Publication Ethics

To ensure transparent, fair, and responsible scholarly communication, NJOMI applies the following publication ethics standards.

Section A: Publication and authorship

1. All submitted manuscripts are subject to a strict peer-review process by at least two reviewers who are experts in the relevant field.
2. The review process is blind peer review.
3. Review criteria include relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language quality.
4. Possible editorial decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
5. If authors are invited to revise and resubmit, acceptance is not guaranteed.
6. Rejected manuscripts are not normally re-reviewed.
7. Publication decisions are constrained by legal requirements related to libel, copyright, and plagiarism.
8. Accepted manuscripts cannot be submitted for publication in more than one venue simultaneously.

Section B: Authors' responsibilities

1. Authors must certify that their manuscript is original work.
2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not been previously published elsewhere.
3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently under review by another journal.
4. Authors are expected to participate constructively in the peer-review process.
5. Authors are responsible for promptly submitting corrections or retractions when errors are identified.
6. All listed authors must have made a substantial contribution to the work.
7. Authors must confirm that data and findings are genuine and accurate.
8. Authors must disclose any conflicts of interest.
9. Authors must identify all sources used in the manuscript.
10. Authors should notify the editors of any errors discovered after publication.

Section C: Reviewers' responsibilities

1. Reviewers must keep manuscripts and all related information confidential.
2. Reviews should be objective, constructive, and free from personal criticism of authors.
3. Reviewers should clearly explain their assessments with supporting arguments.
4. Reviewers should identify relevant published literature not cited by the authors.
5. Reviewers should alert editors when substantial similarity or overlap is detected with known published work.
6. Reviewers should not handle manuscripts where a conflict of interest exists (competitive, collaborative, or other close relationship).

Section D: Editors' responsibilities

1. Editors have full responsibility and authority for acceptance or rejection decisions.
2. Editors are responsible for the quality and integrity of the publication.
3. Editors should consider the needs of both authors and readers when improving journal quality.
4. Editors are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the academic record.
5. Editors should publish errata and make corrections whenever needed.
6. Editors should ensure transparency regarding research funding sources.
7. Editorial decisions should be based on importance, originality, clarity, and fit with the journal scope.
8. Editors should not reverse prior editorial decisions without substantial justification.
9. Reviewers' anonymity must be protected.
10. Editors should ensure that published research follows internationally accepted ethical standards.
11. Editors should not accept a manuscript when serious uncertainty remains about scholarly validity.
12. Editors should act if misconduct is suspected and seek resolution with due process.
13. Editors should avoid accepting or rejecting based on unverified suspicion alone.
14. Editors should manage conflicts of interest among staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.