Publication ethics
Authorship should be reserved for those who made significant contributions to the research, encompassing its conception, design, execution, or interpretation. All such individuals deserve co-authorship recognition. Others who provided substantial support, such as language editing, should be acknowledged separately.
The corresponding author has the crucial responsibility of ensuring accurate and appropriate co-authorship. This includes confirming all listed contributors deserve inclusion, no one deserving of recognition is omitted, and everyone listed has reviewed and approved the final manuscript, agreeing to its submission for publication.
Careful consideration of authorship order and inclusion is expected before submission. Definitive authorship lists should be provided with the initial manuscript. Any changes involving the addition, deletion, or rearrangement of authors will only be considered by the editor in exceptional circumstances and at their discretion. Such requests must be clearly flagged by the corresponding author, and all co-authors involved must agree to the proposed changes.
Ultimately, all authors collectively share responsibility for the work. Each individual author is accountable for addressing and resolving any questions regarding the accuracy or integrity of any aspect of the research.
To ensure editorial impartiality, all potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed by the editor before taking office. Once appointed, the editor must recuse themselves from any decision-making regarding papers in which they, their family members, or close colleagues have authorship or vested interest, be it financial or otherwise. Such submissions will undergo the journal's standard peer review process completely independently of the editor and their associated research groups. Transparency requires a clear statement disclosing this conflict of interest prominently in any published paper authored by the editor or their affiliates.
Reviewers who have potential conflicts of interest due to professional, collaborative, or personal connections with the authors, companies, or institutions affiliated with the paper under review should consult the editor before agreeing to participate. This includes situations where the reviewer holds competitive interests or potential collaborations. In the event a reviewer recommends citing their own work (or that of their associates) to the author, such suggestions must be solely based on genuine scientific merit and not motivated by personal gain, such as inflating citation counts or boosting the visibility of their research. Transparency and objectivity are paramount throughout the review process.
The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) defines a conflict of interest as "a clash between personal interests (competing interests) and an individual's duty to uphold scientific and publishing integrity, where an observer might question whether personal gain influenced their behavior or judgment." Authors should disclose any financial or personal ties, in the manuscript, that could be perceived as inappropriately biasing their work.
Transparency regarding research funding is crucial. Disclose all sources of financial support for the research and manuscript preparation, along with the sponsor's role (if any) in study design, data collection and analysis, interpretation, writing, and publication decisions. If sponsors had no involvement, state this clearly.
Examples of potential conflicts to disclose include employment, consulting roles, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications, and grants or other funding. Early disclosure of potential conflicts is essential for building trust and safeguarding scientific integrity.
In the event of a rejected article, where you believe compelling grounds exist to contest the decision, such as the emergence of new evidence or a potential misinterpretation of your work by a reviewer, you have the right to appeal the editorial judgment.
To do so, please follow these steps:
1. Submit a written appeal to the journal editor. Clearly state your grounds for appeal and provide any supporting evidence, such as new data or clarifications on your research.
2. The editorial team will carefully consider your appeal. We understand the importance of a fair review process and will give your concerns thorough attention.
3. You'll receive an acknowledgment within 10 days of submitting your appeal. We aim to provide a final decision within 60 days, though complex cases may require additional time.
4. The final decision will be communicated to you in writing. Our decision is final, and you may not appeal the same article more than once.
4. Allegations of research misconduct 
The American Psychological Association (APA) defines research misconduct as the intentional fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism of information or ideas within a research report, or any other intentional behavior that violates scientific integrity. CTU Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development (CTUJoISD) takes such allegations seriously and is committed to a fair, unbiased, and timely response.
All allegations of research misconduct, either pre-publication or post-publication, are treated confidentially and with utmost gravity. Should you wish to report suspected misconduct, please follow these steps:
1. Contact the CTUJoISD editorial team in writing by submitting a detailed statement outlining the allegation and supporting evidence.
2. Inquiry Phase: An initial assessment will be conducted to determine whether the allegation warrants further investigation.
3. Investigation Phase (if applicable): If warranted, a thorough investigation will be initiated to examine the evidence and develop a factual record to determine whether misconduct occurred.
4. Resolution: Based on the findings of the investigation, a decision regarding the allegation will be made and communicated to the relevant parties.
Plagiarism, in all its forms, constitutes a serious form of academic misconduct and is strictly prohibited in CTU Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development. This encompasses, but is not limited to, the complete appropriation of another author's work, the substantial copying or paraphrasing of text without proper attribution, and the misrepresentation of research findings conducted by others.
We expect all submitted content to be based on original research and expressed in the author's own words. Failure to do so constitutes plagiarism and may result in rejection of the manuscript or, in published cases, retraction of the article.
To uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, all articles submitted to the journal are screened through iThenticate, a plagiarism detection system. The maximum acceptable similarity index is set at 20%.
Should your article include an identifiable image (e.g., individual's face) or personal information, providing proof of informed consent is mandatory. A completed consent to publish form serves as evidence for this purpose.
Citations and referencing are important when writing any research, however, researchers should be mindful of the following behaviors:
Self-citation
Excessive self-citation is discouraged. Cited works should be relevant and directly contribute to the present article, not simply included to inflate the author's citation count. When discussing established methodologies or reviewing existing literature, minimize self-citations and prioritize references to the broader field.
Coercive citation
Peer reviewers may suggest relevant publications to bolster your research and arguments. While citing additional sources can be valuable, coerced citations are unethical. This entails including references solely at the reviewer's behest or without a clear academic justification.
We champion both author independence and editorial responsibility. If you feel pressured to include a specific reference due to undue influence or encounter an editor whose ethical practices seem unclear, please do not hesitate to raise your concerns.
'Citation pushing'
The term “citation pushing” refers to the practice of including irrelevant or unnecessary references in an article with the intention of artificially boosting the citation count of a specific individual. This behavior is often observed among groups of individuals who aim to increase each other’s citation scores. At CTUJoISD, we take this unethical behavior very seriously and actively monitor for its occurrence across all our publications. We follow the guidelines set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and will investigate any suspected instances of citation manipulation rigorously. This may involve retracting the article, notifying the author’s institution, and taking further disciplinary action as deemed necessary. We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of integrity and academic rigor in our publications and strongly encourage ethical citation practices within the research community.
8. Article withdrawal, retraction, removal, replacement
Article withdrawal
Authors can choose to withdraw their manuscript from consideration by a journal during the publishing process. This is distinct from retraction, which typically occurs after publication due to scientific misconduct. Withdrawal can be requested for various reasons, including discovering significant errors, experiencing unreasonable review delays, or encountering ethical breaches by the journal itself. The usual method involves an author's letter to the editors, detailing the withdrawal request and reasons. Early withdrawal means the journal returns the unpublished manuscript, allowing editing and resubmission elsewhere. If the article was posted online but not formally published, it's removed and replaced with a withdrawal notification.
Article retraction
Retractions are primarily initiated to address serious breaches of professional ethics, such as multiple submissions, false authorship claims, plagiarism, or data fabrication. Occasionally, they may also be necessary to correct minor errors in publication. This practice, long established in academia, has evolved with standardized procedures adopted by scholarly organizations. CTUJoISD follows these best practices:
- A clear and prominent retraction note titled "Retraction: [article title]" is published in both the print and online versions of a subsequent issue, signed by the authors and/or editor.
- In the online version, readers can easily access the retracted article through a direct link from the retraction note.
- Upon entering the online article, readers are first presented with the retraction note before proceeding to the article itself.
- The original article remains accessible, albeit marked as "retracted" on each page in PDF formats.
Article removal: legal limitations
We almost never remove articles from our online database. This only happens when: The article harms someone's reputation or breaks the law; A court orders us to take it down; Following the article's advice could seriously harm someone. If we remove an article, you'll still see the title and authors, but you won't be able to read the article itself. Instead, you'll see a message explaining why it was removed.
Article replacement
If an article could cause serious harm if people followed its advice, the authors might choose to take it down and replace it with a corrected version. This is called a replacement. When this happens, we'll let you know the article was removed for health reasons and point you to the safe, updated version in its place. You can also see the old version if you'd like, alongside a timeline showing how it was corrected.