Publication Ethics
1. Principles and Review Process
        To ensure that submitted research articles meet national or international publishing standards, the editor will select at least two considerably qualified peer experts to serve as reviewers whose expertise is directly relevant to the manuscript and who have no conflicts of interest with the authors. The review is conducted in a double-blind format: reviewers do not know the authors’ names and authors do not know the reviewers’ identities. The review outcomes fall into four categories:
        1.1 Approved for publication without revision.
        1.2 Approved for publication subject to revisions per reviewers’ suggestions.
        1.3 Provisionally approved for publication but requires revision and resubmission for further consideration.
        1.4 Not approved for publication.
2. Ethics of Authors
        2.1 All persons listed as authors must have made a genuine contribution to the research or the manuscript preparation.
        2.2 Manuscripts submitted for publication must not have been published elsewhere and must not be under consideration by another journal.
        2.3 Use of others’ work—whether direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary—must include in-text citations and a complete, correctly formatted reference list.
        2.4 Authors must request permission and obtain approval and documentation of ethical clearance for research involving human subjects.
3. Ethics of the Editorial Office
        3.1 Manuscripts are evaluated on the basis of academic fairness and merit, free from bias related to race, religion, gender, politics, or institutional affiliation.
        3.2 The editorial office must avoid conflicts of interest with authors or reviewers and must not use submitted manuscripts for commercial gain or personal work.
        3.3 The editorial office must not alter or misrepresent reviewers’ evaluation results.
4. Ethics of Reviewers
        4.1 Reviewers must assess manuscripts primarily on research quality and be free from bias in all dimensions.
        4.2 Reviewers must not seek personal advantage from manuscripts they evaluate.
        4.3 Reviewers should accept assignments only for work they are genuinely qualified to assess.
        4.4 Reviewers must notify the editor immediately if plagiarism or data fraud is suspected.
        4.5 Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and any associated materials throughout the review process.