Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

HABITAT also adopted publication Ethics Policy based on COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).

Purpose and Scope Journal of HABITAT adheres to the principles and guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure the highest standards of publication ethics. This policy outlines the ethical responsibilities for all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, and reviewers. The aim is to promote integrity, transparency, and trust in scholarly publishing.

Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern HABITAT is committed to correcting the scientific record when errors or misconduct are identified. In cases of proven misconduct, appropriate corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern will be published promptly, following the guidelines provided by COPE. Journal’s options for post publication discussions and corrections.

Transparency and Open Access HABITAT encourages transparency and open access to research findings. Authors should provide sufficient information and data to allow others to replicate and verify their research. HABITAT supports the principles of open access and encourages authors to consider publishing their work under open access licenses.

Compliance with Ethical Guidelines Authors, editors, and reviewers are expected to comply with the ethical guidelines outlined in this policy. Failure to adhere to these guidelines may result in corrective actions, including rejection of manuscripts, retraction of published articles, or exclusion from the journal's future publication activities.

Ethical and regulatory oversight of clinical research.

Journal’s policy on intellectual property.

Policy Review This publication ethics policy will be periodically reviewed and updated to ensure its continued relevance and compliance with evolving ethical standards in scholarly publishing. Any updates or revisions to the policy will be communicated to the relevant stakeholders.

Duties of Authors :

Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.

Data Access and Retention: Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication. it policies on data sharing and reproducibility.

Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations. 

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing enelitia and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced.

Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.

Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors. It policies on authorship and contributorship.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use. If research involves human subjects, author must be ensure the manuscript contain statement abaout all of procedures is compatible with law and guidelines from approval relevant constitutional and comite institutional. Author must be enclose statement in manuscript that informed consent has gotten for using human subject experiment. Private authorization from the human subject must be payed.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Conflict of interest which potential must be disclosure consist of work, consultant, ouwnership holdings, honorarium, expert testimony, patent/register application, and grant or another fund. Potential conflict of interest must be disclosure at the earliest possible stage. It is explain at complaints and appeals?

Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or publisher cooperate with the third part which published manuscript with significant error, author should retract or revised manuscript or notify the editor to correct the paper. (Based on Elsevier Policy and COPE’s Best Practice for Editor guidelines).

Duties of Editor :

Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.

Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.

Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable. Editor forbidden to reveal all off manuscript information to the everyone except work ouwner, reviewer, potential reviewer, editorial board, and corresponding publisher.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest. Information or excellent idea that gets from review should be confidentially protected and not use for personal adventage. The editor should resign (should ask co-editor, editor association or another member from editorial board to review and consideration) from the manuscript that has conflict of interest as a result from competitives manuscript, collaborative, or another correlation or connection with one of author, company, or (maybe) the institution which connected with manuscript. The editor should order all of contributor to reveal conflict of interest and publishing evaluation if conflict of interest reveal after publication. If needed, another act as possible as publication repealed or apologization. Please read at conflicts of interest.

Involved And Cooperate In Investigation: The Editor must take responsible steps when found ethic problems about submitted manuscript at correlation with publisher (or society). This steps generally involve contact the author and give consideration from every problems or klained, furthermore communication to the institution and the riset institution and if the problem has been discussed, so that publication evaluation, recall, apologized, or another relevant noted. Every report about unethics in publication should continue to be considered although was found a few years after publication.

Duties of Reviewers :

Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.

Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. 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. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript. Reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.

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. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest. Please look at conflicts of interest.

Habitat is committed to preserving the highest standards of publication ethics and will take all necessary steps to prevent publication malpractices. The Editorial Board is responsible for, among other things, preventing publication malpractice. Unethical behaviour is unlawful, and Habitat will not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors who contributed articles: confirm that the manuscript contents are original. Furthermore, the authors' submission suggests that the paper has not previously been published in any language, either whole or partially, and is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors, and reviewers for the International Journal of Advances in Intelligent Informatics must be fully committed to good publication practice and accept responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as outlined in the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. COPE's Core Practices include established guidelines on

Section A: Publication and Authorship 

  1. All submitted articles undergo rigorous peer-review by professionals in their respective fields.
  2. The review is a double-blind peer review.
  3. The evaluation assesses relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
  4. Possible decisions are acceptance, acceptance with changes, or rejection.
  5. Authors may be urged to revise and resend their submissions, but this does not ensure acceptance.
  6. Rejected manuscripts will not be re-reviewed.
  7. The paper approval is subject to applicable legal restrictions, including libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
  8. A research cannot be included in several publications.

Section B: Authors’ Responsibilities

  1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are original.
  2. Authors must confirm that their manuscript has not been published elsewhere.
  3. Authors must confirm that the paper is not being considered for publication elsewhere.
  4. Authors must participate in peer-reviewing.
  5. Authors must offer retractions or corrections of errors.
  6. All authors in the manuscript must have made meaningful contributions to the research.
  7. Authors must confirm the authenticity of all data in the publication.
  8. Authors must inform Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  9. Authors must list all sources used to create their manuscript.
  10. Authors must disclose any inaccuracies found in their published manuscript to the Editors. 

Section C: Reviewers’ Responsibilities

  1. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and treat paper-related information as privileged.
  2. Reviews should be neutral, without personal criticism of the author.
  3. Reviewers should clearly articulate their viewpoints and provide supporting arguments.
  4. Reviewers should find relevant published material that the authors have not cited.
  5. Reviewers should notify the editor-in-chief of any significant similarities or overlaps between the article under consideration and any other published paper of which they are personally aware.
  6. Reviewers should avoid reviewing manuscripts with conflicts of interest due to competing or collaborative relationships with authors, companies, or institutions associated with the studies.

Section D: Editors’ Responsibilities

  1. Editors have the full authority to reject or accept articles.
  2. Editors evaluate the publication's content and general quality.
  3. Editors should prioritize author and reader demands when making improvements to publications.
  4. Editors should ensure paper quality and academic integrity.
  5. Editors should produce errata pages and make necessary adjustments.
  6. Editors should understand research funding sources.
  7. Editors should prioritize the paper's importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the publication's scope.
  8. Editors should not alter or invalidate earlier choices without serious reasons.
  9. Editors should maintain reviewer anonymity.
  10. Editors should follow international ethical guidelines when publishing research material.
  11. Editors should only accept papers that are reasonably certain.
  12. If an editor suspects misbehaviour in a manuscript, whether published or unpublished, they should make reasonable efforts to resolve the issue.
  13. Before rejecting a paper, editors should have proof of misbehaviour, not just allegations.
  14. Editors should prevent conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.