Resourceedings is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and integrity. The journal is published by IEREK Press, a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and adheres to COPE's Core Practices and guidelines in all editorial decisions and misconduct handling procedures.

All parties involved in the publication process — authors, reviewers, and editors — are expected to act in accordance with the ethical standards outlined on this page. Any suspected breach of these standards will be investigated and addressed in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Authors

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that their submitted work is entirely original. Any use of others' work — including text, data, figures, or ideas — must be appropriately cited and attributed. Verbatim or near-verbatim reproduction of another's work without proper attribution constitutes plagiarism and will result in immediate rejection. All submitted manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software prior to peer review.

Duplicate and Redundant Submission

Authors must not submit manuscripts that are simultaneously under consideration at another journal. Submitting work that has been previously published — in whole or in substantial part — without disclosure constitutes redundant publication. Authors must disclose any potentially overlapping work, including manuscripts currently under review elsewhere or recently published in any citable form.

Fabrication and Falsification

Authors must not fabricate, falsify, or selectively report data. Manipulation of images, datasets, or results to misrepresent findings is considered serious research misconduct and will be investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines, including notification of the authors' institution where appropriate.

Text Recycling

Reusing text from an author's own previously published work without disclosure constitutes text recycling and is treated as a form of misconduct. Where reuse of prior text is unavoidable, authors must disclose this transparently, attribute the source, and ensure compliance with copyright regulations.

Citation Integrity

Authors must ensure that all citations accurately support the claims made in their manuscript. The following practices are prohibited: fabricating references or citing AI-generated sources that do not exist; disproportionate self-citation beyond what the work genuinely warrants; and coordinated citation arrangements — where groups of authors mutually cite each other's work for the purpose of artificially inflating metrics rather than for genuine academic relevance. Violations may result in rejection or retraction.

Reviewers

Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts received for review as confidential documents. The content of the manuscript, the review itself, and any correspondence with the Editorial Office must not be shared with or discussed with any third party without explicit permission from the Editor-in-Chief. This obligation extends beyond the completion of the review process.

Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, evidence-based assessments of the manuscript's scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope. Personal criticism of the authors is not appropriate. Reviews should be constructive, clearly identifying both the strengths and weaknesses of the work and providing specific, actionable recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline to review manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest — including manuscripts authored by current or recent collaborators, colleagues at the same institution, or individuals with whom they have a personal or financial relationship. Any potential conflict identified after accepting a review assignment must be disclosed to the Editorial Office immediately.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the timeframe agreed upon at the point of invitation. Reviewers who are unable to meet the deadline or who need to decline the assignment should notify the Editorial Office as early as possible to avoid delays in the review process.

Use of AI in Peer Review

Reviewers must not use AI tools to generate review content. The peer review process depends on the independent, expert judgment of the reviewer. Uploading manuscript content to AI systems also constitutes a breach of confidentiality obligations.

Editors

Fair and Impartial Decision-Making

Editors must evaluate all submitted manuscripts solely on the basis of their academic merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or any other characteristic unrelated to the quality of the work. The Editor-in-Chief retains final decision-making authority and is responsible for ensuring that all decisions are consistent, transparent, and evidence-based.

Confidentiality

Editors must treat all submitted manuscripts and associated correspondence as confidential. Information about a submitted manuscript — including its existence, content, review status, and outcome — must not be disclosed to any third party without the explicit consent of the authors, except where required by law or necessary to investigate suspected misconduct.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest — including manuscripts they have authored or co-authored, manuscripts from current or recent collaborators, or manuscripts involving institutions or commercial entities with which they have a financial relationship. In such cases, another member of the Editorial Board must be assigned to handle the manuscript.

Handling Misconduct

Editors are responsible for investigating all credible allegations of misconduct — whether identified during review or reported after publication — in accordance with COPE guidelines. This includes taking appropriate action such as rejection, retraction, correction, or escalation to the authors' institution where warranted. Editors must act promptly and document all steps taken during the investigation.

Unpublished Material

Editors must not use unpublished material disclosed in submitted manuscripts for their own research without the explicit written consent of the authors.

Misconduct Handling Procedures

All allegations of misconduct — whether identified during the review process or reported after publication — are taken seriously by Resourceedings and investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines. The following procedures apply:

Suspected Misconduct in Submitted Manuscripts

Upon identification of suspected misconduct in a submitted manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief will conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the allegation warrants investigation. If investigation is warranted:

• The author will be contacted and given the opportunity to respond within a specified timeframe.
• If the author's response is satisfactory, the review process will proceed with any necessary modifications.
• If the author's response is unsatisfactory, admits guilt, or no response is received, the manuscript will be rejected and the authors' institution will be notified.
• In serious cases, regulatory bodies may be contacted to initiate a formal inquiry.

Suspected Misconduct in Published Articles

Upon identification of suspected misconduct in a published article, the Editor-in-Chief will seek assessments from at least two independent reviewers before contacting the author. If investigation is warranted:

• The author will be contacted and given the opportunity to respond.
• If the author's response is satisfactory, a correction will be published where necessary.
• If the author's response is unsatisfactory or no response is received, the authors' institution will be notified and a retraction or Expression of Concern will be published in accordance with COPE guidelines.
• All parties who cited the retracted article will be informed where possible.

Whistleblower Protection

Individuals who report suspected misconduct in good faith will be treated with confidentiality and protected from retaliation to the extent possible within the journal's authority.

Corrections and Retractions

Resourceedings is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. When errors or misconduct are identified in published articles, the journal will take appropriate action in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Corrections

A correction notice will be issued when a published article contains an error — such as incorrect author information, mislabeled figures, or factual inaccuracies in non-central elements — that requires formal correction but does not affect the core findings, conclusions, or integrity of the work. Corrections may be initiated by the authors or by the Editorial Office. The correction notice will clearly identify the error, specify the corrected content, and be permanently linked to the original article.

Retractions

A retraction will be issued when a published article contains errors or misconduct sufficiently serious to invalidate its findings or conclusions. Grounds for retraction include but are not limited to: fabricated or falsified data, plagiarism, duplicate publication, and undisclosed conflicts of interest that materially affect the findings. Retraction notices will clearly state the reason for retraction, be permanently linked to the original article, and the retracted article will be watermarked accordingly. Authors will be notified before a retraction is published except in cases where this is not possible.

Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued when an investigation into suspected misconduct is ongoing and inconclusive, or when the Editorial Office has reason to alert readers to potential reliability issues in a published article while the matter is under investigation.

Author-Initiated Corrections

Authors who identify errors in their published work are responsible for notifying the Editorial Office promptly at [email protected]. The Editorial Office will assess the nature of the error and determine the appropriate course of action.

Crossmark

Resourceedings participates in the Crossmark service, a multi-publisher initiative from CrossRef that provides a standard way for readers to locate the current version of an article. When you see the Crossmark logo on a published article, you can click on it to see the article's status and any updates that may have been made since publication — including corrections, retractions, or Expressions of Concern. Resourceedings uses Crossmark to give readers a reliable way to confirm they are viewing the most up-to-date and accurate version of the content, even from a previously downloaded copy.

Crossmark DOI: 10.21625/crossmark_resourceedings