For Authors
Authors must present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
- Reporting Standards
- Data Access & Retention
- Originality & Plagiarism
For Reviewers
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and may assist the author in improving the paper.
- Confidentiality
- Standards of Objectivity
- Promptness
For Editors
Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article based on scientific merit.
- Fair Play
- Editorial Independence
- Conflict of Interest
Full Ethical Statement
1. Originality and Plagiarism Policy
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Plagiarism Detection: All submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using Turnitin software. If plagiarism is detected at any stage (pre or post publication), the journal will take strict actions including rejection or retraction.
Plagiarism Detection: All submitted manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using Turnitin software. If plagiarism is detected at any stage (pre or post publication), the journal will take strict actions including rejection or retraction.
2. Data Fabrication and Falsification
Data fabrication (making up data) and data falsification (manipulating research materials or changing data) are considered serious scientific misconduct.
Atlas Scientia reserves the right to request raw data for any manuscript during the peer-review process to ensure results are replicable and honest.
3. Authorship and Contributorship
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.
All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author ensures that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper.
4. Peer Review Integrity
Atlas Scientia employs a Double-Blind Peer Review process. Neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other's identity.
Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not use privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review for personal advantage.
Handling Scientific Misconduct
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the editorial board will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe cases, the retraction of the affected work.
Affiliations
