, irrespective of whether they arise before or after publication.

Potential misconduct includes, but is not limited to, fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, inappropriate image manipulation, duplicate or redundant publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, and unethical research practices.

Allegations will be assessed confidentially and objectively by the Editors-in-Chief or appropriately designated editors. Where necessary, authors may be asked to provide original data, documentation, ethics approvals, or other information relevant to the investigation.

Where there is credible evidence of serious misconduct, the journal may contact the authors' institution or other appropriate bodies. Depending on the outcome, the journal may reject the manuscript, publish a correction or expression of concern, or retract the article.

Investigations will follow applicable COPE guidance and will aim to preserve the integrity of the scientific record.

Citation Practices and Citation Manipulation

References should be selected solely on the basis of their scientific relevance to the submitted work.

Transactions on AMMM does not tolerate citation manipulation, including coercive citation, excessive self-citation, inappropriate citation of articles from the journal, or requests by editors or reviewers to add references for purposes unrelated to improving the scientific quality, completeness, or clarity of the manuscript.

Editors and reviewers must not request citations primarily for the purpose of increasing citations to their own work, the journal, or associated publications.

Research Data and Reproducibility

Transactions on AMMM supports transparency, reproducibility, and responsible sharing of research data.

Authors are encouraged to make the data, code, protocols, models, and other materials necessary to reproduce the reported findings publicly available whenever this is ethically, legally, and technically possible. Established discipline-specific or general-purpose repositories should preferably be used.

Original Research Articles should describe where the data supporting the findings can be accessed. Where data cannot be made publicly available, the statement should explain the reason and, where applicable, describe the conditions under which access may be granted.

Restrictions relating to patient confidentiality, data protection, intellectual property, contractual obligations, or other legitimate considerations are fully recognized and should be clearly stated.

Editors and reviewers may request access to underlying data where this is necessary to evaluate the validity and integrity of the reported research.