Access to Publication
Every article appearing in ESSD and published with IEREK Press is “open-access”, meaning that:

1. The article is universally and freely accessible via the Internet, in an easily readable format. All publications are deposited immediately upon publication, without embargo, in an agreed format - current preference is XML with a declared DTD - in at least one widely and internationally recognized open-access repository.

2. The author(s) or copyright owner(s) irrevocably grant(s) to any third party, in advance and in perpetuity, the right to use, reproduce, or disseminate the article/book in its entirety or in part, in any format or medium, provided that no substantive errors are introduced in the process, proper attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given, and that the bibliographic details are not changed. If the article/book is reproduced or disseminated in part, this must be clearly and unequivocally indicated.

ESSD is committed permanently to maintaining this open-access publishing policy, retrospectively and prospectively, in all eventualities, including any future changes in ownership.

Authorship and Contribution
Authorship provides credit to researchers’ contributions to the submitted paper and carries accountability.
Each author is expected to have made a substantial contribution to the conception of the design of the work, or the acquisition of data, analysis, or interpretation of data; or have drafted the work or substantially revised it.
And to have approved the submitted version (and any major modifications made to their contribution in the final version)

All contributors that meet the criteria mentioned above should be included as co-authors.
Any contributor that doesn’t meet all criteria for authorship should be included in the Acknowledgment section.

Authors or co-authors should only be listed in the study submitted if they made a significant contribution to the manuscript. In other words, authors should avoid “gift” or “ghost” authorships; the addition of an individual to the list of authors without having contributed in any way to the writing of the study. That being said, an author, alongside co-authors involved, shares the responsibility for the content and results of the submitted article. Co-authors, specifically, must have contributed to the work reported by: having taken part in the research concept/design, written/revised the work, and agreed on the journal where the article is submitted. If the article has been found to breach the codes of conduct, responsibility will then be equally shared by the named authors and corresponding authors. If needed, authors will be asked to provide detail(s) of individual contributions. In the case that the listed author does not meet authorship criteria, suggestions to remove guest/gift authorship will be made and agreements changed accordingly.

Acknowledgment:
All contributors who don’t meet the criteria of authorship should be included in this section.
Examples of a person who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical or writing assistance, or a department head/chair who provided general support.

Citation:
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.

Duplicate Publication:
Every manuscript submitted to an IEREK Press journal must be entirely original, and no part of it should be concurrently under review by any other journal. In cases where there is a possibility of overlap or duplication, we emphasize the importance of transparency. Authors are required to disclose any publications with potential overlap during the submission process. If possible, such overlapping publications should be uploaded as supplementary files along with the manuscript. Proper citations must be provided for any overlapping publications. If an author references an 'in press' or unpublished manuscript that is relevant to the assessment of the manuscript by the Editor and reviewers, it should be made available upon request. The evaluation of potentially overlapping or redundant publications will be conducted on a case-by-case basis by IEREK Press journals.

In general, the manuscript should not have been formally published in any journal or any other citable form. However, there are exceptions to this rule, which are detailed below and summarized in [Table 1].

IEREK Press actively uses iThenticate plagiarism detection tool and takes allegations of publication misconduct very seriously. Suspected cases of concealed duplicate manuscript submissions will be handled following the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the Editor may contact the authors' institution if necessary (for more information, refer to our Misconduct policy).

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.

Peer review:
All submitted articles to IEREK Press must undergo peer review. In order to ensure that all published papers meet international scientific and publication standards.
The revision process for all IEREK Press journals is double-blinded. Meaning that the identities of both the author(s) and the reviewer(s) remain undisclosed during the revision process.
This anonymity ensures that the revision process is conducted professionally, transparently, and free from any conflict of interest or bias.

After submission, the paper is then assigned to an editor who evaluates the paper and assigns a reviewer with relative expertise and experience, to make sure that the assigned reviewer is suitable to review the submitted paper.
The editor makes a decision based on the reviewers’ reports. The editorial decision on their manuscript is then sent to the author along with the reports. Authors should be aware that despite receiving a favorable evaluation from one reviewer, the concerns expressed by another reviewer have the potential to critically challenge the study and may ultimately lead to the manuscript's rejection.

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.

Cases of Misconduct:
1. Redundant Publication
Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript:
If a submitted manuscript is found to have been published previously during the similarity/cross-check screening process, the reviewer is expected to inform the editor. The editor will then carry out an investigation using evidence and consider the extent of redundancy. Major Redundancycases, where identical/similar findings are found, will be dealt with by contacting the corresponding author, or other authors, and requesting an explanation. If the explanation is unsatisfactory, the submission will be rejected and the author/reviewer will be informed. If the authors are not responsive, the author’s institution will be contacted and concerns shared. Minor Overlap will be followed by correspondence to the author or in neutral terms and modification requests until a review/decision has been made.

Suspected redundant publication in a published manuscript:
If a concern is expressed to edit or by a reader, the nature of redundancy will be investigated and the steps explained above based on minor/major overlap detected. If found guilty, a publishing statement of redundant publication/retraction will be made and edited or of other journals, author, and reader informed.

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.

3. Fabricated Data
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 reject the paper and inform the reviewer of the outcome. 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.

Suspected fabricated data in a published manuscript:
In the case, that the reader suspects fabricated data is present in a published paper, two of the reviewers’ opinions are taken. 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. If the author admits guilt, the author’s institution(s) are contacted requesting an investigation. In this case, if the author is not found guilty, the reader is informed about the outcome, and if the author is found guilty of fabrication, a retraction will be published, and the reader will be informed. If the institutions do not provide a response or an unsatisfactory response, regulatory bodies will be requested for an inquiry, or an expression of concern will be published, and the reader will be informed. In the 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. If still, there is no response, regulatory bodies are requested for an inquiry, and then check if the author is guilty or not, following the aforementioned process.

4. Authorship and Contribution
Authors or co-authors should only be listed in the study submitted if they made a significant contribution to the manuscript. In other words, authors should avoid “gift” or “ghost” authorships; the addition of an individual to the list of authors without having contributed in any way to the writing of the study. That being said, an author, alongside co-authors involved, shares the responsibility for the content and results of the submitted article. Co-authors, specifically, must have contributed to the work reported by: having taken part in the research concept/design, written/revised the work, and agreed on the journal where the article is submitted. If the article has been found to breach the codes of conduct, responsibility will then be equally shared by the named authors and corresponding authors. If needed, authors will be asked to provide detail(s) of individual contributions. In the case that the listed author does not meet authorship criteria, suggestions to remove guest/gift authorship will be made and agreements changed accordingly.

5. Changes in authorship
Before submitting a manuscript, the author and corresponding authors of the article are expected to be in agreement and provide definitive information accordingly. Changes in the authorship of a submitted article are acceptable ONLY before its publication and upon the approval of the Journal Editor(s). For changes to be considered:

● The exact changes requested should be clearly stated in an email to the Editor.
● Reasons as to why the changes are necessary should be communicated in the same e-mail.
● Confirmation in an e-mail from all involved parties (Authors and corresponding authors) must be sent to the Editor.
● Conflict of Interest.

6. Ethics approval:
Manuscripts reporting data involving questionnaires, surveys and interviews or any type of data that has been collection from by the author/co-authors must:
Include a statement on ethics approval and consent (even where the need for approval was waived)
Include the name of the ethics committee that approved the study and the committee’s reference number if appropriate.

7. Conflict of Interest
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).

8. Funding
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.

9. Peer Review
ESSD relies on a double-blinded peer-review process to evaluate the quality and validity of submitted manuscripts. Peer reviewers must maintain confidentiality, provide unbiased and constructive feedback, and disclose any conflicts of interest that may compromise their objectivity.

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.

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 address any concerns raised during the review process. To initiate an appeal, please email us at: [email protected].