RSYN Journals Publication Ethics Guidelines

2.1 Publication Decisions

The editorial board is responsible for approving the publication of scientific researches submitted to the journal. Evaluation criteria include: Scientific value Ethical criteria Scientific research integrity Language Citation and plagiarism

Papers are evaluated regardless of race, gender, religious backgrounds, ethnicity, nationality, and political philosophy. The editorial board is committed to improving the scientific sobriety of the journal through the publication of researches based on their importance, clarity, originality, and accordance with the announced terms and conditions.

2.2 Confidentiality

The chief editor and members of the editorial board undertake not to disclose any information related to submitted documents or papers, except for necessary information authorized by the authors, editors, consultants, and publisher.

2.3 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

The chief editor and members of the editorial board are prohibited from using any information stated in unpublished documents or papers for their own scientific researches without written permission from the original author.

3.1 Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Reviewers assist the editorial panel in making appropriate decisions and help authors improve their research. The editorial board provides reviewers with regulations, standards, and the level of originality required for publications.

3.2 Promptness

Selected reviewers must promptly notify the editorial board of their inability to review if applicable.

3.3 Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat papers and documents sent to them confidentially. These materials cannot be disclosed or discussed with others, except for the journal editor.

3.4 Standards of Objectivity

Reviews must be based on objective criteria. Personal judgments about authors are not allowed. Reviews must be reinforced by clear opinions and scientific arguments, in accordance with the journal's regulations and approved “publication terms” criteria.

3.5 Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers must notify the editorial board of any non-compliance with the journal's publication standards. They should ensure the aptness and correct referencing of sources, and verify that views and arguments do not belong to other researches without proper attribution.

3.6 Disclosure and Conflict of Interests

Reviewers must not use information and ideas from reviewed manuscripts for personal purposes or competitive interests. They should disclose any conflicts of interest that may bias their opinion.

4.1 Reporting Standards

Authors must comply with the “publication policy” regulations and the journal's approved writing style. Manuscripts should provide: Clarity of aim Accurate and sequential presentation of results Discussion of results to fulfil research aims Objective justification of the research method Work details and modern scientific references

Manuscripts should not include results stated in other researches. Inclusion of forged or stolen results is considered unethical and unacceptable.

4.2 Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

Authors should not submit their work to more than one journal simultaneously. Submitting a manuscript under evaluation to another journal is not permitted.

4.3 Authorship of the Paper

Authors' names must be provided for those who have made significant contributions to the research. One author must be appointed as a coordinator for journal communication. A final approval should be given for the manuscript's final version (the pledge).

4.4 Disclosure and Conflict of Interests

Authors should reveal any financial or other support provided to them. They should also disclose any financial conflicts or other issues that may affect the research results or interpretations.

4.5 Fundamental Errors in Published Works

Authors should notify the editor or publisher of any misstatements in their manuscripts to allow for necessary corrections. When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in published research, they should inform and cooperate with the editor or publisher to retract or correct the paper.

5.1 Identification of Unethical Behavior

Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone. Misconduct and unethical behavior may include, but are not limited to, examples outlined in this document.

5.2 Investigation

An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate. Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.

5.3 Minor Breaches

Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need for a formal investigation. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

5.4 Serious Breaches

Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher or Society as appropriate, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers.