Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Upholding the highest standards of publication ethics following COPE guidelines.
COPE CompliantPublication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Upholding the highest standards of publication ethics following COPE guidelines.
✓ COPE CompliantPublication Ethics & Guidelines
Rambis is a peer-reviewed journal committed to the highest standards of publication ethics. This statement explains the ethical behavior expected of all parties involved in publishing — including authors, editors, reviewers, editorial board members, and publishers.
This statement is based on the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. Articles published in this journal are an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected knowledge network, directly reflecting the quality of work of the authors and the institutions that support them.
Guided by COPE Best PracticesOur editorial policies uphold integrity, fairness, and transparency at every stage of the publication process.
Publication Decisions
Editors are responsible for deciding which submitted articles should be published. Decisions are guided by the editorial board's discretion and bounded by legal requirements, including those concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may consult with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Complaints & Appeals
The journal maintains a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, editorial staff, editorial board, or publisher. Complaints are clarified by a respected person regarding the case — covering editorial processes, citation manipulation, unfair peer review, and more. All complaint cases are processed according to COPE guidelines.
Post-Publication
The journal permits the publication of debate posts either on its website, by letter to the editor, or on a moderated external site, ensuring ongoing scholarly conversation and correction of the scientific record after publication.
Fair Play
Editors evaluate manuscripts at all times solely for their intellectual content — without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality
Editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the respective authors, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisors, and publishers, as appropriate.
Disclosure & Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished material disclosed in submitted manuscripts may not be used in an editor's own research without the explicit written consent of the author. All financial and substantive conflicts of interest must be disclosed by all parties involved in the publication process.
Alleged Research Infringement
Research infringement means falsification, fabrication, manipulation of citations, or plagiarism in producing, conducting, or reviewing research and in writing articles. When authors are found to be involved in research violations or other serious irregularities involving published articles, the Editor has a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.
In cases of suspected violations, the Editors and Editorial Board will use COPE best practices to resolve complaints fairly. This includes an investigation into the allegations. Submissions found to contain such errors will be rejected; published papers may be subject to retraction, which will be linked to the original article.
The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and assessing whether it is consistent with the definition of research misconduct, as well as whether there exists a relevant conflict of interest. If a scientific error is possible, the allegations are shared with the relevant authors, who are asked to provide a detailed response. Additional expert review (e.g., statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For minor cases, clarification or corrections published as a letter to the editor may be sufficient.
Institutions are expected to conduct proper investigations into suspected scientific misconduct. Appropriate actions — corrections, retractions with replacements, or full retractions — ensure the integrity of the scientific record is preserved.
The following procedures explain how authorship, competing interests, research misconduct, and post-publication communication are addressed.
Authorship Criteria
Authorship is reserved for individuals who make a substantial scholarly contribution to the work, participate in drafting or critically revising the manuscript, approve the final version, and agree to be accountable for their contributions. Contributors who do not meet these criteria should be acknowledged with their permission.
The corresponding author is responsible for confirming the author list, affiliation details, contribution statements, and approval of every co-author before submission. Guest, gift, and ghost authorship are not acceptable.
Requests to add, remove, or rearrange authors after submission must include a written explanation and documented agreement from all affected authors. The editor evaluates the request before deciding whether a change may be made. Authorship disputes may be referred to the authors' institutions.
Conflict of Interest Policy
Authors must disclose financial and non-financial interests that could reasonably be perceived to influence the research, including funding, employment, consultancy, personal relationships, institutional affiliations, and relevant intellectual-property interests. An explicit declaration is required even when there are no competing interests.
Editors and reviewers must promptly disclose actual or potential conflicts. An editor with a conflict must not manage the editorial decision, and a reviewer with a conflict should decline the invitation or seek instructions from the editor. A non-conflicted editor or reviewer should be assigned where necessary.
Disclosures are assessed by the editorial team. The existence of a conflict does not automatically disqualify a manuscript, but undisclosed conflicts may require correction or further investigation.
Post-Publication Discussion
Readers, authors, and researchers may raise evidence-based questions or concerns about a published article through the journal's official contact channel or a letter to the editor. Submissions should identify the article, describe the issue clearly, and provide supporting evidence.
The editorial team assesses whether the correspondence is relevant, substantive, and respectful, and may invite the authors to respond. When appropriate, the journal may publish an editorial response, scholarly discussion, expression of concern, correction, or retraction notice. Personal attacks, unsupported allegations, and disclosure of confidential information are not acceptable.
Concerns involving the integrity of the published record are considered under the journal's research-misconduct and correction-and-retraction procedures.
Allegations of Research Misconduct: Procedure
Allegations may concern fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, citation manipulation, unethical research practices, or other serious breaches of publication ethics. Complaints should identify the relevant manuscript or article and include sufficient supporting evidence.
Editors first conduct an initial assessment, preserve relevant records, consider conflicts of interest, and seek a response from the concerned author when appropriate. Additional expert advice or an institutional investigation may be requested. Allegations are handled impartially and with due regard for confidentiality and the rights of all parties.
Depending on the findings and the stage of publication, outcomes may include no further action, clarification, additional review, rejection, correction, an expression of concern, or retraction. When required, notices should be linked to the original publication and explain the reason for the action.
Rambis has zero tolerance for plagiarism. Every manuscript is screened for originality before it enters peer review and again before publication.
Originality Screening
All submitted manuscripts are checked using Turnitin similarity detection software. The check is performed by the editorial team at the initial screening stage, before the manuscript is sent to reviewers, and repeated on the final revised version before publication.
The similarity report is assessed by the editor, not only by its percentage. Matches with bibliography, properly quoted and cited text, and common terminology are taken into account when interpreting the report. Plagiarism in any form is considered unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable, including:
A manuscript may proceed to peer review only if its overall Turnitin similarity score does not exceed 20%. Authors are encouraged to check their manuscripts before submission.
Proceed to Review
The manuscript continues to the peer review process. The editor still examines highlighted passages and may request minor revisions to matched sections.
Returned for Revision
The manuscript is returned to the author together with the similarity report. The author must rewrite and properly cite the matched parts before resubmission. A manuscript that still exceeds 20% after revision will be rejected.
Rejection or Retraction
Substantial copying without citation, duplicate submission, or use of others' work as one's own leads to immediate rejection regardless of the percentage. If detected after publication, the article will be retracted and the retraction notice linked to the original article.
Handling Procedure
- Detection Indication of plagiarism is identified through the Turnitin report, reviewer comments, or a report from readers after publication.
- Editorial Assessment The editor examines the evidence, compares the manuscript with the original source, and determines the severity of the case.
- Author Notification The corresponding author receives the evidence and the similarity report and is asked to provide a written explanation within the given time.
- Decision Based on the author's response, the editorial board decides on revision, rejection, correction, or retraction, following COPE flowcharts.
- Follow-up Sanctions For serious or repeated cases, the author's institution may be informed and the author may be barred from submitting to the journal for a period determined by the editorial board.
Data Sharing Policy
Rambis is committed to a more open research landscape — facilitating faster and more effective research discovery by enabling reproducibility and verification of data, methodologies, and reporting standards. We encourage authors to share their research data upon publication.
Ethical publication depends on every stakeholder fulfilling their responsibilities with integrity and transparency.
Duties of Editors
Editorial integrity & decision-making
Duties of Reviewers
Objective, timely, and constructive review
Duties of Authors
Accuracy, originality & transparency
Additional requirements for research involving special ethical considerations.
Research Involving Hazards
If research work involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript to comply with the ethical conduct of research using both animal and human subjects. If required, authors must provide legal and ethical permissions from the appropriate legal associations or organizations.
Confidential Data & Business Practices
If the research involves confidential data and business or marketing practices, the author must clearly justify in the manuscript whether the data or information will be securely protected or disclosed. Transparency about data handling obligations is required to maintain the trust and integrity of the publication process.