Statement of publication ethics and misconduct
The Journal of Science and Knowledge Horizons (jskp) is an international peer-reviewed scientific journal. This statement outlines the ethical behavior of all parties involved in the process of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, editor-in-chief, editorial board, peer reviewer, publisher, College of Humanities, Islamic Sciences and Civilization (Department of Islamic Sciences). This statement is based on the https://publicationethics.org/ Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Ethical guide to journal publishing
Publishing an article in a peer-reviewed JSKP is an essential building block in developing a cohesive and respected knowledge network. It is a direct reflection of the quality of work of the authors and the institutions that support them. The peer-reviewed articles support and exemplify the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree on the standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, and the publisher.

The Journal of Science and Knowledge Horizons is considered a publisher of the Department of Islamic Sciences and takes all stages of publishing seriously, and we are aware of our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to the ethics of publishing and any other advertisement has no effect on editorial decisions. In addition, he/she will assist in the Journal Program and Editorial Board liaising with other journals and/or publishers where it is beneficial and necessary.

ethical oversight

We focus on the СОРE definition, of Ethical oversight, namely “Ethical oversight should include, but is not limited to, policies on consent to publication, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data and of business/marketing practices”. Based on this definition, the editorial staff of the journal work under the issue of observing the ethical principles. The journal will be bound to consider the appeals from the Ethics and Oversight Committee for professional and scientific activity concerning the non-observance of the ethical principles by our authors. We are also ready to consider other appeals in case they are not anonymous and substantiated.
publishing decisions
The Journal Editor-in-Chief (jskp) is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. Validation of the work in question and its relevance to researchers and readers should always guide such decisions. Editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and bound by the legal requirements that must be in effect with respect to defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may consult with other editors or reviewers to make this decision.
fair play
The editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Secrecy
The editor and any editing staff should not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisors, and the publisher, as applicable.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished material disclosed in the submitted manuscript must not be used in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of arbitrators
Contribute to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
the speed
Any selected referee who feels ineligible to review the research cited in a manuscript or knows that its immediate review will be impossible must notify the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.
Secrecy

Any manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents. It must not be displayed or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Objective criteria
Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees must express their opinions clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of sources
Reviewers must identify relevant published works that are not cited by the authors. Any statement referring to a previously reported observation, derivation, or argument must be accompanied by the relevant citation. The reviewer should also bring to the attention of the editor any material similarity or overlap between the manuscript in question and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal benefit. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers.
Duties of the authors
Reporting standards
Authors of original research reports should provide an accurate description of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data must be accurately represented in the sheet. The paper should contain sufficient details and references that allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate statements constitute unethical and unacceptable behaviour.
Data access and retention
Authors are required to provide raw data in connection with the editorial review paper, and should be prepared to provide public access to such -data in accordance with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases-, if applicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable period after posting.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work and, if authors use the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

In the event of plagiarism editor shall follow COPE’s guidelines

Dealing with cases of misconduct  with COPE’s guidelines

Once jskp confirms that a posting ethics violation has occurred, it diligently addresses the ethical concerns by following standard case-specific practice as described below. The journal editor's first action is to inform the jskp editorial office by providing copies of relevant materials and a draft letter to the corresponding author to request clarification in a non-judgmental manner. If the author's explanation is not acceptable and it appears that serious unethical behavior has occurred, the matter is referred to the Publication Committee via the Editorial Office. After deliberation, the committee will decide whether the case is serious enough to warrant a ban on future applications. If the infringement is less serious, the editor, on the advice of the publishing committee, sends a letter of reprimand to the author and reminds the author of the jskp publishing policies; If the manuscript has been published, the editor may request that the author publish an apology in the journal to correct the record. The notification will be sent to the corresponding author and any work of the author responsible for the infringement or any work co-authored by these persons and under review by jskp journal will be immediately rejected. Authors are prohibited from serving on an editorial board and serving as a reviewer for a journal. reserves the right to take further action. In extreme cases, notices will be sent to authors' affiliations and authors are prohibited from submitting their work to jskp for 5 years. In serious cases of fraud leading to the article being withdrawn, a notice of retraction will be published in the journal and linked to the article in the online version. The online version will also be marked "rolled back" with the rollback date.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent posts 

The author should generally not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at a time is considered unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior.
Acknowledgment of sources
The work of others must always be properly acknowledged. Authors should cite publications that were influential in determining the nature of the work reported.
Authoring the paper
Authorship should be restricted to those who made a significant contribution to the conception, design, implementation, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have been involved in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included

That there are unsuitable co-authors in the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to submit it for publication.
Hazards and human or animal subjects
If a work has extraordinary risks inherent in its use, the author must clearly identify them in the manuscript.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors must disclose in their manuscripts any financial or other objective conflicts of interest that could be construed as affecting the outcome or interpretation of their manuscripts. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.
Material errors in the published works
When an author discovers a major error or inaccuracy in his published work, it is the author's duty to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Appeals and complaints

policy and process

The procedure below applies to appeals against editorial decisions, complaints about process failures such as long delays in processing papers, and complaints about publishing ethics. The complaint must be dealt with in the first instance by the chief editor(s) responsible for the journal and/or the editor who dealt with the paper. If they are the subject of a complaint, please contact our internal publication contact Complaint about scientific content, eg appeal against rejection The chief editor or processing editor considers the authors' argument, informs the reviewer and decides whether The refusal decision must stand; Another independent opinion is required Considering the appeal. The complainant will be informed of the decision, with an explanation if appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final and new applications take priority over appeals. Complaint about processes, eg time spent on auditing The Editor-in-Chief along with the Processing Editor (where applicable) and/or internal contact (where applicable) will investigate the matter. The complainant will be given appropriate feedback. Feedback is provided to relevant stakeholders to improve processes and procedures. A complaint about publication ethics, for example, the behavior of a researcher author or that of a reviewer The editor-in-chief or handling editor follows the guidelines published by the Publication Ethics Committee. The editor-in-chief or handling editor may ask the publisher via their intercom for advice on difficult or complex cases. The Editor-in-Chief or Processing Editor decides on a course of action and provides feedback to the complainant. If a complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, they can submit the complaint to the Publication Ethics Committee. More information can be found here.

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

jskp encourages debate post publication by submitting a letter to the editor. Post-publication corrections will be published alongside the original article.

Corrected manuscripts will be published alongside the original manuscript, so readers can always find the most up-to-date version. All versions will be permanently available and linked to the same DOI.

jskp Bulletin will be guided by the COPE guidelines when handling corrections, revisions or retraction of articles after publication.