1. Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Sustainable Manufacturing and Applied Physics Journal (SMAP) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics, academic integrity, transparency, and responsible scholarly communication. The journal follows the principles and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly those concerning publication misconduct, editorial decision-making, corrections, retractions, and the responsibilities of authors, editors, and reviewers. For further information on publication ethics and ethical guidelines, please visit COPE.

SMAP expects all parties involved in the publication process to uphold honesty, fairness, confidentiality, accountability, and respect for intellectual property. Allegations of research or publication misconduct are assessed fairly, confidentially, and objectively, following appropriate procedures to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.

2. Allegations of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, citation manipulation, and other inappropriate practices in conducting, reviewing, or reporting research and preparing scholarly manuscripts. When research misconduct or other serious irregularities are suspected or identified in a submitted or published article, the Editors are responsible for taking appropriate action to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will follow relevant COPE guidelines and best practices to assess allegations and address potential violations fairly. The investigation may include an initial assessment by the Editors, requests for explanations from the authors, and consultation with independent experts where necessary. Manuscripts found to contain research misconduct will be rejected. If misconduct is confirmed in a published article, SMAP may issue a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction, depending on the nature and severity of the case. Any retraction notice will be linked to the original article.

The initial assessment will determine whether the allegation is sufficiently credible and consistent with recognized definitions of research misconduct. The Editors will also consider whether the individuals making the allegations have relevant conflicts of interest that may affect the assessment.

If there is reasonable concern that scientific misconduct or substantial research irregularities may have occurred, the corresponding author will be contacted and asked to provide a detailed response on behalf of all co-authors. Following receipt and evaluation of the response, the Editors may seek further evidence or consult relevant experts, including statistical reviewers, where appropriate.

If the evidence does not support a finding of misconduct but identifies errors or ambiguities, the Editors may request clarification, additional analysis, or other appropriate corrective action. Depending on the circumstances, a correction notice or other editorial communication may be published to maintain the accuracy of the scholarly record.

SMAP recognizes that research institutions have an important responsibility to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct thoroughly and fairly. Authors, journals, and institutions share responsibility for preserving the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. SMAP will take appropriate action based on the findings of each case, including corrections, retractions with replacement where justified, or retractions when necessary.

3. Complaints and Appeals

SMAP provides a clear procedure for handling complaints and appeals concerning the journal, its editorial staff, the Editorial Board, or the publisher. Complaints may relate to editorial decisions, publication procedures, citation manipulation, unfair treatment by editors or reviewers, peer-review manipulation, or other matters associated with the journal's operations.

All complaints will be assessed objectively, fairly, and confidentially. The individuals concerned will be given an appropriate opportunity to respond to the allegations. SMAP will handle complaints and appeals in accordance with relevant COPE guidelines and established editorial procedures.

Appeals against editorial decisions must provide clear reasons and supporting evidence. The Editors will review the grounds for appeal and may seek additional expert opinions when necessary. Decisions will be made independently and without inappropriate influence from personal, institutional, or commercial interests.

4. Ethical Oversight

SMAP requires authors to comply with applicable ethical standards and regulations when conducting research involving human participants, animals, hazardous chemicals, procedures, equipment, or other potentially hazardous materials. Relevant risks and safety considerations must be clearly identified in the manuscript. Where applicable, authors must provide evidence of approval from an appropriate research ethics committee or other authorized institution and confirm that the research was conducted in accordance with relevant ethical requirements.

Research involving human participants must comply with applicable ethical principles, including informed consent and the protection of participants' privacy and confidentiality. Research involving animals must comply with applicable animal welfare standards and institutional requirements.

When research involves confidential, proprietary, commercial, or marketing-related data, authors must explain how the data were obtained, how confidentiality is protected, and whether any restrictions apply to data access or publication. Authors must ensure that the use and disclosure of such data comply with applicable legal, ethical, and contractual obligations.

5. Duties and Responsibilities of Authors

5.1. Reporting Standards

Authors must present an accurate, complete, and objective account of their research and discuss its significance clearly. Research findings must be reported honestly, without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate manipulation of data. Manuscripts must contain sufficient methodological details and references to enable appropriate evaluation and, where feasible, replication of the research. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Authors must also comply with SMAP's submission guidelines.

5.2. Data Access, Retention, and Reproducibility

Authors may be asked to provide the underlying data supporting their manuscripts for editorial assessment. Where practicable and ethically permissible, authors should facilitate access to research data and retain relevant records for a reasonable period after publication. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their data, methods, and reported findings are sufficiently documented to support the reproducibility and verification of their research, subject to applicable privacy, confidentiality, and legal requirements.

5.3. Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that their submissions constitute original work. All sources, ideas, data, and text derived from other works must be properly acknowledged and cited. Direct quotations must be clearly identified and accompanied by appropriate references.

Plagiarism, including the unacknowledged use of another person's ideas, words, data, or research findings, is unacceptable. Authors must also appropriately acknowledge and cite their own previously published work when relevant.

5.4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications

Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal unless an explicitly agreed publication arrangement permits such submission. Manuscripts must not reproduce substantially the same research findings in multiple publications without proper justification and disclosure.

Where multiple publications arise from a single research project, their relationship must be clearly disclosed, and the relevant primary publication must be cited. Duplicate, redundant, or overlapping publication without appropriate disclosure constitutes unethical publishing behavior.

5.5. Acknowledgment of Sources

Authors must acknowledge all relevant sources of data, ideas, methods, and information used in their research. Publications that have significantly influenced the development, design, interpretation, or reporting of the work must be properly cited. Authors must give appropriate credit to the contributions of other researchers and avoid misrepresenting the origin of ideas or findings.

5.6. Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship must accurately reflect each individual's substantial contribution to the research and the preparation of the manuscript. Individuals who have made significant intellectual contributions to the conception, design, execution, analysis, or interpretation of the research should be appropriately credited as authors.

Individuals whose contributions are limited to technical assistance, administrative support, funding acquisition, or other activities that do not meet the applicable criteria for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately rather than automatically listed as co-authors.

All listed authors must have reviewed and approved the submitted version of the manuscript, agreed to its submission to SMAP, and accepted responsibility for their respective contributions. Any changes to authorship must be justified and approved by all relevant authors in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures.

5.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose any financial, professional, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research, its interpretation, or the publication process. All sources of financial support for the research must be clearly acknowledged in the manuscript. Authors must ensure that relevant conflicts of interest are disclosed transparently.

5.8. Fundamental Errors in Published Works

If authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in a submitted or published manuscript, they must promptly notify the Editors or publisher and cooperate in determining the appropriate corrective action. Depending on the nature and severity of the error, the necessary action may include correction, an expression of concern, or retraction.

5.9. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

Authors must clearly identify any unusual or significant hazards associated with the chemicals, materials, procedures, equipment, or experimental methods used in their research. Research involving human participants or animals must comply with applicable ethical standards and regulatory requirements. Evidence of ethical approval and informed consent must be provided when required.

6. Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

6.1. Publication Decisions

Editors are responsible for making publication decisions based on the manuscript's scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and contribution to the journal's scope. Decisions may include acceptance, rejection, or a request for revision, taking into account peer-review reports and the journal's editorial policies.

Editors must ensure that decisions comply with applicable legal and ethical requirements, including those concerning defamation, copyright infringement, plagiarism, and research misconduct. They may consult other editors or reviewers when additional expertise is required. Editors are accountable for the content they publish and must maintain appropriate procedures to safeguard the quality and integrity of the scholarly record.

6.2. Review of Manuscripts

Editors must ensure that manuscripts undergo an appropriate initial assessment for relevance, originality, and compliance with the journal's submission requirements. Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation must be handled through a fair and consistent peer-review process.

Reviewers must be selected based on their relevant expertise, independence, and ability to provide an objective assessment. Editors must avoid appointing reviewers who have conflicts of interest that could compromise the review process. Information about the peer-review process must be made available to authors through the journal's published review policy.

6.3. Fair Play and Editorial Independence

Editors must evaluate manuscripts solely on their academic merit, originality, relevance, and methodological quality, without discrimination based on authors' gender, sex, race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, citizenship, institutional affiliation, or other personal characteristics unrelated to scholarly assessment.

Editorial decisions must remain independent and impartial. Editors must resist inappropriate influence from authors, institutions, sponsors, commercial interests, or other external parties.

6.4. Confidentiality

Editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and related communications. Manuscript information must not be disclosed to unauthorized individuals. Editors must also consider applicable data-protection requirements, participant privacy, and patient confidentiality, ensuring that appropriate consent has been obtained where required.

6.5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Editors must not use unpublished information or ideas obtained through manuscript handling for personal research or advantage without the authors' explicit written permission. Editors must declare relevant conflicts of interest and must not participate in decisions concerning manuscripts where their relationships or interests could compromise impartiality. Such manuscripts should be reassigned to an independent editor where appropriate.

7. Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

7.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer reviewers assist the Editors in making informed editorial decisions and help authors improve the quality, clarity, rigor, and presentation of their manuscripts through constructive feedback.

7.2. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and all related information as confidential and privileged material. They must not share, reproduce, or discuss submitted manuscripts with unauthorized individuals unless explicitly authorized by the Editors. Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained during peer review for personal or professional advantage.

7.3. Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors and recommend appropriate references where necessary. Claims concerning previously reported observations, methods, findings, or arguments should be supported by relevant citations.

Reviewers must promptly inform the Editors of suspected plagiarism, substantial overlap with other publications, possible duplicate submission, citation manipulation, or other potential ethical violations. Reviewers must keep such concerns confidential and should not conduct independent investigations unless requested by the Editors.

7.4. Standards of Objectivity

Reviews must be conducted objectively, professionally, and constructively. Reviewers should provide clear explanations and supporting arguments for their assessments and recommendations. They should distinguish between additional analyses or investigations that are essential to support the manuscript's claims and those that would merely strengthen or extend the work.

Reviewers must avoid personal criticism and provide feedback that helps authors improve the scientific quality and clarity of their manuscripts.

7.5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, personal, competitive, collaborative, or institutional relationships that could influence their assessment of a manuscript. They should decline review assignments when a relevant conflict of interest could compromise their impartiality.

In double-blind peer review, reviewers who identify or suspect the identity of an author must inform the Editors if that knowledge creates or reveals a potential conflict of interest.

7.6. Promptness

Reviewers should accept review assignments only when they have the relevant expertise and can reasonably complete the assessment within the agreed timeframe. They must promptly inform the Editors if they require an extension or are unable to complete the review. Where necessary, the Editors may appoint an alternative reviewer to avoid unreasonable delays in the editorial process.