1. Publication Ethics and Submission Requirements

1.1. Submission Declaration & Prior Publication

By submitting an article to ESSD, the Corresponding Author declares that:

• The work described has not been published previously (except in the form of preprints, abstracts, a published lecture, academic thesis, or registered report).
• The manuscript is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
• The article's publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out.
• If accepted, the article will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language.

1.2. Access to Publication (Open Access Policy)

Every article appearing in ESSD is fully open-access (OA), meaning it is universally and freely accessible immediately upon publication. The author(s) irrevocably grant(s) to any third party the right to use, reproduce, or disseminate the article, provided that proper attribution and correct citation details are given.

2. Authorship and Accountability

2.1. Authorship Criteria

Authorship provides credit and carries accountability. Each listed author must have made a substantial contribution and meet all three of the following requirements:

1. Contribution: Substantial involvement in the conception/design of the work, or the acquisition/analysis/interpretation of data.

2. Drafting/Revision: Participated in drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content.

3. Final Approval: Given final approval of the version to be submitted and any major modifications. Authors must avoid "gift" or "ghost" authorships; co-authors share the responsibility for the content and results of the article.

4. All contributors who do not meet all three criteria for authorship that have mentioned above should be included in “Acknowledgment” section.
Examples of a person who might be acknowledged include those who provided purely technical or writing assistance, or a department head/chair who provided general support.

2.2. Changes to Authorship

Changes (addition, deletion, or rearrangement) in the authorship list are acceptable ONLY before publication and upon the explicit approval of the Journal Editor(s).

• The Corresponding Author must submit a request stating the reason for the change, along with written confirmation from all authors (including those being added or removed) agreeing to the modification.
• Unauthorized authorship changes may result in the rejection of the article or retraction if published.

2.3. Declaration of Generative AI Use.

Authors must disclose the use of any AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Grammarly, proprietary AI services) in the manuscript preparation process upon submission.

• No AI Authorship: Authors must not list or cite AI Tools as an author or co-author, as authorship implies responsibilities that only humans can assume.
• Human Accountability: Authors remain fully responsible and accountable for the entire content, including verifying the accuracy and originality of all AI-generated output.

3. Disclosure and Ethical Compliance

3.1. Declaration of Competing Interests (CI)

In case any relationship could present some kind of conflict of interest, the author is obliged to disclose this information in full. Any financial relationship or any other kind that could be recognized as influencing an author’s objectivity is considered a potential source of conflict of interest.
As part of the journal submission requirements, and during the process of an author’s submission of his/her article, they will be asked to provide ticks for statements that apply. The statement(s) are designed to ensure that no financial or personal interest could affect their impartiality. If otherwise, authors are expected to contact the editor stating the source and nature of the potential conflict. Any detection of conflict of interest will be met with a request to amend, and announce if the article is already published, competing for interest statement(s).

3.2. Funding Declartation

All funding resources for the submitted research paper should be declared. The role of the funding body in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript should be stated in the declaration section of the paper.

3.3. Ethics Approval

Manuscripts reporting data involving human interaction (e.g. interviews, questionnaires, surveys) must confirm compliance with the institutional guidelines and must include statements confirming informed consent and ethical approval (with committee name and reference number).

4. Data and Language Policies

4.1. Data Availability Statement (DAS)

Authors are required to include a Data Availability Statement (DAS) explicitly explaining where the data supporting the findings of the article can be accessed.

4.2. Jurisdictional Claims (Maps and Affiliations)

ESSD maintains a neutral position with respect to territorial disputes or jurisdictional claims.

• Maps: Maps should only show the area actually studied. Authors must add a note clearly stating that: "Map lines delineate study areas and do not necessarily depict accepted national boundaries."
• Affiliations: Authors must use the standard, verifiable title of their institution.

5. Peer-review process

All submitted articles to ESSD must undergo a rigorous double-blinded peer-review process to ensure that published papers meet international scientific and publication standards for quality and validity. Under this process, the identities of both the author(s) and the reviewer(s) remain strictly confidential throughout the revision period.

Following submission, the manuscript is evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), who determines the paper's suitability for the journal. The EIC then manages the assignment of reviewers. Reviewers are primarily selected from the journal’s Editorial Board for their relevant expertise. For manuscripts covering specialized or different topics, the EIC may consult other qualified external experts in the paper's specific field.

Peer reviewers must maintain confidentiality, provide unbiased and constructive feedback, and disclose any conflicts of interest that may compromise their objectivity.

The EIC makes the final decision based on the reviewers' reports. Authors should note that a favorable evaluation from one reviewer does not guarantee acceptance, as concerns expressed by another reviewer have the potential to critically challenge the study and may ultimately lead to rejection.

Note that our reviewers and EIC are strictly not involved in making decisions about papers which:

• They have written themselves.
• Have been written by family members or colleagues.
• Relate to products or services in which they have a financial or personal interest.

Upon submission, the EIC evaluates the manuscript and determines its suitability for the journal within 10 days. The overall review and publication process, starting from the initial submission and continuing through final acceptance, may take up to 100 days. The exact duration depends on the complexity of the review process and the timeliness of the authors’ revisions.

6. Integrity and Misconduct

All allegations of potential misconduct are taken seriously by IEREK Press. As a member of COPE, IEREK Press follows COPE guidelines outlining how to deal with cases of suspected misconduct.

6.1. Cases of Misconduct

6.1.1. Redundant/Duplicate Publication

This occurs when a manuscript (or a substantial part of it) is either concurrently under review by another journal or has been formally published previously in any citable form without explicit disclosure.

IEREK Press actively uses the iThenticate plagiarism detection tool to screen for potential issues.

The evaluation of potentially overlapping or redundant publications is conducted on a case-by-case basis, following COPE guidelines:

• Disclosure and Transparency: Authors are required to disclose any potential overlap (including 'in press' manuscripts) during submission and provide proper citations.
• Suspected Redundancy in Submission: The editor will investigate the extent of redundancy. Major Redundancy will result in the rejection of the submission. If necessary, the author's institution will be contacted.
• Suspected Redundancy in Published Work: If found guilty post-publication, a publishing statement of redundant publication/retraction will be made, and all relevant parties will be informed.

6.1.2. Plagiarism

When citing others’ (or your own) previous work, please ensure you have: Clearly marked quoted verbatim text ("") from another source with quotation marks; attributed and referenced the source of the quotation clearly using in-text citation and a reference in your bibliography. Failure to do so will be considered plagiarism, and your manuscript will be rejected.

6.1.3. Fabricated Data

A. Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript:

If the reviewer suspects fabricated data is present in the paper, we will ask for evidence and take a 2nd reviewer’s opinion. The author will be contacted for an explanation. If the author replies with a satisfactory explanation, we proceed with the review process. If the author replies with an unsatisfactory answer or admits guilt, the author’s institution(s) are contacted, requesting an investigation. If the author is cleared, we proceed with the peer review and inform the reviewer of the outcome. If the author is found guilty, we will reject the paper. In case the author does not reply in the first place, the institution(s) will be contacted for concern to be passed to the author’s superior and/or person responsible for research governance. Still, if no response is granted, regulatory bodies will be requested for an inquiry.

B. Suspected fabricated data in a published manuscript:

In the case that a reader suspects fabricated data is present in a published paper, we first obtain opinions from two reviewers. The author is then contacted for an explanation. If the author replies with a satisfactory explanation, a correction will be published if necessary, and the reader will be informed of the outcome. However, if the author provides an unsatisfactory explanation or fails to respond, the author’s institution(s) are contacted, requesting an investigation. If the author is subsequently found guilty of fabrication, a retraction will be published. If the institution(s) do not provide a response or provide an unsatisfactory one, regulatory bodies will be requested to initiate an inquiry, or an Expression of Concern will be published.

6.2. Citation Integrity and Guidelines

All research articles must cite relevant literature that supports the claims made. Citation manipulation (through Excessive self-citation, coordinated efforts among authors to collectively self-cite, and other types of citation manipulation) is prohibited.

Citation manipulation will result in the article being rejected, and may be reported to the authors’ institution.

Authors should apply proper citation regulations and guidelines when preparing their manuscript:

• Any assertion in the manuscript relying on external information sources (i.e., not the authors' original ideas, findings, or common knowledge) must be accompanied by a citation.
• It is recommended that authors refrain from citing secondary sources or derivative works. Instead, they should reference the primary source directly, rather than relying on a review article that cites the original work.
• Authors should ensure the accuracy of their citations. This involves confirming that the cited source genuinely supports the statements made in their manuscript and refraining from citing a work that does not align with the point they wish to convey, thereby avoiding any misrepresentation of another's work.
• Authors should only cite sources they have personally read and comprehended.
• Authors are advised not to display preferential treatment towards citing their own work, the work of colleagues, peers, or publications from their institution.
• It is recommended that authors avoid an overabundance of citations for a single point, striving for a balanced and concise use of references.
• Ideally, authors should prioritize citing sources that have undergone peer review whenever possible.
• Authors should refrain from citing advertisements or advertorial material within their manuscripts.

6.3. Text recycling

Authors should recognize that reusing text from their prior publications constitutes text recycling, also known as self-plagiarism, which, in certain instances, is regarded as unacceptable. When it becomes essential or unavoidable to incorporate text from the authors' previous works, such duplication should always be disclosed transparently, attributed properly, and compliant with copyright regulations. In accordance with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines, IEREK Press has established editor guidelines for addressing text recycling, offering detailed clarification on situations where such recycling is considered acceptable or not. If a manuscript includes text that has been previously published elsewhere, authors are encouraged to promptly inform the Editor of this during the submission process.

7. Post-Publication Policies

7.1. Retraction and Corrections

If errors or significant flaws are identified in published work, the journal may issue retractions or corrections. Authors should cooperate with journal editors to address any issues promptly and transparently.

7.2. Errors in Published Work:

If an author, at any point in time, discovers an error in his or her published work, it is his or her responsibility to contact the journal editor to inform him or her about such mistakes.

7.3. Appeal

We are committed to ensuring that all submissions receive a fair and impartial review. As such, if you believe that we have come to an unfair decision regarding your publication, we encourage you to appeal the decision by providing additional information or clarification regarding your article and addressing any concerns raised during the review process. To initiate an appeal, please email us at: [email protected].