Publication Ethics

This publication ethics is adapted based on the publishing ethics policy of COPE.

Duties of Authors

1. Authorship. The author is the person who has made a significant contribution to the design and preparation of concepts as well as the implementation or interpretation of the research reported. Other people who have made significant contributions must also be registered as joint authors. For joint authorship, all registered writers must ensure that they have seen and agreed to the final manuscript to be submitted and agree to submit it to Veritas Journal.

2. Originality and Acknowledgment of Sources. The author must ensure that the work submitted is original. All various forms of plagiarism, including falsifying or manipulating data, is unacceptable. When using others' work, the author must always give proper acknowledgment by including references from others' sources, opinions, and works by following the Turabian citation format.

3. Multiple or Concurrent Publications. Manuscripts that basically describe the same study should not be published in more than one journal or principal publication. As a result, authors should not submit a previously published paper in another journal for consideration. Submission of a manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is unethical and improper conduct.

4. Errors in the Published Works. When an author discovers a substantial error or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, it is the author's responsibility to tell the journal editor as soon as possible and work with the editor to retract or rectify the paper. If the editor or publisher discovers from a third party that a published work includes a substantial error, it is the author's responsibility to quickly withdraw and rectify the paper or give evidence to the editor of the original article's accuracy.

Duties of Editors

1. Publication Decisions. Veritas Journal Editorial Board is responsible for deciding whether incoming manuscripts can be published. The editors may decide to reject, accept, or request repairs to the manuscript. The publication decision is based on the editorial board's policy, the journal's aim and scope, peer review results, and is constrained by legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

2. Objective Assessment. The editors ensure that the assessment of submitted manuscripts is based on the manuscript's intellectual contents without discrimination in race, gender, ethnicity, citizenship, or institutional affiliation.

3. Peer Review. The editors ensure that the peer review process runs anonymously (double-blind peer review), is fair, and objective. The editors must select reviewers who have suitable and adequate expertise in the relevant area and are free from conflicts of interest.

4. Confidentiality. The editors ensure the confidentiality of all information regarding the manuscript submitted to the journal. The editors must also keep the confidentiality of the identities of the authors and reviewers.

5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest. Without the authors' explicit written consent, the editors will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes. Editors' privileged information or ideas obtained from handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have competing, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any authors or institutions associated with the papers; instead, they will delegate the manuscript to another editorial board member.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Confidentiality. Confidential information or ideas gained through peer review must be kept private and not utilized for personal gain. Reviewers are not allowed to discuss or share the review with others without permission from the editor.

2. Objectivity Standard. Reviews should be conducted objectively supported by clear arguments and constructive feedback for the author. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

3. Timeliness. Reviewers only agree to review if they are sure they can do the review on time. If the assigned reviewer knows that it is impossible to meet the specified deadline, they should notify the editor immediately.

4. Acknowledgement of References and Sources. Reviewers should identify the others’ works that have not been cited or quoted properly by the author. A reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the manuscript and notify the editor about any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper the reviewer has personal knowledge of.

5. Conflict of Interest. Reviewers should not evaluate articles in which they have competing interests, collaboration, or other ties or affiliations with authors.