Publication Ethics
JOAMS is committed to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and ethical publishing practices. We adhere to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Guidelines while implementing additional measures to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in scholarly communication.
Quick Links:
Core Principles
Authorship must reflect substantial contributions to the research. "Ghost," "gift," or honorary authorship is prohibited.
1.1 Authorship Criteria
To qualify as an author, individuals must meet all four criteria (based on ICMJE guidelines):
• Significant contribution to study design, data collection/analysis, or interpretation.
• Drafting or critically revising the manuscript for intellectual content.
• Approval of the final version to be published.
• Accountability for the work’s accuracy and integrity.
1.2 Non-Author Contributors:
• Those who do not meet all criteria (e.g., technical support, funding acquisition) should be listed in acknowledgments with their roles specified.
1.3 Authorship Changes
JOAMS permits authorship changes only under exceptional circumstances (e.g., valid disputes, omissions):
a. Pre-Publication Changes:
• All authors must agree in writing to add/remove/reorder authors.
• The submitting author must provide a justification (e.g., omitted contributor, withdrawal of consent).
b. Post-Publication Changes:
• Requires a formal request signed by all original authors.
• If consensus is impossible (e.g., disputed contributions), the journal may:
• Investigate via institutional mediation.
• Issue a correction notice detailing the change.
• Retraction may occur if authorship fraud is confirmed.
• We employ a double-blind peer review process to ensure impartiality, but authors may opt for open peer review post-acceptance.
• Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest and provide **constructive, unbiased feedback**.
• Reviewers who engage in unethical behavior (e.g., stealing ideas, undue delays) will be **blacklisted**.
• Editors evaluate submissions based on **scholarly merit**, free from discrimination or external influence.
• Editors and editorial staff must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist.
• Appeals against editorial decisions are permitted, with a formal reassessment process.
4.1 Definition of Research Misconduct
JOAMS defines research misconduct as any action that compromises the integrity of scholarly work, including but not limited to:
• Plagiarism: Unauthorized use of others' work (text, data, or ideas) without proper attribution.
• Data Fabrication/Falsification: Inventing or manipulating research data to misrepresent findings.
• Duplicate Submission/Publication: Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously or republishing previously published work without disclosure.
• Citation Manipulation: Excessive self-citation or coercive citation to inflate impact.
• Authorship Misconduct: Including non-contributing authors ("gift authorship") or excluding deserving contributors ("ghost authorship").
• AI-Assisted Misconduct: Using AI tools to generate fraudulent data, fake peer reviews, or undisclosed synthetic content.
4.2 Preventive Measures
To minimize misconduct risks, JOAMS implements:
• Pre-Screening: All submissions undergo automated plagiarism detection (e.g., Turnitin) and manual checks for data anomalies.
• Author Declarations: Authors must certify originality, disclose AI use, and confirm compliance with ethical guidelines.
• Open Data Policy: Encourages sharing raw data (where ethical) to verify reproducibility.
4.3 Handling Allegations of Misconduct
a. Initial Assessment:
• The editorial team investigates allegations, requesting evidence (e.g., original data, IRB approvals).
• Confidentiality is maintained to protect whistleblowers and accused parties.
b. COPE-Based Procedures:
• Minor Issues (e.g., citation errors): Corrections via an *erratum*.
• Severe Misconduct (e.g., fraud, plagiarism): Immediate manuscript retraction with a public notice detailing the reason.
• Institutional Involvement: For unresolved cases, the journal collaborates with the authors’ institutions or ethics boards.
c. Sanctions:
• Authors: Blacklisting for repeated violations (1–5 years, depending on severity).
• Reviewers/Editors: Removal from roles for unethical behavior (e.g., bias, idea theft).
d. Transparency:
• Retracted papers remain online with a watermarked "Retracted" label and linked explanation.
• Annual summaries of misconduct cases (anonymized) are published to uphold accountability.
The rise of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies has prompted the need for clear guidelines to ensure transparency and ethical standards in academic publishing. We have established policies to guide authors, reviewers, editors, and readers on the responsible use of AI in scientific content creation. These policies will be regularly reviewed and updated as AI technology evolves.
5.1 Permissible Uses of AI in Manuscript Preparation
• Grammar & Language Enhancement: We allow AI tools (e.g., Grammarly, ChatGPT) for improving readability, grammar, and language.
• Data Analysis & Visualization: AI-assisted statistical tools (e.g., Python/R libraries) are generally acceptable if properly cited.
• Reference Management: AI-powered citation tools (e.g., EndNote, Zotero) are widely accepted.
5.2 Restrictions & Prohibitions
• AI as a Co-Author: We prohibit listing AI (e.g., ChatGPT) as a co-author because it cannot take responsibility for the work.
• Content Generation: We ban AI-generated text unless it is clearly documented and verified by human authors.
• Peer Review: We prohibit AI-assisted peer review due to confidentiality and bias concerns.
5.3 Disclosure Requirements
• Mandatory Declaration: Authors must disclose AI use in the methods or acknowledgments section (e.g., "ChatGPT was used for language editing").
• Detailed Documentation: We require specifying the AI tool, version, and how it was used.
5.4 Ethical Concerns & Best Practices
• Plagiarism & Originality: AI-generated text must be checked for plagiarism and accuracy.
• Human Oversight: Authors are responsible for verifying AI outputs.
• Bias & Misinformation: AI may produce incorrect or biased content—authors must critically review all AI-assisted material.
JOAMS maintains a formal procedure to address:
6.1 Editorial Decision Appeals
• Authors may submit a written appeal to the Editorial Office within 30 days
• Must include detailed justification for reconsideration
• Initial review by handling Editor or Editor-in-Chief
6.2 Procedural Complaints
• Covers issues such as processing delays
• Should be directed to the journal's publishing contact
6.3 Ethics Concerns
• Includes allegations of misconduct
• Will be investigated following COPE guidelines
All cases will receive prompt attention. For complaints involving Editors-in-Chief, please contact editor@joams.com.
The journal reserves the right to escalate serious matters to institutional authorities when appropriate. All communications will be handled confidentially.
Note: Frivolous or malicious complaints will not be entertained.
