Improving publication ethics: The editor will actively seek the views of authors, readers, reviewers, and Editorial Board members on ways to improve the journal. The editor will support initiatives aimed at reducing academic misconduct and educating researchers about publication ethics. Journal policies will be revised as necessary, taking into account new developments in journal editing and publishing, as well as the effects of these policies on the behaviour of authors and reviewers.

The editor is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. Decisions are based on the quality and importance of the article to researchers and readers. In making these decisions, the editor may consult with reviewers and the Editorial Board.

The editor evaluates manuscripts based on their intellectual content, without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. Submissions authored by the editor, employees of the publisher, or Editorial Board members will be handled in a manner that ensures unbiased reviews.

The editor and 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.

a) Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

b) Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

c) The editor should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions linked to the papers.

d) The editor should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if such interests are revealed after publication. If necessary, other appropriate action should be taken, such as publishing a retraction or an expression of concern.

Reporting standards — Authors should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention — Authors may be asked to provide the raw data related to a paper for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide public access to such data if practicable, and in any event should retain such data for a reasonable period after publication.

Originality and plagiarism — Authors should ensure that they have produced entirely original works. If they have used the work or words of others, citations or quotations must be accurately conveyed. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication — Authors should not submit manuscripts that describe 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources — Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the paper — Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest — All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed as influencing the results or interpretation of their manuscript.

Fundamental errors in published works — When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, they are obliged to promptly notify the editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Contribution to editorial decisions — Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through communication with the authors, may also help authors improve their papers. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication.

Promptness — Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.

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

Standards of objectivity — Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources — Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

Disclosure and conflict of interest — Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Intellectual property — The journal will adopt procedures for detecting plagiarism in submitted items, both routinely and especially when suspicions arise.

Commercial issues — The journal will ensure that commercial considerations do not affect editorial decisions. Any income sources by which the journal is co-financed are publicly available on its website.

Ensuring the integrity of the academic record — The publisher will ensure that published material is securely archived.