Publication Ethics

Last updated: 28 August 2025

TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP is committed to responsible, transparent, fair, independent, and accountable scholarly publishing. This Publication Ethics Policy establishes the ethical standards applicable to all journals, editors, reviewers, authors, editorial-board members, guest editors, publisher personnel, production staff, and other individuals involved in the publication process.

This policy applies to all content published by TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP, including original research articles, reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, technical notes, methods articles, editorials, commentaries, letters, book reviews, conference-related papers, special issues, supplementary material, datasets, corrections, retractions, and other scholarly or editorial content.

All journals published by TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP operate under the Diamond Open Access model. Authors are not charged submission fees, article processing charges, publication fees, page charges, open-access fees, or mandatory production fees.

Published articles are made freely and permanently available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0). Authors retain copyright in their articles and grant TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP the non-exclusive rights necessary to publish, distribute, identify, preserve, and archive the version of record.

Research manuscripts are normally evaluated through a single-blind peer-review process. Reviewers receive the authors’ names and affiliations, while reviewer identities normally remain confidential.

1. Scope, Principles, and Responsibilities

Publication ethics is a shared responsibility. Authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, funders, publishers, and research organizations all have roles in protecting the accuracy, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record.

TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP applies the following principles:

Honesty: Research methods, data, results, interpretations, contributions, funding, and competing interests must be reported truthfully.
Originality: Submitted work must be original and must acknowledge all material derived from other sources.
Accountability: Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, integrity, legality, and originality of their work.
Editorial independence: Decisions must be based on scholarly merit and must not be influenced by financial, political, personal, institutional, or commercial interests.
Fairness: Manuscripts must be evaluated consistently and without discrimination.
Transparency: Peer-review procedures, authorship, contributions, funding, conflicts, corrections, retractions, fees, copyright, and licensing must be stated clearly.
Confidentiality: Unpublished manuscripts, review reports, personal data, and editorial discussions must be protected.
Respect: Authors, reviewers, editors, staff, complainants, and other participants must be treated professionally and respectfully.
Due process: Allegations of misconduct must be assessed fairly, impartially, confidentially, and on the basis of available evidence.
Correction of the record: Material errors or integrity concerns must be corrected transparently after publication.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by an author’s nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, language background, political beliefs, institutional affiliation, professional status, geographical location, or ability to pay.

Acceptance or rejection must be based on factors such as:

relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
originality and scholarly significance;
clarity of the research question or objective;
appropriateness and transparency of the methodology;
quality and accuracy of the analysis;
support for the results and conclusions;
ethical and legal compliance;
quality of reporting;
contribution to knowledge or practice; and
suitability for the journal’s readership.

Honest errors, differences in interpretation, and legitimate methodological disagreement must be distinguished from deliberate fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, concealment, manipulation, or deception.

The publisher may revise this policy when scholarly standards, legal requirements, technologies, or publishing practices change. Revised policies apply prospectively unless immediate application is necessary to protect participants, confidentiality, legal rights, or the reliability of the scholarly record.

2. Authorship, Contributorship, and Author Conduct

Authorship must reflect genuine scholarly responsibility and contribution. Individuals must not be listed as authors solely because of their seniority, professional position, funding role, institutional authority, personal relationship, or general supervision.

An author should normally satisfy all of the following conditions:

Make a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work; acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; development of software or methodology; or another substantial intellectual component of the research.
Draft the manuscript or revise it critically for important intellectual content.
Approve the final version submitted for publication.
Accept accountability for their own contribution and cooperate in resolving questions concerning the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work.

All individuals who satisfy the authorship criteria should be included. Individuals who do not satisfy the criteria should not be listed as authors.

The following practices are prohibited:

Guest or honorary authorship: Listing an individual who did not make a qualifying contribution.
Gift authorship: Adding an individual as a personal or professional favor.
Ghost authorship: Omitting an individual who made a substantial qualifying contribution.
Purchased authorship: Buying, selling, transferring, or trading an authorship position.
Authorship coercion: Pressuring researchers to add or remove an author improperly.
False affiliation: Claiming an institutional connection that did not exist during the relevant work.
Identity misrepresentation: Providing false names, qualifications, email addresses, researcher identifiers, or biographical information.

Authors should provide a contribution statement describing each author’s role. Relevant roles may include:

conceptualization;
methodology;
software;
validation;
formal analysis;
investigation;
resources;
data curation;
writing of the original draft;
review and editing;
visualization;
supervision;
project administration; and
funding acquisition.

The corresponding author is responsible for:

ensuring that all listed authors qualify for authorship;
ensuring that no qualifying contributor has been omitted;
obtaining approval of the submitted and revised versions from all authors;
providing complete and accurate author information;
communicating with the journal during submission, review, production, and post-publication assessment;
informing all authors of editorial decisions and required actions;
disclosing related submissions, preprints, funding, interests, data restrictions, and AI use;
responding to editorial enquiries within a reasonable period; and
cooperating with investigations and post-publication corrections.

Author order should be agreed upon by all authors before submission. The journal does not determine the relative importance of authors’ contributions unless the published contribution statement provides that information.

Requests to add, remove, reorder, or replace authors after submission must:

be submitted by the corresponding author;
explain clearly why the change is necessary;
include written agreement from all existing and proposed authors;
include confirmation from any author being removed; and
be approved by the responsible editor.

An authorship change will not be approved when it appears to conceal misconduct, manipulate credit, facilitate the sale of authorship, or misrepresent contributions. The journal may contact the authors’ institution where a serious or unresolved authorship dispute exists.

Authorship disputes that cannot be resolved through written agreement among the contributors may be referred to the relevant institution because the journal is generally unable to determine contributions to work conducted outside its editorial process.

Individuals who contributed technical assistance, language editing, administrative support, access to facilities, general supervision, or other non-author contributions should be acknowledged with their permission.

Professional writers, translators, statisticians, data analysts, and manuscript editors must be identified where their contribution could affect interpretation of the work. Their funding source should also be disclosed where applicable.

Collective or group authorship is permitted when the group name, responsible authors, contributors, and accountability arrangements are clearly stated.

Where an author dies or becomes unable to approve the final manuscript during the publication process, the editor will consider the circumstances individually. The article may identify the author as deceased, provided that the remaining authors, an authorized representative where appropriate, and the editor are satisfied that authorship remains accurate.

Generative AI systems, chatbots, language models, software applications, and automated tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors because they cannot accept scholarly responsibility, approve the final article, disclose interests, sign publishing agreements, or respond to integrity concerns.

3. Originality, Plagiarism, Duplicate Publication, and Preprints

Submitted manuscripts must be original. Authors must identify and acknowledge all text, ideas, data, images, figures, tables, methods, software, and other material derived from previous work.

Plagiarism includes presenting another person’s words, ideas, results, structure, images, data, or creative work as one’s own without appropriate acknowledgement.

Plagiarism may include:

verbatim copying without quotation or attribution;
close paraphrasing that reproduces the source’s wording or structure;
translation of another work without acknowledgement;
copying figures, tables, data, images, or code without authorization or attribution;
appropriation of unpublished ideas obtained through peer review, collaboration, employment, or confidential communication;
use of a student’s, employee’s, collaborator’s, or commissioned writer’s work without proper credit; and
submission of purchased, commissioned, or paper-mill-generated material as original scholarship.

Text recycling or self-plagiarism occurs when authors reuse substantial parts of their previously published material without transparent citation or justification. Limited reuse of standard methodological descriptions may be acceptable where accurate repetition is necessary, the original source is cited, and copyright requirements are satisfied.

Authors must not reuse previously published:

results;
data;
figures;
tables;
substantial discussion;
conclusions; or
other material

in a manner that creates the false impression that the material is new.

The journal may use authorized similarity-checking tools. A similarity score is not treated as proof of plagiarism by itself. Editors assess the nature, source, extent, context, attribution, and significance of any overlap.

Simultaneous submission is prohibited. A manuscript must not be under active consideration by more than one journal or publisher at the same time.

Duplicate publication occurs when substantially the same work is published more than once without clear disclosure, authorization, and cross-reference. Duplicate publication may distort the evidence base by causing the same data or findings to be counted more than once.

Redundant publication may include:

publishing substantially identical analyses from the same dataset without disclosure;
dividing one coherent study into multiple minimally different papers primarily to increase publication count;
republishing results using a changed title or author order;
publishing a translated version without permission or reference to the primary article;
submitting a published conference paper as a new journal article without substantial development and disclosure; or
presenting previously published data as an independent replication.

Multiple articles based on the same study or dataset may be acceptable where each article addresses a genuinely distinct research question, the overlap is disclosed, related publications are cited, and the division does not mislead readers.

Authors must provide copies or details of related manuscripts, preprints, conference papers, reports, theses, datasets, protocols, registrations, or publications when requested by the editor.

Preprints: Posting a manuscript on a recognized preprint server does not normally prevent consideration by a TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP journal, provided that:

the authors disclose the preprint at submission;
a link or persistent identifier is provided;
the preprint is clearly identified as not having completed peer review;
the authors retain the right to submit and publish the work;
the preprint does not breach participant privacy, confidentiality, copyright, or legal restrictions; and
the authors update the preprint record with a citation and link to the published article after publication.

Authors should not replace a preprint with confidential reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, or journal-produced proof versions.

When a preprint is cited, it must be clearly identified as a preprint. Where a peer-reviewed version is subsequently available, authors should normally cite the peer-reviewed version.

Theses and dissertations: Material forming part of a publicly accessible thesis or dissertation may be considered, provided that the source is disclosed and the submitted article is prepared as an independent journal publication. Authors must comply with institutional, repository, co-author, and third-party copyright requirements.

Conference dissemination: A brief abstract, poster, presentation, or unpublished conference contribution does not normally prevent journal consideration. A full paper formally published in conference proceedings may constitute prior publication. Authors must disclose the conference version and explain how the journal manuscript differs.

Secondary or translated publication: A secondary publication may be considered only where:

the editors of the relevant publications approve it;
the original publication is cited prominently;
the secondary purpose and readership are clear;
the content faithfully represents the primary publication;
copyright and licensing requirements permit republication; and
the article is clearly labelled as a secondary or translated publication.

Undisclosed plagiarism, simultaneous submission, duplicate publication, or redundant publication may result in rejection, withdrawal of acceptance, notification of another journal or institution, correction, expression of concern, retraction, or restriction of future submissions.

4. Research Ethics, Consent, Registration, and Participant Protection

Authors must conduct research in accordance with applicable laws, institutional requirements, professional standards, and recognized ethical principles relevant to their discipline and jurisdiction.

Research involving human participants:

Research involving human participants, identifiable human data, human tissue, biological samples, clinical information, or private records must receive review and approval from an appropriate ethics committee, institutional review board, or equivalent authority where required.

The manuscript should state:

the name of the approving authority;
the approval or reference number, where available;
the date or period of approval, where relevant;
the ethical framework followed;
how informed consent was obtained;
whether consent was written, verbal, implied, or waived;
the justification for any waiver or exemption; and
measures used to protect participant privacy and confidentiality.

Where formal ethical approval was not required, the authors must state this clearly and explain the institutional, legal, or disciplinary basis for the exemption.

Retrospective ethical approval obtained only after research has been completed will not normally resolve a failure to obtain required prospective approval.

Editors may request ethics approval documents, consent forms, protocols, institutional confirmation, or additional information. Approval documents may be reviewed confidentially and need not necessarily be published.

Informed consent:

Participation in research must be voluntary unless a lawful and ethically justified exception applies. Participants should receive adequate information about:

the purpose and procedures of the research;
foreseeable risks and benefits;
confidentiality and data use;
publication of findings;
withdrawal rights;
future use of samples or data, where relevant; and
contact information for questions or complaints.

Additional safeguards are required for children, individuals with reduced decision-making capacity, dependent relationships, marginalized communities, vulnerable populations, or participants exposed to elevated social, legal, economic, or physical risk.

Consent for publication:

Consent to participate in research is not necessarily the same as consent to publish identifiable information. Authors must obtain specific consent for publication where an individual could reasonably be identified from:

names or initials;
facial images;
medical images;
voice recordings;
video;
dates or locations;
family relationships;
rare conditions;
case histories; or
a combination of indirect identifiers.

Removing a name alone may not provide adequate anonymity. Non-essential identifying details should be omitted rather than altered or fabricated.

Case reports and case series containing identifiable clinical or personal information must include confirmation that consent for publication was obtained where required.

Clinical trials and prospective studies:

Clinical trials and other prospectively registered studies must comply with applicable registration requirements. Where registration is required, authors should provide:

the registry name;
the registration number;
the registration date;
a link to the public record; and
an explanation of any delayed or retrospective registration.

Registration must not be manipulated after results become known. Important differences between the registered protocol and the submitted manuscript must be explained.

Research involving animals:

Research involving animals must receive appropriate approval where required and must comply with applicable animal-welfare laws and institutional standards.

Authors should report:

the approving committee or authority;
the approval number;
species, strain, sex, age, and relevant biological characteristics;
housing and care conditions where relevant;
experimental procedures;
anesthesia and analgesia;
humane endpoints;
euthanasia methods;
measures used to minimize suffering; and
the rationale for the number of animals used.

Editors may reject work where animal suffering was not scientifically justified or where minimum ethical and welfare standards were not met.

Field, environmental, archaeological, and cultural research:

Research involving protected species, archaeological materials, cultural heritage, indigenous knowledge, genetic resources, restricted locations, or environmental sampling must comply with relevant permits, community expectations, access agreements, and legal requirements.

Authors should obtain appropriate permission for:

collection or export of biological materials;
research in protected areas;
use of indigenous or community knowledge;
handling of human remains or culturally sensitive objects;
archaeological excavation;
access to private land; and
publication of sensitive location information.

Biosafety, security, and dual-use research:

Research involving dangerous pathogens, toxins, hazardous chemicals, security-sensitive systems, or methods capable of significant misuse must comply with applicable safety and legal controls.

The journal may limit methodological detail, seek specialist advice, delay publication, or decline publication where disclosure would create a serious and disproportionate risk to individuals, public health, security, or the environment.

5. Data, Methods, Images, Citations, and Reproducibility

Research data, methods, analyses, images, and reporting must accurately represent the work performed.

Fabrication means inventing data, cases, participants, observations, experiments, quotations, results, or records that did not exist.

Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, processes, images, analyses, or data, or omitting information, so that the research is not represented accurately.

Fabrication and falsification are prohibited.

Authors must not:

invent observations or participant records;
alter data to produce a desired result;
remove inconvenient results without scientific justification;
misrepresent sample sizes;
change eligibility criteria after analysis without disclosure;
selectively report favorable outcomes;
present exploratory analyses as pre-specified;
manipulate statistical thresholds improperly;
duplicate observations without disclosure;
mislabel synthetic or simulated data as observed data; or
conceal errors that materially affect the conclusions.

Data retention and access:

Authors should retain original data, laboratory records, field notes, instruments, questionnaires, images, code, consent documentation, and other relevant records for an appropriate period consistent with legal, institutional, funding, and disciplinary requirements.

The journal may request relevant records during:

initial screening;
peer review;
production;
post-publication assessment;
an authorship dispute;
a correction request; or
a research-integrity investigation.

Failure to provide supporting records without a reasonable explanation may affect the editorial decision or lead to a post-publication notice.

Data availability:

Authors should include a data-availability statement explaining whether and how supporting data can be accessed.

The statement may indicate that data are:

available in a public repository;
included in the article or supplementary material;
available from the corresponding author under stated conditions;
subject to ethical, privacy, legal, contractual, security, or commercial restrictions;
owned by a third party;
not applicable to the article type; or
unavailable, with a clear explanation.

Restrictions must not be used merely to avoid legitimate verification. Where open sharing is not possible, authors should explain the restriction and whether controlled access may be available.

Personal data must be anonymized, pseudonymized, aggregated, or access-controlled as appropriate. Data sharing must not breach participant consent, privacy, confidentiality, or applicable law.

Methods, software, and code:

Methods must be described in sufficient detail for qualified readers to understand how the study was conducted and, where reasonably possible, reproduce or evaluate the work.

Authors should identify relevant:

equipment;
materials;
reagents;
instruments;
software;
versions;
packages;
parameters;
algorithms;
models;
protocols;
sampling procedures;
exclusion criteria; and
validation procedures.

Software and code must be tested and accurately described. Authors remain responsible for code generated or modified with AI assistance.

Statistical reporting:

Statistical methods must be appropriate to the research question and data. Authors should report relevant sample sizes, assumptions, effect estimates, uncertainty measures, missing-data procedures, exclusions, transformations, adjustments, sensitivity analyses, and limitations.

Authors should distinguish clearly between:

confirmatory and exploratory analyses;
pre-specified and post hoc outcomes;
association and causation;
statistical significance and practical importance; and
absence of evidence and evidence of absence.

Figures and images:

Figures and images must accurately represent the original data. Authors must retain unmodified original files.

Unacceptable image practices include:

adding, removing, moving, duplicating, or concealing features;
selective enhancement of only part of an image;
undeclared splicing of gels, blots, microscopy images, spectra, or other records;
duplication of an image to represent different experiments;
changing contrast or colour in a manner that alters interpretation;
presenting an illustrative or synthetic image as original evidence;
using inappropriate compression that obscures relevant information; or
mislabeling image panels, scales, conditions, samples, or controls.

Permitted adjustments must be applied consistently, must not alter interpretation, and should be disclosed where relevant. Composite images should identify boundaries clearly.

Citations and references:

TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP journals use APA style, 7th edition, unless a journal expressly states otherwise.

Authors must ensure that:

every cited source exists;
every citation supports the statement for which it is used;
every in-text citation appears in the reference list;
every reference-list entry is cited in the manuscript;
authors, titles, dates, journals, volumes, issues, pages, article numbers, and DOIs are accurate;
direct quotations are exact and include an appropriate location indicator;
primary sources are cited where reasonably available;
preprints are identified clearly;
retracted articles are not cited as valid evidence without appropriate explanation; and
references have been read and verified by the authors.

Fabricated, AI-invented, irrelevant, misleading, or deliberately inaccurate references are prohibited.

Authors, reviewers, and editors must not manipulate citations for personal, institutional, journal, or commercial benefit. Coercive citation practices include requiring irrelevant citations to:

the reviewer’s publications;
the editor’s publications;
the journal’s previous articles;
a particular institution;
a research network; or
a commercial product.

Relevant citations may be recommended where they are necessary to support a claim, acknowledge foundational work, address contrary evidence, explain a method, or correct an unsupported statement of novelty.

6. Competing Interests, Funding, Sponsorship, and Editorial Independence

Authors, reviewers, editors, editorial-board members, and other participants must disclose interests that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their judgment.

A competing interest may be:

financial;
commercial;
personal;
professional;
academic;
institutional;
political;
religious;
ideological;
legal; or
intellectual.

Examples include:

employment;
consultancy;
honoraria;
speaker fees;
stock ownership;
patents;
licensing income;
board membership;
paid expert testimony;
research grants;
travel support;
gifts;
close personal relationships;
academic rivalry;
active litigation;
institutional competition; and
strong public commitments concerning the subject of the manuscript.

Disclosure does not automatically prevent publication or participation. It allows the editor to assess whether management, recusal, reassignment, or publication of a declaration is necessary.

Authors must disclose all relevant interests in the manuscript and during submission. Where no competing interest exists, the authors should state:

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

All financial and material support must be disclosed. Funding statements should include:

the funder’s name;
the grant number, where applicable;
the recipient of the award;
material or technical support; and
the funder’s role in the study.

The role of a funder or sponsor should be described in relation to:

study design;
data collection;
data management;
analysis;
interpretation;
manuscript preparation;
approval of the manuscript;
access to data; and
the decision to submit for publication.

Where no specific funding was received, authors may state:

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Authors must retain the right to report findings accurately. A sponsor must not suppress unfavorable findings, prevent access to data, require misleading interpretation, or prohibit publication without a legitimate and clearly disclosed reason.

Editors must recuse themselves from manuscripts where a relevant conflict could affect their independence. The manuscript must be assigned to another qualified editor.

Reviewers must disclose conflicts before accepting an assignment and must report conflicts discovered later. The editor will determine whether the reviewer may continue.

Submissions from editors, editorial-board members, guest editors, publisher employees, or closely associated individuals must undergo independent handling. The submitting person must not:

select reviewers;
access reviewer identities;
participate in confidential editorial discussion;
make the decision; or
influence the handling of the manuscript.

TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP protects editorial independence. Journal owners, sponsors, institutions, partners, advertisers, funders, or commercial organizations must not control decisions on individual manuscripts.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:

the author’s ability to pay;
commercial value;
expected citations;
journal metrics;
advertising relationships;
publisher partnerships;
institutional prestige; or
pressure from an interested organization.

Because all journals operate under Diamond Open Access, authors are not charged for submission, peer review, acceptance, publication, open access, page length, or routine production.

7. Peer Review, Confidentiality, Editors, Reviewers, and Special Issues

Peer review must be conducted fairly, independently, confidentially, and without unnecessary delay.

Research manuscripts normally undergo single-blind review by at least two qualified and independent reviewers. Additional reviewers or specialist advisers may be consulted where necessary.

Editorials, letters, book reviews, invited commentaries, corrections, and similar content may receive editorial review rather than full external review. The method of evaluation must remain appropriate to the article type.

Under single-blind review:

reviewers know the authors’ identities and affiliations;
authors do not normally know reviewer identities;
review reports are transmitted without identifying information;
reviewers must not contact authors directly; and
editors and journal staff must protect reviewer confidentiality.

A reviewer’s identity may be disclosed only when:

the reviewer gives express permission;
disclosure is required by law; or
disclosure is necessary for an appropriately authorized integrity investigation.

Reviewers are selected according to relevant expertise, methodological competence, independence, publication or professional experience, reliability, and absence of disqualifying conflicts.

Editors should take reasonable steps to verify reviewer identities and affiliations. Warning signs of peer-review manipulation may include:

fabricated reviewer names;
false affiliations;
email accounts controlled by an author or third party;
multiple reviewer identities connected to the same individual;
unusually rapid and uncritical reports;
repeated identical language across reports;
coordinated recommendations from undisclosed associates;
reviewer suggestions linked to paper mills or commercial agencies; and
attempts to influence reviewer selection improperly.

Author-suggested reviewers may be considered but will be independently verified. Editors are not required to use suggested reviewers or approve reviewer-exclusion requests.

Reviewers must:

accept assignments only within their competence;
disclose relevant conflicts;
protect manuscript confidentiality;
provide evidence-based and respectful comments;
complete reviews within the agreed period;
identify important methodological, ethical, or reporting concerns;
avoid personal criticism;
avoid coercive citation requests;
avoid using manuscript information for personal advantage; and
accept responsibility for their report.

Reviewers must not delegate a review to another person without the editor’s prior permission. Approved co-reviewers must be identified to the journal and must agree to confidentiality requirements.

Editors must read and evaluate reviewer reports before sending them to authors. Editors may remove:

abusive or discriminatory language;
personal insults;
threats;
defamatory allegations;
reviewer-identifying details;
irrelevant personal information;
coercive citation requests; or
comments unrelated to the scholarly assessment.

The scholarly meaning of an appropriate review should not be altered without a valid reason.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Editors must evaluate the reasoning, evidence, quality, and relevance of each report rather than deciding by a simple count of recommendations.

Editors may seek an additional review when:

existing reports conflict substantially;
specialist methodological or statistical expertise is required;
an ethical concern requires independent assessment;
a reviewer report is inadequate;
a reviewer conflict becomes apparent; or
major revisions introduce new scholarly issues.

Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished manuscript information in their own research, grant proposals, commercial activities, teaching materials, public presentations, or publications before the information becomes lawfully public.

Special issues and guest-edited collections:

Special issues, thematic collections, conference-related issues, and supplements must meet the same standards as regular journal content.

Guest editors must:

possess appropriate expertise;
disclose conflicts;
follow the journal’s peer-review and ethics policies;
maintain confidentiality;
avoid guarantees of publication;
avoid citation manipulation;
avoid selecting conflicted reviewers;
refer serious concerns to the Editor-in-Chief; and
accept oversight by the journal.

A guest editor’s own manuscript must be handled by an independent editor. The guest editor must not select reviewers, access confidential reports, or influence the decision.

The Editor-in-Chief may replace a guest editor, reassign manuscripts, suspend review, reject articles, or cancel a special issue where quality, independence, integrity, or operational standards are not maintained.

8. Generative AI, Automated Tools, and Research-Integrity Screening

Authors, reviewers, and editors must comply with the publisher’s Generative AI Policies.

Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies may support limited aspects of research and manuscript preparation, but they do not replace human judgment, expertise, verification, or accountability.

AI systems cannot be listed as authors, reviewers, editors, or accountable contributors.

Authors remain responsible for all:

text;
references;
data;
images;
tables;
code;
analyses;
interpretations;
translations;
conclusions; and
supplementary material

produced or modified with AI assistance.

Substantive AI use must be disclosed. The disclosure should identify:

the tool;
the provider;
the model or version, where available;
the purpose of use;
the parts of the work affected;
the date or period of use;
the validation performed; and
the human review and correction applied.

AI use that forms part of the research methodology must be described in sufficient detail to permit scholarly evaluation and reasonable reproducibility. Relevant prompts, settings, parameters, validation procedures, and selection methods may be required.

Generative AI must not be used to:

fabricate data or results;
invent references;
create false quotations;
conceal plagiarism;
manipulate research images deceptively;
create false ethical approval or consent information;
impersonate an author, reviewer, editor, or participant;
generate fraudulent peer reviews;
conceal paper-mill involvement;
misrepresent synthetic data as observed data; or
transfer scholarly responsibility away from human authors.

Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, supplementary files, review reports, personal data, editorial correspondence, or unpublished research to public or external AI systems where confidentiality, data retention, security, model training, and lawful processing cannot be assured.

AI must not make final decisions concerning:

desk rejection;
reviewer selection;
acceptance or rejection;
ethical approval;
authorship;
misconduct;
correction;
expression of concern; or
retraction.

The publisher may use authorized automated tools to support:

similarity screening;
reference checking;
image-integrity screening;
technical checks;
metadata validation;
language assessment;
reviewer discovery;
security monitoring; and
workflow administration.

Automated results are indicators requiring qualified human assessment. A similarity score, AI-detection score, image flag, or automated recommendation is not conclusive evidence of misconduct by itself.

9. Allegations, Investigations, Complaints, Appeals, and Whistleblowers

TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP will consider credible concerns about submitted or published material regardless of who raises them.

Concerns may involve:

plagiarism;
fabrication or falsification;
duplicate publication;
image manipulation;
authorship misconduct;
peer-review manipulation;
paper-mill activity;
citation manipulation;
undisclosed conflicts;
ethical approval or consent;
participant privacy;
data reliability;
copyright infringement;
misuse of AI;
editorial conduct;
reviewer conduct; or
another threat to the integrity of the scholarly record.

A person submitting an allegation should provide, where reasonably possible:

the article or manuscript title;
the manuscript number or DOI;
a clear description of the concern;
the relevant page, paragraph, figure, table, dataset, or reference;
supporting documents or links;
an explanation of how the evidence relates to the allegation; and
contact information for follow-up.

Anonymous concerns may be considered where they contain sufficient specific and verifiable evidence. Anonymous allegations that provide no evidence, cannot be investigated, or appear abusive may be closed without further action.

Good-faith complainants and whistleblowers must not be subjected to retaliation by the journal. The publisher will protect their identity where reasonably possible, subject to legal obligations and procedural fairness.

The investigation process may include:

Recording the concern and preserving relevant evidence.
Conducting a preliminary assessment to determine whether the concern falls within the journal’s responsibility.
Identifying conflicts and assigning an independent editor or investigator.
Temporarily pausing review, production, or publication where necessary.
Informing the relevant author, reviewer, editor, or other party of the substantive concern.
Requesting an explanation and supporting documentation.
Seeking confidential advice from qualified experts.
Contacting institutions, funders, ethics bodies, regulators, other journals, or legal advisers where appropriate.
Assessing all available evidence fairly.
Determining the publication-related action required.
Communicating the outcome to relevant parties.
Correcting the scholarly record where necessary.

Individuals who are the subject of an allegation will normally be given an opportunity to respond before a final adverse conclusion is reached, unless immediate action is required to address a serious legal, privacy, safety, or public-interest risk.

Investigations will be conducted as confidentially as reasonably possible. Information will be disclosed only to individuals or organizations with a legitimate need to participate.

The journal may request:

original data;
unmodified images;
laboratory or field records;
analysis code;
protocols;
ethics approval documents;
consent records;
authorship agreements;
contribution records;
funding agreements;
reviewer identity confirmation;
AI prompts or outputs;
related publications; or
institutional findings.

The journal determines whether a manuscript or article is reliable and what action is necessary for the scholarly record. Research institutions are generally responsible for formal investigation of conduct by their researchers.

The publisher may contact an institution where:

the allegation is serious and credible;
original records require institutional examination;
the journal cannot determine the facts independently;
participant safety or legal compliance may be affected;
multiple publications may be involved;
an author refuses to cooperate; or
formal findings are needed.

The absence of an institutional response does not prevent the journal from acting on the publication record where sufficient evidence is available.

Possible actions before publication include:

requesting clarification;
requesting revision;
placing the manuscript on hold;
changing the handling editor;
excluding a reviewer;
rejecting the manuscript;
withdrawing an acceptance decision;
closing a reviewer or user account;
notifying another journal or institution; and
restricting future submissions or editorial participation.

Possible actions after publication include:

a correction;
an addendum;
an expression of concern;
a retraction;
a removal notice in exceptional cases;
notification of an institution or authority; and
review of related articles.

Complaints:

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, reviewer behavior, confidentiality, discrimination, delay, website information, fees, policy application, or publication procedures should identify the specific issue and provide relevant evidence.

A complaint concerning an editor will be reviewed by another qualified and independent individual. A complaint concerning the Editor-in-Chief will be referred to an appropriate independent representative of the publisher.

Appeals:

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that a material factual error, procedural failure, reviewer conflict, overlooked evidence, or serious misunderstanding affected the outcome.

An appeal must:

identify the manuscript and decision;
explain the specific error or procedural concern;
provide relevant evidence;
avoid personal attacks; and
avoid merely repeating arguments already considered.

Where practicable, an appeal will be evaluated by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision and has no relevant conflict.

An appeal may result in:

confirmation of the original decision;
clarification from the handling editor;
additional independent review;
reconsideration of the manuscript;
an invitation to revise or resubmit;
reversal of a decision where a material error occurred; or
referral of an ethical or procedural matter to the publisher.

An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration, external review, reversal, or acceptance. Repeated appeals containing no material new information may be closed.

10. Corrections, Retractions, Withdrawals, and Preservation of the Record

TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP is responsible for maintaining an accurate and transparent scholarly record. Published content will not be altered silently when a change affects meaning, attribution, interpretation, or integrity.

Minor updates:

Minor typographical, formatting, or metadata errors that do not affect the article’s scholarly meaning may be corrected without a formal correction notice. Where appropriate, the online record may indicate the date of the update.

Formal corrections:

A formal correction may be issued where an error affects:

data presentation;
analysis;
interpretation;
author information;
affiliation;
contribution statements;
funding information;
competing interests;
ethics information;
figures or tables;
citations or references;
supplementary material;
metadata; or
another material part of the article

but does not invalidate the article’s principal findings.

A correction notice should:

identify the affected article;
describe the original error;
provide the corrected information;
state who requested or approved the correction where relevant;
be freely accessible;
be linked to and from the article; and
preserve a clear version history.

Addenda:

An addendum may be published where important information became available after publication and supplements, clarifies, or extends the article without correcting an error that invalidates its findings.

Author-name and affiliation changes:

Reasonable requests to correct an author’s name, affiliation, or identity information will be considered. Where a name change concerns privacy, safety, gender identity, marital status, religion, or another sensitive matter, the publisher may make the change without drawing unnecessary attention to the previous name.

Expressions of concern:

An expression of concern may be issued where:

there is credible evidence of a serious problem;
an investigation is incomplete or significantly delayed;
available evidence is inconclusive;
an institution has not responded;
participant safety may be affected;
the reliability of the article is uncertain; or
immediate notification of readers is appropriate while further assessment continues.

An expression of concern is not a final finding of misconduct. It alerts readers that significant unresolved questions exist.

Retractions:

An article may be retracted where:

its findings are unreliable because of major error, fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate methodology;
substantial plagiarism occurred;
the article duplicates previously published work improperly;
peer review was manipulated;
authorship was seriously misrepresented;
research was conducted or reported unethically;
participant consent or privacy requirements were seriously violated;
copyright infringement materially affects the article;
the article reports unlawful research;
AI was used deceptively to fabricate or misrepresent scholarly content;
the conclusions are invalid and cannot be corrected adequately; or
another serious problem makes continued reliance on the article unsafe.

Retraction may result from misconduct or honest error. A retraction notice should distinguish between these where the evidence permits.

A retraction notice should:

identify the retracted article clearly;
state the reason for retraction;
identify who is retracting the article;
avoid defamatory or unsupported statements;
be freely accessible;
be linked to and from the original article;
be indexed and dated; and
identify which parts of the article are unreliable where possible.

A retracted article will normally remain accessible as part of the scholarly record but will be marked clearly as retracted in the HTML, PDF, abstract, and metadata where technically possible.

Retraction does not require the agreement of all authors where sufficient evidence demonstrates that retraction is necessary.

Retraction and republication:

Where an article contains pervasive error but the corrected work remains valid and important, the journal may retract and republish the article. The replacement must explain the changes and link clearly to the original and retraction notice.

Withdrawal before publication:

Authors may request withdrawal of a submitted manuscript by providing a written explanation and confirming that all authors have been informed.

A manuscript may also be withdrawn by the journal before publication where:

acceptance resulted from administrative error;
essential author approval is absent;
peer review was compromised;
legal publication rights are unavailable;
serious misconduct is established;
the manuscript was published elsewhere; or
publication would create a serious ethical, legal, privacy, or safety risk.

Authors must not submit a manuscript elsewhere until the journal confirms that withdrawal is complete.

After formal publication, an article cannot be treated as an unpublished withdrawal. A correction, expression of concern, retraction, or removal notice must be used instead.

Article removal:

Complete removal of a published article is reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as:

a binding court or regulatory order;
serious defamation or unlawful content;
a severe privacy or confidentiality violation;
an immediate and substantial safety risk;
content that cannot lawfully remain accessible; or
another exceptional legal necessity.

Where an article is removed, a notice explaining the removal will remain whenever legally and technically possible.

Post-publication discussion:

Readers may submit evidence-based comments, letters, or concerns regarding published articles. Legitimate scholarly criticism will be considered regardless of whether it supports or challenges the article.

Authors are expected to respond constructively to reasonable post-publication questions and to cooperate in correcting material errors.

Digital preservation:

The publisher will seek to preserve published articles, metadata, corrections, retractions, and related notices through suitable digital backup, archiving, DOI registration, and preservation arrangements.

Corrections and retractions must remain linked to the version of record so that readers and indexing services can identify the current status of the article.

11. Copyright, Open Access, Fees, Advertising, Metrics, and Contact

Authors retain copyright in articles published by TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP.

Published articles are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence, unless a different licence is stated clearly for a specific item.

CC BY 4.0 permits users to copy, share, distribute, adapt, translate, and build upon licensed material for commercial or non-commercial purposes, provided that users:

give appropriate credit;
identify the original article and source;
provide a link to the licence;
indicate whether changes were made; and
do not imply endorsement by the authors, journal, or publisher.

The article’s CC BY 4.0 licence does not automatically apply to third-party content that is identified as being subject to separate copyright or licensing conditions.

Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce material where permission is required. Relevant credit lines and licence limitations must be stated clearly.

Publisher and journal logos, trademarks, website design, journal-cover designs, and proprietary administrative material are not automatically licensed under the article’s CC BY 4.0 licence.

Diamond Open Access and author fees:

All journals published by TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP operate under Diamond Open Access. Authors are not charged:

submission fees;
administrative fees;
peer-review fees;
article processing charges;
acceptance fees;
publication fees;
page charges;
open-access fees;
colour-figure charges; or
mandatory routine production fees.

No payment may influence whether a manuscript is reviewed, accepted, rejected, corrected, or retracted.

Advertising and commercial activity:

Any advertising, sponsorship, or commercial content must be clearly distinguishable from scholarly and editorial content.

Advertising or sponsorship must not influence:

editorial decisions;
peer-review outcomes;
article placement;
correction or retraction decisions;
interpretation of research; or
the presentation of competing products or views.

The publisher may reject advertising or sponsorship that is misleading, unlawful, discriminatory, harmful, incompatible with the publisher’s scholarly mission, or likely to create confusion about editorial endorsement.

Journal metrics and citation practices:

Journal metrics must be presented accurately and must not be fabricated, manipulated, or described misleadingly.

The publisher, editors, and reviewers must not pressure authors to cite articles solely to increase:

journal impact indicators;
editor citations;
reviewer citations;
institutional rankings;
author metrics; or
commercial visibility.

The journal must not guarantee:

acceptance;
publication by a fixed date;
indexing by a particular database;
a specific number of citations;
a particular journal metric;
academic promotion; or
professional recognition.

Privacy and confidentiality:

Personal data collected during submission, peer review, editorial management, publication, and post-publication investigation will be processed in accordance with the publisher’s Privacy Policy and applicable data-protection requirements.

Published author names, affiliations, contribution statements, funding information, competing-interest declarations, and correspondence details form part of the scholarly record and may be distributed to DOI agencies, indexing services, repositories, libraries, archives, and scholarly-discovery systems.

Contact:

Questions, complaints, appeals, copyright notices, research-integrity concerns, and requests concerning this policy may be addressed to:

TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP
Allee 1
45143 Essen
Germany

Correspondence may also be submitted through the publisher’s official Contact page or the editorial office of the relevant journal. Communications should identify the relevant journal, manuscript or article, manuscript number or DOI, and the nature of the enquiry.

On this page