Publication Ethics

The American Journal of Applied Sciences (TAJAS)
ISSN: 2689-0992

The American Journal of Applied Sciences is committed to integrity, transparency, and accountability in scholarly publishing. Authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher share responsibility for maintaining ethical standards throughout submission, peer review, and publication.

1. Originality and Attribution

Authors must submit original work and acknowledge all sources appropriately. Plagiarism—including unattributed use of text, ideas, data, images, code, or methods—is unacceptable.

Reuse of previously published material must be cited and disclosed. Authors must obtain permission for third-party content where required and identify any separate copyright conditions.

2. Accurate and Transparent Research Reporting

Research methods, results, and conclusions must be reported accurately and in sufficient detail for scientific assessment.

The journal does not accept:

• Fabricated or falsified data.

• Deceptive image manipulation.

• Deliberate omission of findings that materially changes the interpretation.

• Misrepresentation of experimental conditions, computational results, or statistical analyses.

• Unsupported claims about accuracy, performance, efficiency, or practical applications.

Authors should explain relevant assumptions, uncertainty, limitations, and validation procedures.

3. Exclusive Submission and Duplicate Publication

A manuscript must not be submitted to another journal while under consideration by TAJAS. Previously published research must not be presented as new work.

Authors must disclose related manuscripts, preprints, conference papers, and substantial overlap with earlier publications. An extended version of previous work must clearly identify the earlier publication and explain its additional contribution.

4. Authorship and Contributions

Authorship should reflect substantial intellectual contributions to the research and manuscript. All listed authors must approve the final submission and accept accountability for their contributions.

Individuals whose contributions do not qualify for authorship should be acknowledged with their permission. Gift, guest, purchased, and ghost authorship are unacceptable.

Changes to author names or order require an explanation and written agreement from all affected authors. Unresolved authorship disputes may delay assessment or publication.

5. Data, Code, and Reproducibility

Authors must retain supporting research records and may be asked to provide data, code, protocols, or other documentation during assessment or investigation.

Manuscripts should include a data availability statement and, where relevant, a code availability statement. Any restrictions arising from privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property, or other legitimate requirements must be explained.

Datasets, software, and computational resources developed by others must be appropriately cited. Authors must respect applicable access and licensing conditions.

6. Ethical Approval, Consent, and Permissions

Research involving human participants, identifiable personal data, animals, or other regulated activities must receive appropriate approval before the research begins, where required.

Authors must identify the approving body and provide approval or permit details where available. Any exemption or waiver must be explained and attributed to the responsible authority.

Informed consent, participant privacy, animal welfare, fieldwork permissions, and relevant environmental or safety requirements must be addressed as applicable. Identifiable personal information must not be published without appropriate consent.

7. Funding and Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose all funding sources and relevant financial or non-financial interests that could influence the research or its interpretation.

Declarations should include relevant employment, consultancy, commercial relationships, patents, ownership interests, or personal relationships. The funder’s role in study design, data collection, analysis, writing, and publication decisions must be stated.

If no relevant conflicts exist, authors should include an explicit declaration.

8. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors must assess manuscripts fairly according to scientific quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and ethical integrity.

Editors must:

• Protect manuscript confidentiality.

• Select reviewers with appropriate expertise.

• Manage conflicts of interest and recuse themselves when necessary.

• Make decisions without discrimination based on authors’ personal characteristics or institutional affiliation.

• Investigate credible concerns about submitted or published work.

• Keep editorial decisions independent of payments and commercial interests.

Submissions from editors or editorial board members must receive independent handling. The submitting individual must not participate in reviewer selection or the decision on their manuscript.

9. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, and timely assessments. They should decline assignments when they lack appropriate expertise, cannot complete the review, or have a conflict that compromises impartiality.

Reviewers must not disclose confidential material, use unpublished findings for personal advantage, or contact authors directly about the review without authorization.

Suspected plagiarism, data irregularities, substantial overlap, or ethical concerns must be reported to the editor. Citation recommendations must be scientifically justified and must not primarily serve to increase personal or journal citation counts.

10. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Authors must disclose substantive use of generative AI in manuscript preparation, analysis, or content creation, identifying the tool and explaining its purpose.

When AI is part of the research method, authors must describe relevant models, data, evaluation procedures, and limitations sufficiently for assessment.

AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Human authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, references, and integrity of their work.

Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished research data to external AI services without appropriate authorization and confidentiality protections.

11. Unacceptable Publishing Practices

The journal does not accept:

• Paper-mill submissions or purchased manuscripts.

• Fabricated reviewer identities or manipulation of peer review.

• Coercive citations or coordinated citation manipulation.

• False statements about authorship, ethics approval, funding, or conflicts of interest.

• Deliberate misrepresentation of submission, acceptance, or publication dates.

• Payment arrangements intended to secure acceptance or favorable assessment.

Publication charges do not guarantee acceptance or influence editorial decisions.

12. Complaints and Investigations

Suspected misconduct should be reported to the editorial office with relevant article details and supporting evidence.

The journal will assess concerns fairly, seek explanations from the individuals involved, and review available documentation. Where appropriate, it may contact institutions, funders, ethics committees, or other responsible bodies.

Actions may include requesting clarification, suspending assessment, rejecting a submission, publishing an editorial notice, or correcting the scholarly record. Decisions will reflect the evidence and seriousness of the concern.

13. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

A correction may be issued when an error affects part of an article without invalidating its overall findings.

An expression of concern may be issued when a serious concern remains unresolved or an investigation is ongoing.

A retraction may be issued when findings are unreliable or publication involved a serious ethical breach. Retraction notices will explain the reason and link to the affected article. Retracted articles will normally remain accessible and clearly marked to preserve the scholarly record.

Authors must promptly report significant errors in their published work and cooperate in resolving them.

14. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by providing a reasoned explanation and supporting evidence. Appeals will be assessed fairly, with independent editorial input where appropriate.

Disagreement with a decision alone does not establish misconduct or guarantee a change in outcome.

Contact

Questions, complaints, appeals, and reports of suspected misconduct should be directed to the editorial office through the journal’s official Contact page.