The ethical policy of the Journal of Science and Knowledge Horizons is based on the recommendations of

JSKP Publishing Ethics and Integrity Statement
Preamble: Our Operational Commitment to Scholarly Integrity
The Journal of Science and Knowledge Horizons (JSKP) is built on a pledge to foster a transparent, rigorous, and ethical scholarly dialogue. We recognize that trust in our publication is earned through the consistent application of clear and fair policies.
This document is the definitive guide to the ethical standards of JSKP. It is not merely a statement of principles but a description of our operational procedures. These procedures have been developed internally by the JSKP Editorial Board to govern the actions of our authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher. While we align with the core principles of international bodies like the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), our implementation is unique to JSKP's mission and workflow.
1. Duties and Operational Responsibilities of the JSKP Editorial Team
1.1. Editorial Independence and Decision-Making Protocol:
The Editor-in-Chief has ultimate, uncompromised authority over the journal's scholarly content.
Decision Process: Publication decisions are made following a structured double-blind peer-review process managed via our editorial system. A manuscript must receive at least two favorable reviews to be considered for acceptance. The final decision (Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, Reject) is documented in the editorial system with a clear justification based on the reviewers' feedback and the editor's assessment of the work's quality and relevance.The editorial team reserves the right to reject a manuscript without external peer review if it is deemed outside the journal's scope, does not meet a minimum threshold of quality, or contains suspected ethical issues
Insulation from External Influence: No member of the journal's publisher, sponsoring institution, or any commercial partner can influence editorial decisions. This separation is contractually guaranteed.

1.2. Confidentiality and Data Security Protocol:
Manuscript Handling: All submissions are assigned a unique manuscript ID and are handled exclusively through our secure, password-protected editorial management system. Access is restricted to the assigned editor, potential reviewers, and administrative staff on a need-to-know basis.
Double-Blind Anonymity: JSKP operates a strict double-blind peer-review model. The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors. All identifying information must be removed from the manuscript file prior to review

1.3. Ensuring Fair and Unbiased Evaluation (The JSKP Fair Play Protocol):
Objective Criteria: Manuscripts are judged solely against a documented set of criteria: originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, contribution to the field, and relevance to JSKP's scope. Author demographics or affiliations are not part of the evaluation criteria.
Bias Mitigation:  Our commitment to double-blind peer review is the cornerstone of our effort to mitigate potential bias related to author demographics, affiliation, or reputation. The editorial office also conducts periodic internal audits to ensure fairness.

imeliness and Efficiency:
JSKP is committed to a timely review process. Editors are expected to manage manuscript review efficiently. If an assigned editor anticipates or experiences a significant, unavoidable delay, they have a duty to inform the Editor-in-Chief, who may reassign the manuscript to ensure the author's path to publication is not unduly hindered.

1.4. JSKP's Conflict of Interest (CoI) Management Protocol:
For Editors: All editorial staff must complete a mandatory annual CoI declaration form. They must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript if they: (a) have co-authored with the author in the last 3 years, (b) work at the same institution, or (c) have a direct financial interest in the research. The recusal is formally logged in our editorial system, and the manuscript is reassigned by the Editor-in-Chief to an independent editor.
For Submissions from Editors: Any submission by a JSKP editor or board member is flagged automatically. The entire process, from reviewer selection to final decision, is managed by an external guest editor or a designated deputy editor with no connection to the author. A public declaration of this independent handling process is published with the article.

1.5. Upholding the Integrity of the Published Record (JSKP's Post-Publication Protocol):
JSKP has a standing Integrity Committee, composed of the Editor-in-Chief and two senior board members, to handle post-publication issues.
Process: When a concern is raised, the committee first conducts a preliminary assessment. If the concern is credible, they will contact the author for a response, following COPE's Retraction Guidelines. All correspondence is documented.
Actions: Based on the investigation, the committee will decide on the appropriate action:
Correction: For minor, unintentional errors that do not invalidate the findings.
Expression of Concern: If there is inconclusive evidence of misconduct but serious concerns remain.
Retraction: For major errors, data fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. A detailed, non-defamatory retraction notice explaining the reasons will be published and linked to the original article.be published and linked to the original article.

Investigation of Ethical Concerns

Following an investigation, the Integrity Committee will determine the appropriate sanction based on the severity of the misconduct. Sanctions are applied on a case-by-case basis and may range from:

• A letter of education to the authors in cases of genuine misunderstanding.
• A formal warning regarding future conduct.
• Rejection of the manuscript or a request for correction.
• A temporary or permanent ban on future submissions from the responsible authors.
• Notifying the authors' institution or funding bodies.
• A formal retraction of the published work
• Reference: COPE Retraction Guidelines

2. Detailed Responsibilities and Requirements for JSKP Authors

2.1. Reporting Standards and Reproducibility:
Authors must present their research with sufficient detail in the "Methods" section to allow for independent replication. JSKP also encourages authors to adhere to established reporting guidelines relevant to their field of study (e.g., CONSORT, PRISMA). Resources like the EQUATOR Network can help identify appropriate guidelines.
2.2. Data Availability and Deposition:
As a condition for final acceptance, JSKP requires authors to deposit their anonymized research data in a recognized public repository and to include the data availability statement and DOI link in their manuscript.
2.3. Originality and Plagiarism Screening:

• Screening Process: Every submission to JSKP undergoes a mandatory plagiarism check using plagiarism detection software (e.g., Crossref Similarity Check, Turnitin, Detectia). The report is reviewed by the handling editor.
• Thresholds: While there is no "magic number," a similarity score exceeding 20% (or >5% from a single source) triggers a detailed manual review. If plagiarism is confirmed, the manuscript is immediately rejected, and authors may face a submission ban of up to 3 years
• To assist in evaluating originality, authors may be asked to provide copies of any related manuscripts submitted or in press at other journals

2.7. JSKP's Authorship and Contributorship Policy:
Authorship Changes: Any request to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be sent to the Editor-in-Chief with a signed statement from all original and new authors confirming their agreement. Such changes are only permitted in exceptional circumstances.
Reference: ICMJE - Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors
2.8. Disclosure Protocol for Conflicts of Interest and Funding:
Authors must complete a mandatory ICMJE-style disclosure form at the time of submission. This form is sent to reviewers to help them assess potential bias. A summary of all declared conflicts and funding sources is published with the final article.
2.9. JSKP's Policy on AI and AI-Assisted Technologies:
Mandatory Disclosure: The use of generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Midjourney) for writing text, creating images, or analyzing data must be declared in a dedicated section titled "Declaration of AI Usage."
Specifics of Disclosure: This section must specify: (1) The name and version of the AI tool used, (2) The part of the manuscript it was used for (e.g., "language editing," "literature summary"), and (3) A brief explanation of how the authors verified the accuracy and originality of the AI-generated output.
Accountability: The authors are explicitly reminded that they are solely responsible for any errors, plagiarism, or ethical breaches in the manuscript, regardless of AI involvement. AI tools cannot be cited as an author.

Reference: COPE 

2.10. Pre-registration of Studies and Clinical Trials:
JSKP strongly encourages authors to pre-register their study protocols in a recognized public registry (e.g., OSF.io, AsPredicted.org) to enhance transparency and reduce publication bias.
Mandatory for Clinical Trials: For all clinical trials, JSKP mandates pre-registration in a WHO- or ICMJE-approved registry (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov) as a condition for consideration. The registration number must be provided at the end of the manuscript's abstract
3. Operational Duties of JSKP Peer Reviewers
3.1. The JSKP Review Form:
To ensure structured and high-quality feedback, reviewers complete a standardized review form. This form prompts them to assess the manuscript on specific criteria (e.g., Originality, Methodology, Significance, Clarity) and requires them to provide constructive comments for the author and confidential comments for the editor.
3.2. Conflict of Interest Check for Reviewers:
Before accepting a review, reviewers must answer a mandatory checklist to confirm they have no conflicts of interest. This includes confirming they have not collaborated with the authors in the past 3 years and are not in direct competition.

Upholding the Integrity of the Published Record (JSKP's Post-Publication Protocol):
JSKP has a standing Integrity Committee to investigate ethical concerns raised about published works. Following a fair investigation based on COPE guidelines, the committee will take appropriate action to correct the scholarly record.
Actions to Correct the Record: Depending on the nature and severity of the issue, actions may include:
Erratum: To correct a minor, unintentional error that does not invalidate the study's conclusions.
Expression of Concern: To alert readers when there is credible concern about a paper, but an institutional investigation is not yet complete.
Retraction: To withdraw the paper entirely if the findings are invalidated by major error or proven misconduct. A full explanation will be provided in the retraction notice.

Reference: COPE Retraction Guidelines

4. JSKP's Ethical Oversight and Investigation Protocol
4.1. Step-by-Step Misconduct Investigation:
JSKP follows COPE's flowcharts as our standard operating procedure.
Receipt of Allegation: A confidential file is opened.
Preliminary Assessment: The Integrity Committee assesses the evidence.
Notification to Author: If the allegation is deemed credible, the corresponding author is contacted with the specific concern and given 21 days to provide a response.
Investigation: The committee evaluates the author's response, potentially involving statistical experts or institutional research integrity officers.
Decision & Action: The committee makes a final decision and implements the necessary action (e.g., retraction, correction), informing all relevant parties.

Reference: COPE Flowcharts

4.2. Protocol for Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects:
Mandatory Ethics Statement: Authors must include a section titled "Ethical Approval and Informed Consent" in their manuscript.
Content Requirements: This section must state: (a) the name of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee that approved the study, (b) the approval reference number, and (c) a confirmation that informed consent was obtained from all human participants, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. For animal studies, compliance with guidelines like ARRIVE must be affirmed. The editorial office may request copies of the approval documents at any time.

4.4.Participant Privacy: Authors must also describe the steps taken to protect participant privacy, including the anonymization of personal data before analysis and sharing. No personally identifying information (including initials or images) may be published without explicit, written consent from the individual. The editorial office may request copies of approval and consent documents at any time.