Our Publication Ethics follows the standards established by the Commitee on Publication Ethics (COPE).


Website: https://publicationethics.org/


Duties of Editors

  1. The Editors are monitoring the ethical standards of academic publications and take all possible measures against any publication malpractices.
  2. Decisions on acceptance or rejection are based on the evaluation of the intrinsic value of the paper, its originality and relevance to the thematic profile of the given volume.
  3. All manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of their intellectual content, regardless of the authors’ nationality, ethnic origin, religious beliefs, sexual orientation and political views.
  4. The Editors provide information about the reviewing process of the manuscripts on the website.
  5. They inform the authors about any suggestions for changes in their manuscripts, make objective decisions as far as the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript is concerned.
  6. The Editors must not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors, reviewers and the publisher.
  7. The Journal’s editors will investigate every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour. Following the COPE Flowcharts, the editorial board will always be ready to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions or apologies when needed.

Retraction of the article: the Journal editors will consider retracting an article in the case of:

    • intentional academic misconduct: simultaneous submission to multiple journals, plagiarism, data fabrication etc.
    • human error: problematic methodology, findings that are unverifiable under peer review.

Notices on retraction will remain on record with the Journal database, identifying the author(s) and title of the retracted article. Retraction notices will state clearly the grounds for retraction, distinguishing between the cases of human error and intentional academic misconduct.



Duties of Authors

  1. All manuscripts submitted for publication should be original, authentic and unpublished.
  2. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is unacceptable.
  3. The Author should provide a complete list of the authors of the manuscripts and the relevant consents for the publication of all the copyrighted parts of manuscripts (illustrations, photographs, etc.)
  4. The manuscript should be formatted according to the indications given in the Author Guidelines section.
  5. The Author should cooperate in the reviewing and editing process of the manuscripts, including responding to the reviewer’s suggestions or arguments.
  6. The proper acknowledgment of the work of the others must always be presented to avoid any potential conflict of interest. Plagiarism, ghost-writing and guest authorship is not acceptable.
  7. If the Author finds an important error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, it is his/her obligation to notify the editor, who should take decision about retraction or correction of the paper.


Duties of Reviewers

  1. The main task of the Reviewer is to ensure that all papers accepted for publication have a high academic value and recommend his acceptance or rejection.
  2. The Reviewer must ensure the confidentiality of the reviewing process and provide a written opinion on the form available in the Peer Review Process section.
  3. The Reviewers should judge the manuscripts in an objective way, according to the ethical standards and avoid all non-academic criticism, inappropriate or offensive opinions.
  4. They may also help the authors to improve the value of the reviewed papers. They should present their opinions using constructive arguments.
  5. They have to alert the editors in case of violation of ethical standards, including plagiarism or autoplagiarism, ghostwriting or guest autorship.
  6. Any selected Reviewer who feels himself/herself not sufficiently competent in the field the article is written should decline the review.
  7. If there is any potential conflict of interests with the author of the manuscript (personal or financial), the Reviewer should decline the review.