JIWE upholds rigorous integrity, transparency, and accountability in scholarly publishing. We align our policies with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (v4, 2022) issued jointly by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME, and we operationalize the ten COPE Core Practices across our editorial workflows. We apply these policies consistently to meet and exceed Scopus expectations.

1) Allegations of Misconduct

Description. Misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism (including text recycling), image manipulation, duplicate/overlapping publication, salami slicing, citation manipulation, authorship manipulation, undeclared competing interests, unethical research, peer-review manipulation, paper-mill activity, and undisclosed third-party writing services.
Detailed policy. The Editor-in-Chief assesses credible concerns using COPE flowcharts. We may contact authors’ institutions and funders, request raw data or ethics approvals, and decide on correction, expression of concern, retraction, or rejection/withdrawal. We protect whistleblowers and all parties’ confidentiality during investigations.
Technicalities. Report concerns with evidence to the editorial office. We log all cases, preserve records, and communicate reasoned outcomes. When appropriate, we share limited information with other editors-in-chief following COPE guidance.

2) Authorship and Contributorship

Description. Authorship must reflect substantial scholarly contribution; contributorship increases transparency.
Detailed policy. We adopt ICMJE-style criteria and require a CRediT statement. The corresponding author confirms that all listed authors meet criteria and that no eligible contributors are omitted. Authorship changes require written consent from all authors and editorial approval guided by COPE. AI tools cannot be authors; authors must disclose any AI assistance and accept full responsibility for content.
Technicalities. Submission forms capture roles, funding, data/code availability, ethics approvals, AI-use disclosure, and competing interests. We screen for gift/ghost/guest authorship per COPE advice.

3) Complaints and Appeals

Description. Authors and readers may appeal decisions or raise ethical concerns.
Detailed policy. Appeals must present substantiated methodological or ethical grounds. A senior editor uninvolved in the original decision (or an external advisor where needed) reviews the case, following COPE recommendations for fair process.
Technicalities. Submit appeals within 21 days with supporting evidence. We acknowledge within five working days and provide a reasoned decision.

4) Conflicts of Interest / Competing Interests

Description. Conflicts can be financial, personal, academic, or institutional and may bias judgment.
Detailed policy. Authors, editors, and reviewers must declare relevant interests at submission, during review, and at decision. We publish authors’ disclosures and manage editorial conflicts by reassigning handling editors, consistent with COPE guidance.
Technicalities. Structured disclosure forms are mandatory; recusal is required when conflicts exist. We may request updates before publication.

5) Data and Reproducibility

Description. Data, code, and methods transparency enables verification and reuse.
Detailed policy. Authors must include a Data Availability Statement. Where legal and ethical conditions allow, authors deposit data and code in trusted repositories with persistent identifiers. For restricted or proprietary data, authors explain limitations and provide sufficient methodological detail for assessment. Image integrity must be preserved; beyond-clarity adjustments must be disclosed.
Technicalities. We may request raw data, audit replication files, and use image integrity checks. We act on data concerns per COPE guidance.

6) Ethical Oversight

Description. Research involving humans, animals, or sensitive data requires robust oversight.
Detailed policy. Authors must state IRB/ethics approval (board name, approval number/date) and informed consent where applicable. Studies with vulnerable populations, dual-use risk, or sensitive personal data require explicit safeguards. Case reports require explicit patient/guardian consent; we follow COPE advice on consent to publish.
Technicalities. Manuscripts include an “Ethics Approval and Consent” section; we may request redacted approval letters or consent forms and require privacy protection and legal compliance.

7) Intellectual Property

Description. Respect for copyright, licensing, and permissions underpins responsible open scholarship.
Detailed policy. Authors warrant originality, proper permissions, and lawful reuse. We disclose the journal’s copyright/licensing terms transparently and follow COPE guidance on text recycling and prior dissemination.
Technicalities. Similarity checks are mandatory. Authors supply permission evidence for third-party content and license details for reused materials.

8) Journal Management

Description. Good governance sustains quality and integrity.
Detailed policy. The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board oversee policy, quality assurance, and strategic development. We publish editorial roles/affiliations and ownership information, monitor endogeny, review quality, turnaround, and correction/retraction rates, and avoid deceptive practices, in line with COPE and the joint Transparency Principles.
Technicalities. We conduct periodic internal audits, train editors and reviewers, and publish core policies (peer review, fees, licensing, archiving, ethics).

9) Peer Review Processes

Description. Rigorous peer review ensures validity, clarity, and contribution.
Detailed policy. JIWE uses double-blind peer review with at least two independent expert reviewers. Editors screen scope, ethics, and integrity before review. Reviewers must not use generative AI to draft reviews or process manuscript content; limited assistive use for language is permissible with full reviewer accountability and confidentiality, consistent with COPE reviewer guidance.
Technicalities. We verify reviewer identities, require conflict disclosures, provide structured review forms, and monitor for peer-review manipulation—acting per COPE flowcharts when anomalies arise.

10) Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

Description. The scholarly record must remain accurate and citable.
Detailed policy. We invite post-publication discussion (letters, formal comments, replication notes). We correct the record via errata/corrigenda, issue expressions of concern during investigations, and retract unreliable or unethical work following COPE Retraction Guidelines. Retractions remain linked and discoverable.
Technicalities. Requests must cite the article DOI and provide evidence. We timestamp notices, state reasons, and update metadata and indexers.

Research and Publication Malpractice: Definitions, Detection, and Actions

Description. We define and actively deter malpractice to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.
Detailed policy. The following constitute malpractice and will be handled according to severity:

• Plagiarism and text recycling. Unattributed copying or excessive reuse; translation plagiarism; duplicate submission/publication.

• Data or image fabrication/falsification. Invented, removed, or altered observations; undisclosed image splicing or manipulation.

• Salami slicing and redundant publication. Fragmenting results to inflate output; overlapping publications without transparent cross-referencing.

• Peer-review manipulation. Fake reviewer identities, coercive/self-serving citation, reviewer suggestion abuse.

• Authorship manipulation. Gift/ghost/guest authorship; undisclosed writing or submission by third parties, including paper mills.

• Citation manipulation. Adding irrelevant citations to inflate metrics; coercive citation by editors or reviewers.

• Undeclared competing interests. Non-disclosure of financial or non-financial conflicts.

• Unethical research or inadequate oversight. Missing ethics approval/consent; privacy breaches; unsafe practices; undisclosed dual-use risks.

• AI misuse. Listing AI as author; undisclosed or irresponsible AI-generated text/data; failure to verify outputs.
  When detected, we may reject or withdraw the submission, request revisions with full transparency, publish corrections or retractions, notify institutions/funders, and, where warranted, impose submission bans for a defined period. We follow COPE flowcharts and case guidance for due process and proportional remedies.
  Technicalities. We screen all submissions with similarity-detection software and image checks; we verify reviewer identities; we require CRediT roles, data availability, and ethics statements; we request raw data when concerns arise; and we document each case to ensure auditable decisions and consistent sanctions.

Transparency, Licensing, and Archiving

Description. Clear public policies support discoverability and preservation.
Detailed policy. We publish fees (if any), licensing/copyright, archiving/preservation, and ownership information in line with the joint Transparency Principles from COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME. We ensure accurate metadata (e.g., funding, ORCID, license, data availability) and notify indexers of corrections or retractions.
Technicalities. We maintain DOI registration, long-term preservation via the services listed on our site, and consistent license display on every article.

Preprints and Prior Dissemination

Description. Responsible sharing accelerates science.
Detailed policy. We allow preprints when declared at submission. After acceptance, authors must update the preprint record with the article DOI and any data/code links, following community norms and COPE advice on prior dissemination.
Technicalities. Authors must disclose repository DOI/URL at submission; we assess overlap contextually and require appropriate citation of the preprint.

How to Raise Concerns

Description. We provide accessible channels for ethical reports and dialogue.
Detailed policy. Contact the editorial office with detailed evidence (annotated PDF, similarity report, data/ethics documentation). We acknowledge all reports, protect confidentiality, and act according to COPE flowcharts and the joint Transparency Principles.
Technicalities. We keep an auditable log, assign a case editor, and communicate decisions in writing with reasons and available appeal routes.