At Global Citation, we recognize that the integrity of the academic record is the foundation of progress. We are steadfast in our commitment to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and ensuring that every article we publish meets rigorous quality benchmarks. Our policies are designed to be transparent, fair, and consistent.

These guidelines outline the responsibilities and expectations for all parties involved in the publishing process, including authors, peer reviewers, editors, and the publisher. We align our protocols with the core practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). By submitting to or working with Global Citation, you agree to adhere to these ethical standards.

1. Duties and Responsibilities of Authors
   

Authors are the creators of scholarly knowledge. It is their primary responsibility to ensure that the work they submit is accurate, original, and ethically conducted.

1. Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship confers credit and has important academic, social, and financial implications. It also implies responsibility and accountability for the published work.

Criteria for Authorship To be listed as an author, an individual must meet all four of the following conditions:

• Substantial contributions: The individual must have played a significant role in the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work.
• Drafting or revising: The individual must have drafted the work or revised it critically for important intellectual content.
• Final approval: The individual must have given final approval of the version to be published.
• Accountability: The individual must agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Contributor Roles Contributors who do not meet all four of the above criteria should not be listed as authors. Instead, they should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgments” section. Examples of non-author contributions include acquiring funding, general supervision of a research group, or general administrative support. We encourage authors to use the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) system to specify the exact contribution of each person listed.

Unacceptable Authorship Practices

• Ghost Authorship: This occurs when someone who made substantial contributions is omitted from the author list. This is strictly prohibited.
• Gift or Guest Authorship: This occurs when someone is listed as an author without meeting the criteria, often due to seniority or affiliation. This violates our ethical standards.

Changes to Authorship Any changes to the author list after submission, such as the addition, deletion, or rearrangement of author names, must be approved by all authors. The corresponding author must provide a written explanation for the change to the editorial office.

2. Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works. Plagiarism takes many forms, from passing off another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others.

Plagiarism Detection Global Citation uses advanced similarity detection software to screen all submissions. If plagiarism is detected during the review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is proven after publication, the article will be retracted.

Self-Plagiarism and Redundant Publication Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors must not recycle text from their own previous publications without proper citation.

3. Data Integrity and Fabrication

The trustworthiness of science depends on the honest reporting of data.

Fabrication and Falsification Data fabrication is the construction of data that does not exist. Data falsification is the manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, or the changing or omission of data such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. Global Citation maintains a zero tolerance policy for data manipulation.

Image Integrity Digital images must faithfully represent the original data. While adjustments to brightness, contrast, or color balance are acceptable if applied to the whole image, specific features must not be moved, removed, obscured, or enhanced. We may request the original, unprocessed data files for verification during the review process.

4. Disclosure of Conflict of Interest

Authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work.

Financial Conflicts: Examples include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Non-Financial Conflicts: Examples include personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual beliefs.

If there are no conflicts of interest, authors should state: “The authors declare no conflict of interest.”

5. Ethical Oversight

Authors must ensure that their research complies with all relevant international and local laws and regulations.

Human Subjects: Research involving human participants must be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Authors must confirm that the study was approved by an institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee and that informed consent was obtained from all participants. Animal Subjects: Research involving animals must adhere to the ARRIVE guidelines and the 3Rs principle (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement). Authors must state the name of the ethics committee that approved the study. Cell Lines and Plants: Authors must report the origin and authentication of cell lines. Research on plants must comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity.

6. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Generative AI tools and Large Language Models (LLMs) cannot be listed as authors because they cannot take responsibility for the work. If AI tools are used in the writing process, data collection, or analysis, this must be transparently disclosed in the manuscript. The author remains fully responsible for the accuracy of any AI generated content.

1. Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

Editors play a central role in maintaining the scholarly record. They are the guardians of the review process and must act with independence and integrity.

1. Publication Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. This decision is based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

2. Fair Play and Editorial Independence

Editors must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The editorial decision process must be separated from the commercial interests of the publisher. Global Citation ensures that revenue sources do not influence editorial decisions.

3. Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Editors must ensure that the peer review process remains confidential and that the identity of the reviewers is protected (in single or double-blind review models).

4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Recusal: Editors should recuse themselves (i.e., ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

5. Vigilance over the Published Record

Editors act as the safeguard of the published record. They should take responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration to the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies. If the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note may be relevant.

6. Prevention of Citation Manipulation

Editors must not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. Editors will not request that authors cite articles from the editor’s own journal, or the editor’s own papers, merely to increase citations. All suggested citations must be scientifically relevant to the manuscript.

III. Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication. It assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and helps the author improve the paper. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, honest, and polite feedback.

2. Promptness and Punctuality

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process. Timeliness is crucial for rapid scientific dissemination, and reviewers should adhere to agreed deadlines.

3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

• Reviewers should not contact the authors directly.
• Reviewers should not share the manuscript or its data with colleagues or students without prior permission from the editor.
• Reviewers must not retain copies of the manuscript after the review is complete.

4. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The focus should remain on the content, methodology, interpretation, and validity of the work.

5. Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. If a reviewer suspects a conflict of interest, they must notify the editor immediately to declare it.

7. AI in Peer Review

Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading manuscripts into generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT) for the purpose of generating reviews or summaries. This action violates the confidentiality of the manuscript and the proprietary rights of the authors.

1. Duties of the Publisher

Global Citation is committed to ensuring that commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. We play a supporting role to our editors and editorial boards.

1. Guardianship of the Scholarly Record

As a publisher, we have a duty to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. We support our editors in reviewing complaints and appeals. In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification, or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work.

2. Handling Unethical Behavior

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, Global Citation will follow the COPE flowcharts and guidelines. We will assist the editors in investigating the claim. If the claim involves the editors themselves, the publisher will refer the case to an independent external panel.

3. Corrections and Retractions

• Corrections (Errata/Corrigenda): We publish corrections when errors are identified that do not fundamentally invalidate the research findings.
• Retractions: We retract articles if there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error). Retractions are also issued for redundant publication, plagiarism, or unethical research. Retracted articles are not removed from the online record but are clearly marked as retracted to ensure transparency.
• Withdrawals: Articles may be withdrawn by the authors before publication. However, if the article is already in the peer review process, withdrawal requires a valid reason and approval from the editor.

4. Accessibility and Archiving

Global Citation is dedicated to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research. We maintain a digital archive of all published articles and ensure that our content is indexed in major repositories to prevent the loss of knowledge.

1. Procedures for Dealing with Unethical Behavior

Global Citation is committed to due process. When an allegation of misconduct arises, we follow a structured approach.

1. Identification of Unethical Behavior

Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone. This includes situations such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical lapses in research design. The person informing the editor or publisher should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations are taken seriously and treated in the same manner, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.

2. Investigation

An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate. Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.

• Minor Misconduct: Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
• Serious Misconduct: Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher or the academic society as appropriate, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

3. Outcomes
   

Depending on the severity of the misconduct, the following outcomes may occur (in increasing order of severity):

• Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
• A formal letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behavior.
• Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
• Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
• A formal letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or funding agency.
• Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department, abstracting & indexing services, and the readership of the publication.
• Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
• Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.

By adhering to these guidelines, Global Citation ensures that the research we publish is trustworthy, ethical, and contributes positively to the global scientific community.