Publication Ethics Policy

Publication Ethics Policy

Journal of Advanced Computer Science (JACS)

The Journal of Advanced Computer Science (JACS) is committed to the highest standards of publication ethics and academic integrity. The journal follows the ethical principles and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure transparent, fair, and responsible scientific publishing.

This policy applies to all parties involved in the publishing process, including authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers.

1. Ethical Principles

JACS is committed to:

  • integrity and transparency in research publishing

  • fair and unbiased editorial decisions

  • protection of intellectual property

  • prevention of plagiarism and misconduct

  • confidentiality throughout the review process

  • correction of the scientific record when needed

2. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors submitting to JACS must ensure that:

2.1 Originality and Plagiarism

  • the manuscript is original and properly cited

  • plagiarism in any form is prohibited (including self-plagiarism)

  • similarity index must remain within the journal limits

2.2 Multiple/Redundant Submission

Authors must not submit the same manuscript to:

  • more than one journal simultaneously

  • any previously published venue without clear disclosure

2.3 Authorship and Contributions

  • all listed authors must have made significant contributions

  • authorship order must be agreed upon by all authors

  • changes in authorship after submission require editorial approval

2.4 Data Integrity

Authors must:

  • report results honestly

  • avoid fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of data

  • provide raw data or evidence upon request

2.5 Ethical Use of AI Tools

Authors may use AI tools for language improvement, but must ensure:

  • scientific responsibility remains with the authors

  • no fabrication of results

  • no violation of confidentiality or intellectual property

  • proper disclosure if AI tools were used extensively

2.6 Acknowledgment and Funding

Authors must:

  • acknowledge funding sources

  • declare all support and contributions

  • cite appropriately any third-party content

2.7 Conflict of Interest

Authors must declare any conflict of interest that could influence the research.

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must ensure:

  • confidentiality of manuscript content

  • objective and fair evaluation

  • timely completion of reviews

  • declaration of conflicts of interest

  • reporting of ethical concerns (plagiarism, duplication, manipulation)

4. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors and editorial board members must:

  • ensure unbiased decision-making

  • select qualified reviewers

  • maintain confidentiality

  • monitor ethical compliance and misconduct

  • avoid conflicts of interest

  • act promptly on suspected ethical violations

The Editor-in-Chief has final authority over editorial decisions.

5. Handling Misconduct

If misconduct is suspected, JACS will follow COPE guidelines and may take actions such as:

  • requesting explanations from authors

  • rejecting the manuscript

  • notifying institutions when necessary

  • issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern

Misconduct includes:

  • plagiarism

  • falsification/fabrication

  • duplicate publication

  • authorship manipulation

  • citation manipulation

  • unethical use of AI-generated content

6. Corrections and Retractions

JACS is committed to correcting the scientific record.

  • Corrections (Erratum): issued for minor factual errors

  • Retractions: issued for major ethical violations or unreliable findings

  • Expression of Concern: issued during ongoing investigations

7. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and review reports are treated confidentially. Disclosure is strictly limited to those involved in the editorial process.

8. Complaints and Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions or submit complaints. Appeals must include:

  • detailed justification

  • evidence-based arguments

The editorial team will review appeals fairly and transparently.