Publication Ethics

MULTI DISCERE JOURNAL · RESEARCH INTEGRITY

Publication Ethics

Responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher throughout the publication lifecycle.

Ethical Principles Authorship and Contributorship Conflicts of Interest Research Approval, Consent, and Transparency Allegations of Research Misconduct Editorial Responsibilities Complaints, Appeals and Confidentiality

01Ethical Principles

MDJ’s publication-ethics policy addresses integrity in research design, authorship, reporting, peer review and editorial decisions. It is informed by internationally recognised principles of transparency and the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Reference to these documents is not a claim of formal membership in COPE.

Authors

Submit truthful work; credit contributors; obtain necessary permissions and approvals; disclose funding, interests and related publications.

Reviewers

Evaluate impartially; keep materials confidential; disclose conflicts and decline unsuitable invitations.

Editors and Publisher

Maintain independent decisions, handle concerns fairly, protect research records and correct the literature when warranted.

02Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship is reserved for contributors who have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the research or scholarly work, participated in drafting or critically revising the manuscript, approved the version submitted for publication and agree to take responsibility for the integrity of their contribution. All authors are expected to cooperate in addressing questions about the accuracy and integrity of the work.

The corresponding author confirms that the author list, order, institutional affiliations, contact information and contributions have been approved by all listed authors before submission.
Guest, gift and ghost authorship are prohibited; contributors who do not qualify for authorship may be acknowledged with their permission.
A contributor-role statement based on the CRediT taxonomy is encouraged where it can accurately describe contributions.
Requests to add, remove or rearrange authors before publication must include a reason and documented agreement from all existing and proposed authors, including any removed author, unless an exceptional documented circumstance is assessed by the editor.
After publication, a justified change in authorship will be assessed under the corrections policy; unresolved authorship disputes may require institutional clarification.

Authorship disputes. Editors do not arbitrarily determine who deserves authorship. Where evidence remains contested, the matter may be referred to the authors’ institutions for clarification before a publication decision.

03Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest may be financial or non-financial and may be actual, potential or reasonably perceived. Relevant interests include employment, grants, contracts, consultancy, ownership interests, patents, professional rivalry, close relationships and other circumstances that could influence or appear to influence the work.

Authors

Include a conflict-of-interest declaration and disclose financial support or other interests relevant to the submitted work.

Reviewers

Disclose relevant relationships with authors, institutions or sponsors and decline review when impartiality or confidentiality is at risk.

Editors

Recuse themselves from handling manuscripts affected by relevant relationships; assign decisions to an unconflicted editor.

Publication statement. If there are no relevant interests, authors should state: “The authors declare no conflicts of interest.” Failure to declare a conflict may prompt an editorial investigation and, where appropriate, a post-publication notice.

04Research Approval, Consent, and Transparency

Authors must conduct and report research in accordance with applicable institutional, national, disciplinary and legal requirements. Studies involving human participants, personal or sensitive data, human biological material or animals must disclose ethics review and informed-consent arrangements as applicable. If ethics review was not required, authors should explain the basis for exemption when relevant.

Fabrication, falsification, misleading image manipulation, misrepresentation of findings and undisclosed redundant publication are unacceptable.
Research methods and limitations must be described accurately; authors should retain relevant supporting materials and be prepared to respond to reasonable editorial requests.
Data and materials should be made available where ethically and legally permissible, or the reasons for restrictions should be explained.
Funding sources, sponsors’ roles and necessary permissions for third-party content must be disclosed.
Use of generative AI or other automated tools must follow the journal’s AI policy; such tools must not be listed as authors.

05Allegations of Research Misconduct

The journal considers documented allegations involving plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, unethical research, manipulation of citations or peer review, undisclosed competing interests and other serious threats to the scholarly record.

How to report: Send the article or manuscript title, DOI or submission identifier when available, a clear account of the concern, and supporting materials through the journal’s official Contact page. If the allegation concerns the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief, request independent consideration by another senior editor or the publisher.

Register the concern

Record the allegation, relevant manuscript/article and any evidence without assuming wrongdoing.

Initial screening

Assess specificity and credibility, identify conflicts, and determine whether the journal or an institution should investigate.

Opportunity to respond

Invite a response from the persons concerned where appropriate, with adequate confidentiality and fairness.

Assessment and referral

Consult relevant specialists or institutions when facts require investigation beyond the journal’s authority.

Proportionate action

Decide on rejection, request for explanation, correction, expression of concern, retraction or no action as supported by evidence.

Documentation and appeal

Document communications and permit review of substantive new evidence or a reasoned procedural appeal.

Fair process. An allegation alone is not proof of misconduct. Editors may seek institutional investigation for disputed research facts. Confidential personal information is limited to those who need it for a fair assessment.

06Editorial Responsibilities

Editors select reviewers based on relevant expertise, protect manuscript confidentiality, consider recommendations independently, and avoid discrimination unrelated to scholarly merit. Reviewers must not use unpublished material for personal benefit or delegate an invitation without editorial permission. Peer-review manipulation or the undisclosed use of confidential manuscript content is prohibited.

Complaints about editorial process may be submitted through the Contact channel. Appeals should explain a material error in the assessment or procedure and provide evidence. An editor with a material conflict must not decide the appeal. Accepted articles remain subject to the Post-Publication Policies if credible concerns arise.

07Complaints, Appeals and Confidentiality

MDJ distinguishes an editorial appeal against a decision from an allegation of research misconduct. Requests for reconsideration should identify the decision or action being challenged and the factual or procedural basis. Complaints are handled by an editor who is not personally implicated, and the outcome is communicated to the complainant to the extent confidentiality permits. Editorial records, identities of confidential reviewers and protected personal data are not published without proper justification.

Publication Ethics