Publication Ethics

Contents

Our Commitment
Authorship
Responsibilities of Authors
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Responsibilities of Editors
Responsibilities of the Publisher
Conflicts of Interest
Plagiarism and Similarity Checking
Use of Generative AI
Research Misconduct and Allegations
Appeals and Complaints
Corrections, Expressions of Concern and Retractions
Contact

1. Our Commitment

The International Journal of Theoretical & Applied Computational Intelligence (IJTACI) is committed to publishing research that is trustworthy, original and reported honestly. This statement sets out what IJTACI expects of everyone involved in publication: authors, reviewers, editors and the publisher, Research Direct Publisher (RDP).

IJTACI follows the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is guided by the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) on authorship and conflicts of interest, and by the editorial policy guidance of the Council of Science Editors (CSE). Where this statement does not address a situation, the editors will follow the relevant COPE guidance.

This statement should be read together with the journal's Guide for Authors, Guide for Reviewers, Guide for Editors, Data Availability Policy and Human and Animal Subject Research Ethics Policy.

2. Authorship

2.1 Who qualifies as an author

Each person listed as an author must meet all of the following conditions:

made a substantial contribution to the idea or design of the work, or to obtaining, analysing or interpreting its data, software or results;
helped write the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content;
approved the final version submitted for publication; and
agrees to be accountable for the work and to help resolve any question about its accuracy or integrity.

Gift authorship (listing someone who did not contribute) and ghost authorship (leaving out someone who did) are not acceptable. Providing funding, supervising a group in general terms, or supplying data or equipment does not on its own justify authorship.

2.2 Author contribution statement and ORCID

Every manuscript must include an Author Contributions statement that uses the CRediT taxonomy, for example: "A.B.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software; C.D.: Data curation, Validation, Writing – original draft; E.F.: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript."

The corresponding author must provide a valid ORCID iD. All co-authors are strongly encouraged to provide theirs, so that each author can be identified reliably.

2.3 Corresponding author

The corresponding author submits the manuscript on behalf of all authors and handles communication with the journal during review, production and after publication. They are responsible for confirming that every author has approved the submission and its author list, and that all required declarations (funding, conflicts of interest, data availability, AI use and ethics approval, where applicable) are complete and accurate. Manuscripts may not be submitted by third parties such as agents or editing services.

2.4 Affiliations

The affiliation given for each author should be the institution where that author did the work. If an author has since moved, the new institution may be given as a "Present address". Affiliations must be accurate and must not be used to misrepresent who the authors are or where they work.

2.5 Acknowledgements

Contributors who do not meet the authorship criteria (for example, those who provided technical support, language editing, access to data, or general supervision) should be named in the Acknowledgements, with their permission.

2.6 Changes to authorship

Adding, removing or reordering authors is only possible before acceptance. The corresponding author must send the editorial office the reason for the change, together with written agreement from every author, including anyone being added or removed. The editor may decline the request. After publication, changes to authorship are made only through a formal Correction (see Section 12).

2.7 Authorship disputes

IJTACI does not judge authorship disputes on their merits. The journal will follow the relevant COPE flowcharts, may pause processing of the manuscript, and may ask the authors' institution(s) to investigate and resolve the matter.

3. Responsibilities of Authors

Originality. Submissions must be the authors' own original work. Any text, ideas, data, code, figures or equations taken from other sources, including the authors' own earlier publications, must be cited properly. Permission must be obtained to reproduce copyrighted material (see Copyright and Licensing).
No duplicate or simultaneous submission. A manuscript must not have been published elsewhere, and must not be under consideration by another journal while it is under review at IJTACI. Publishing the same study in another language, or splitting one study into several minimal papers ("salami slicing"), is also not acceptable.
Preprints and conference papers. Posting a preprint on a non-commercial server such as arXiv does not count as prior publication, but the preprint must be disclosed at submission. An extended version of a conference paper may be submitted only if at least 70% of its content is new, it cites the original conference paper, and the cover letter explains what has been added.
Data integrity. Data, results, code and figures must be genuine and reported accurately. Fabricating data (making it up), falsifying data (manipulating, selectively omitting or misrepresenting it), and misrepresenting experimental conditions or performance comparisons are serious misconduct.
Image and figure integrity. Figures must not be altered in ways that hide, add, remove or misrepresent information. Adjusting brightness, contrast or colour balance is acceptable only if it is applied to the whole image and does not distort the original data. The editors may ask for the original, unedited images.
Data availability and retention. Authors must include a Data Availability Statement, following the Data Availability Policy, and should keep the raw data and code that support their results for at least ten years after publication. The editors may ask to see the underlying data during review.
Research involving humans or animals. Such studies must have ethics approval (or a documented waiver) and informed consent where appropriate, as set out in the Human and Animal Subject Research Ethics Policy. This includes studies that use identifiable personal, medical or biometric data, such as clinical images, EEG/ECG signals or patient records.
Use of public datasets and software. Datasets, pretrained models and software must be cited and used in line with their licences and terms of use.
Funding and conflicts of interest. All sources of funding and all conflicts of interest must be disclosed (see Section 7). If there are none, state this explicitly.
Citation practice. References must be accurate and directly relevant to the work. Authors must not cite retracted or withdrawn papers except when discussing the retraction itself, and must not add unnecessary self-citations or citations agreed in advance with other authors, reviewers or editors.
Taking part in peer review. Authors are expected to respond to reviewers' comments fully and respectfully, and to explain any point they do not accept.
Errors found after publication. If authors discover a significant error in their published article, they must inform the editorial office promptly and cooperate in correcting or retracting it.

4. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer-review model. IJTACI uses single-blind peer review: reviewers know who the authors are, but authors are not told who the reviewers are. Reviewers should not reveal their identity in their comments or in the metadata of files they upload.
Confidentiality. Manuscripts and all related material are confidential. Reviewers must not share, discuss or use any part of a manuscript, or its unpublished data or ideas, for any purpose other than the review. Reviewers may not pass the review to a student or colleague without the editor's prior permission. If permission is given, that person's name must be disclosed to the editor.
Generative AI. Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, or any part of it, or their review report to generative AI tools, and must not use AI to assess the manuscript, because this would break confidentiality. The review must be the reviewer's own scholarly judgment.
Conflicts of interest. Reviewers must decline an invitation, or tell the editor, if they have a conflict of interest of the kind described in Section 7.
Expertise and timeliness. Reviewers should accept an invitation only if they have the relevant expertise and can complete the review within the time requested, and should tell the editor promptly if they cannot.
Objectivity. Reviews should be objective, specific and constructive, with clear reasons for each comment. Personal criticism of the authors is not acceptable.
Citation requests. Reviewers may suggest relevant published work that the authors have missed, but must not ask authors to cite the reviewer's own work, or work by the journal, unless it is clearly necessary for the scientific argument.
Raising ethical concerns. Reviewers should tell the editor, confidentially, if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data or images, citation manipulation, undisclosed AI-generated content, or unethical research.
Recommendations. Reviewers recommend Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision or Reject. These recommendations guide the editor but do not bind them.

5. Responsibilities of Editors

Decisions based on merit. Editors evaluate manuscripts only on their originality, scientific quality, validity, clarity and relevance to the journal's scope. The authors' nationality, institution, gender, religion, political beliefs or seniority, and any commercial consideration, play no part.
Editorial independence. Decisions about manuscripts are made independently of the publisher. They are not influenced by whether the authors have used any service offered by the publisher, or by any financial consideration.
Peer review. Every research and review article sent out for review is evaluated by at least two independent, qualified reviewers. Editors check the identity and expertise of reviewers, preferably through institutional email addresses and publication profiles, and do not rely only on reviewers suggested by the authors. The handling editor makes a decision based on the reviews and their own assessment, and the Editor-in-Chief gives final approval. If an editor disagrees with the reviewers, the reasons are explained to the authors.
Confidentiality. Editors keep manuscripts, reviewers' identities and editorial discussions confidential.
Conflicts of interest. Editors must not handle a manuscript where they have a conflict of interest (see Section 7). Such a manuscript is reassigned to another editor.
Submissions from editors and board members. The Editor-in-Chief, editorial board members and reviewers may submit their own work. Such manuscripts are handled by an independent editor, reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers, and decided without any involvement from the submitting member. The published article notes that an independent editor handled it.
Diversity of content. Editors monitor how often the same authors, research groups and institutions appear in each volume, so that the journal continues to serve the wider international research community.
Ethical concerns. Editors respond to suspected misconduct in line with COPE guidance (see Section 10) and ensure that corrections, expressions of concern or retractions are published when needed (see Section 12).

6. Responsibilities of the Publisher

Research Direct Publisher (RDP) provides the journal's online platform, DOI registration through Crossref, long-term preservation through the PKP Preservation Network, and administrative support. RDP:

does not take part in, or influence, editorial decisions on individual manuscripts;
supports editors in investigating ethical concerns and in publishing corrections, expressions of concern and retractions;
keeps any services it offers separate from the editorial process. Using or not using such services has no effect on how a manuscript is assessed;
keeps a permanent record of every published article, including any correction or retraction notice linked to it.

7. Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest exists when a financial, professional or personal relationship could influence, or could reasonably be seen to influence, a person's judgment about a manuscript.

7.1 Authors

Authors must disclose, at submission and in the published article, any relevant employment, consultancy, funding, grants, patents, share ownership, or personal or professional relationships. If there are none, the article must state: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest." Every source of funding must be named in a Funding Statement. If there was no funding, state: "This research received no external funding."

7.2 Reviewers and editors

Reviewers and editors must not take part in assessing a manuscript if they:

work at the same institution as any author;
have co-authored, collaborated or shared a grant with any author in the last three years;
have, or have had, a supervisor–student or mentor–mentee relationship with any author;
are a relative or close personal friend of any author, or have a known personal disagreement with any author;
have a financial interest in the outcome of the work; or
have any other interest that could reasonably be seen to affect their objectivity.

8. Plagiarism and Similarity Checking

Plagiarism means presenting someone else's words, ideas, data, figures, code or results as one's own without proper credit. It includes:

copying text word for word, or with only minor changes, without quotation marks and a citation;
paraphrasing someone else's work closely without citing it;
reusing figures, tables, equations or code without citing the source and, where required, obtaining permission;
reusing substantial parts of the authors' own published work without citing it (self-plagiarism or text recycling);
translating another person's work without citing it.

All submissions are checked with Turnitin at submission and again before acceptance. Only manuscripts with an overall similarity index below 20% (excluding the reference list) go on to be assessed for quality. A score below 20% does not by itself mean a manuscript is acceptable: editors also examine the report for large overlap with a single source, copied passages, or disguised plagiarism (for example, paraphrasing tools or character substitution). Plagiarism found after publication is handled under Sections 10 and 12.

9. Use of Generative AI

This section is consistent with the AI guidance in the Guide for Authors.

9.1 Authors

Generative AI or AI-assisted tools may be used only to improve the language and readability of the manuscript, under human supervision. They must not be used to generate the scientific content, analysis, conclusions or references.
Authors are fully responsible for the content of the manuscript and must check any text produced with AI help for accuracy, bias and correct citation.
AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors, and cannot be cited as authors of content, because they cannot take responsibility for the work.
Any use of AI must be disclosed in a separate "AI Use Declaration" section before the references, giving the tool's name and version and what it was used for. If no AI was used, state this.
Generative AI must not be used to create or alter images, figures, artwork or graphical abstracts. The only exception is where AI-based image processing is part of the research method itself; in that case it must be described in enough detail in the Methods section for others to reproduce it.
This policy does not apply to AI or machine-learning methods that are the subject of the research, or that are used for data analysis as part of the study. These must be fully described in the Methods section.

9.2 Reviewers and editors

Reviewers and editors must not upload submitted manuscripts, review reports or decision letters to generative AI tools, or use such tools to evaluate manuscripts or make decisions (see Sections 4 and 5).

10. Research Misconduct and Allegations

10.1 What counts as misconduct

Misconduct includes plagiarism; fabrication or falsification of data, results or images; duplicate or redundant publication; undisclosed conflicts of interest; authorship misconduct; misrepresented affiliations; manipulating peer review (for example, suggesting fake reviewers or giving fake reviewer contact details); manipulating citations (for example, coercive citation or citation exchanges between authors); manuscripts produced by commercial "paper mills"; and research carried out without the required ethics approval or consent.

10.2 How to report a concern

Concerns about a submitted or published article can be sent to the editorial office at editor@ijtaci.com. If a concern involves the Editor-in-Chief, it should be sent to the publisher at contact@rdpub.co, marked for the attention of the Managing Editor. Anonymous reports are accepted and investigated if they include enough specific evidence.

10.3 How concerns are handled

The editorial office acknowledges the report and treats it confidentially.
An editor with no conflict of interest checks whether the concern is specific and supported by evidence. If it concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the Managing Editor appoints a senior board member to handle it.
The authors are given a fair opportunity to respond.
The journal follows the relevant COPE flowcharts and, where necessary, contacts the authors' institution(s), funders or independent experts.
Where possible, the person who raised the concern receives a final response within four weeks. If the investigation takes longer, they receive an interim update within that time.

Possible outcomes include: no action, if the concern is not supported; asking the authors to explain or provide data; rejecting the manuscript; publishing a correction, expression of concern or retraction; informing the authors' institution; and, in serious cases, refusing further submissions from the authors for a set period.

11. Appeals and Complaints

11.1 Appeals against editorial decisions

Authors who believe a decision was based on a factual error, a misunderstanding or an unfair review may appeal once, within 30 days of the decision, by emailing editor@ijtaci.com. The appeal must give specific scientific reasons and respond point by point to the reviewers' comments. It is handled by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, who may ask for an additional independent review. Authors are normally informed of the outcome within four weeks, and the decision on appeal is final. A manuscript under appeal must not be submitted to another journal until the appeal is concluded.

11.2 Complaints

Complaints about the journal's processes, editors or staff should be sent to editor@ijtaci.com, or, if the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, to contact@rdpub.co. Complaints are acknowledged, investigated by a person not involved in the matter, and answered in writing. Readers with questions about the content of a published article are encouraged to contact the corresponding author first, and then the editorial office if the matter is not resolved.

12. Corrections, Expressions of Concern and Retractions

IJTACI keeps the published record accurate and permanent. Published articles are never deleted. Every update is made openly, and the updated metadata is sent to Crossref and to the indexing services.

Minor errors such as spelling, grammar or layout errors that do not affect meaning are not normally corrected after publication.
Metadata errors such as an incorrectly spelled author name, affiliation or title in the metadata may be corrected at the editorial office's discretion, and the updated metadata is sent to the indexing services.
Corrections are published when an error affects the scientific record but not the main conclusions: for example, errors in data, figures, tables or equations, missing funding or conflict-of-interest information, or a change to the author list. The article is updated and a separate, citable Correction notice is published in the current volume and linked to the article.
Expressions of Concern may be published while an investigation is under way, or when there is reasonable doubt about an article's reliability but the evidence is not conclusive.
Retractions are made when there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, whether because of misconduct or honest error, or in cases of plagiarism, duplicate publication, paper-mill production, compromised peer review, or unethical research. A retracted article stays online, clearly marked "Retracted", and is linked to a free retraction notice that explains the reason and states who requested the retraction. Retraction is used to correct the scientific record, not to punish authors.
Author name changes. Authors who have changed their name (for example, after marriage, divorce, gender transition or religious conversion) may ask for their published articles to be updated. To protect their privacy, this is done without publishing a Correction notice and without informing the co-authors.

13. Contact

Editorial office: editor@ijtaci.com
Publisher (concerns involving the Editor-in-Chief): Research Direct Publisher, contact@rdpub.co

COPE resources used by IJTACI

This statement is reviewed every year. Last updated: October 2026.