The journal’s Ethics and Malpractice Policy is guided by the COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, and we adhere to COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers standards accordingly. Some main points are provided below, but you should refer to the three documents above for comprehensive details.

Duties of Editors

1. Fair play and editorial independence

Manuscripts submitted to the journal are assessed solely on their scholarly value, such as significance, originality, methodological soundness, and clarity, as well as their relevance to the journal’s scope. Evaluation is conducted without consideration of the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, religion, political views, or institutional background. Editorial and publishing decisions are made independently of governmental or external influences. The Editor-in-Chief retains complete authority over the journal’s editorial content and the scheduling of its publication.

2. Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff are committed to confidentiality and will share details of a submitted manuscript only with the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisers, and the publisher, when necessary.

3. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished material revealed in a submitted manuscript will not be used by editors or editorial board members in their own research without the author’s explicit written permission. Any privileged information or ideas gained during the review process will remain confidential and must not be exploited for personal benefit. In cases where editors have a conflict of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, affiliated institutions, or companies, they will withdraw from handling the manuscript and delegate the responsibility to another editorial board member.

4. Publication decisions

Editors ensure that every manuscript submitted for possible publication is evaluated through peer review by at least two experts in the relevant field. The Editor in Chief holds the final responsibility for determining which manuscripts will be published, taking into account the validity of the research, its significance for readers and the scholarly community, reviewers’ feedback, and applicable legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, and plagiarism. In making these decisions, the Editor in Chief may consult with other editors or reviewers.

5. Involvement and cooperation in investigations

When ethical issues are raised concerning a submitted manuscript or a published article, the editors, together with the publisher or society when appropriate, will take the necessary steps to address them. All allegations of unethical publishing practices will be investigated, regardless of when they are reported, even if discovered years after publication. In handling cases of suspected misconduct, AP-SMART editors adhere to the COPE Flowcharts. If an investigation confirms the validity of the concern, the journal will issue a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or any other notice deemed appropriate.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review supports editors in making publication decisions and, through feedback provided to authors, also helps enhance the quality of manuscripts. As a cornerstone of scholarly communication, peer review is fundamental to the advancement of scientific knowledge. AP-SMART affirms the widely held principle that all researchers engaged in the scientific process have a responsibility to contribute their fair share to the peer review system.

2. Promptness

Referees who are invited to review a manuscript but feel unqualified to assess the research, or are unable to provide a timely review, should promptly inform the editors and decline the invitation so that other reviewers may be assigned.

3. Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review are strictly confidential and must be treated accordingly. They should not be shared with or discussed by others unless authorized by the Editor in Chief, and such authorization would only be granted under exceptional and specific circumstances. This rule also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review request. 

4. Standards of objectivity

Reviews must be carried out with objectivity, and feedback should be expressed clearly and supported with sound reasoning to help authors strengthen their manuscripts. Criticizing the authors personally is not acceptable.

5. Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers are responsible for pointing out relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any observation, argument, or derivation previously reported in the literature should be properly referenced. Reviewers must also alert the editors to any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and other works, whether published or unpublished, that they are aware of.

6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Invited reviewers who have a conflict of interest, whether due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the manuscript, must promptly inform the editors, declare the conflict, and decline the review so that another reviewer can be appointed. Unpublished material contained in a submitted manuscript may not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the explicit written permission of the authors. Any privileged information or ideas obtained during the peer review process must remain confidential and must not be used for personal benefit. These requirements also apply to reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting standards

Authors of original research are expected to provide an accurate description of the work conducted and its findings, accompanied by an impartial discussion of its significance. Manuscripts must include enough detail and appropriate references to allow others to replicate the study. Review papers should be thorough, objective, and precise, while editorial or perspective pieces must be clearly distinguished as such. Submitting fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements is considered unethical and will not be tolerated.

2. Data access and retention

Authors may be requested to submit the raw data supporting their study along with the manuscript for editorial evaluation and should be ready to make such data publicly accessible when feasible. In all cases, authors are responsible for ensuring that the data remain available to qualified researchers for at least ten years after publication, preferably through an institutional or subject-based repository or another recognized data center, provided that participant confidentiality is maintained and legal or proprietary restrictions do not prevent disclosure.

3. Originality and plagiarism

Authors must ensure that their submissions are entirely original works, and when they draw on the ideas or words of others, proper citation must be provided. Any publications that have significantly influenced the reported research should be appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism, whether by presenting another’s work as one’s own, copying or paraphrasing substantial portions without credit, or misrepresenting results from research conducted by others, is considered unethical and is strictly unacceptable.

4. Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Manuscripts that present essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary outlet. Therefore, authors must not submit a manuscript to another journal if it has already been published elsewhere. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time is considered unethical and unacceptable. 

In certain cases, however, publishing specific types of articles (such as clinical guidelines or translations) in more than one journal may be permissible, provided specific conditions are fulfilled. Both the authors and the editors of the journals involved must consent to the secondary publication, which should present the same data and interpretation as the original work, and the primary source must be properly cited in the secondary version.

5. Authorship of the manuscript

Authorship should be limited to individuals who meet the established criteria, as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content of the manuscript: (i) contributing substantially to the conception, design, execution, data collection, or analysis and interpretation of the study; (ii) drafting the manuscript or providing critical revisions of significant intellectual value; and (iii) reviewing and approving the final version of the paper and agreeing to its submission. 

Those who contributed meaningfully to the work in other ways, such as providing technical assistance, editorial support, or general guidance, but do not meet authorship criteria should not be listed as authors. Instead, they should be acknowledged in the 'Acknowledgements' section, with their written consent to be named. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that only appropriate coauthors are included, that all coauthors meet the criteria above, and that each has reviewed and approved the final manuscript and its submission.

6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should disclose any potential conflicts of interest as early as possible, typically by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement within the manuscript. Conflicts of interest that could influence the results or their interpretation must be reported. These may include financial interests such as honoraria, research funding, educational grants, participation in speaker programs, employment, consultancies, stock ownership or other equity holdings, paid expert testimony, or patent licensing arrangements. Non-financial conflicts, such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs related to the subject of the manuscript, should also be disclosed. In addition, all sources of financial support for the research must be acknowledged, including grant numbers or other relevant references when applicable.

7. Acknowledgement of sources

Authors must give proper credit to the work of others and cite publications that have significantly shaped the reported research. Information acquired privately, through conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties, should not be used or shared without the explicit written consent of the source. Likewise, authors must not use information obtained while performing confidential roles, such as reviewing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have secured written permission from the author or authors of the material involved.

8. Hazards and human or animal subjects

When research involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment with unusual hazards, authors must clearly highlight these risks in the manuscript. For studies involving animals or human participants, authors are responsible for ensuring that all procedures comply with applicable laws and institutional guidelines and have received approval from the appropriate ethics committee. The manuscript should include a statement confirming this approval. In studies with human participants, authors must also state that informed consent was obtained, and the privacy rights of participants must always be respected.

9. Peer review

Authors are required to engage in the peer review process and cooperate fully by providing editors with raw data, clarifications, and documentation such as ethics approval, patient consent, and copyright permissions when requested. If the initial decision requires revisions, authors must address each reviewer’s comments systematically and promptly, and resubmit the revised manuscript within the specified deadline.

10. Fundamental errors in published works

If authors identify major errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they are responsible for immediately informing the journal’s editors or publisher and working with them to issue a correction (erratum) or retract the article. If editors or the publisher are notified by a third party of such an issue, the authors must promptly correct or retract the work, or provide evidence to the editors demonstrating the accuracy of the paper.

Duties of the Publisher

1. Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

In cases of suspected or confirmed scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in collaboration with the editors, will take appropriate action to address the issue and amend the record. This may involve issuing an erratum, a clarification, or, in serious cases, retracting the affected article. The publisher and editors are also responsible for taking reasonable measures to detect and prevent the publication of work involving research misconduct, and they must never encourage or knowingly permit such practices.

2. Access to journal content

The publisher is dedicated to ensuring the long-term preservation and accessibility of scholarly work by maintaining a digital archive and collaborating with relevant organizations.

Section A: Publication and authorship 

1. All submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous peer review conducted by at least two international experts in the relevant field.
2. The review process follows a blind peer review system.
3. Reviewers evaluate submissions based on criteria such as relevance, validity, significance, originality, clarity, and language.
4. Editorial decisions may result in acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
5. If revisions are requested, resubmission does not guarantee acceptance.
6. Rejected manuscripts will not be reconsidered or re-reviewed.
7. Acceptance of a paper is subject to compliance with legal requirements regarding libel, copyright, and plagiarism.
8. Research must not be submitted to or published in more than one journal.

 Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

1. Authors must confirm that their manuscripts are entirely original work.
2. Authors must declare that the manuscript has not been published previously.
3. Authors must confirm that the manuscript is not under consideration by another journal.
4. Authors are required to take part in the peer review process.
5. Authors are responsible for issuing corrections or retractions when errors are identified.
6. Every listed author must have made a significant contribution to the research.
7. Authors must affirm that all data presented in the manuscript are genuine and accurate.
8. Authors are required to disclose any conflicts of interest to the editors.
9. Authors must properly acknowledge all sources used in the preparation of the manuscript.
10. Authors must promptly inform the editors if they discover errors in their published work.

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

1. Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential and handle them as privileged information.
2. Reviews should be carried out impartially, avoiding any personal criticism of the authors.
3. Reviewers should present their feedback clearly and support their comments with reasoned arguments.
4. Reviewers are expected to point out relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
5. Any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript and other known published works should be reported to the Editor in Chief.
6. Reviewers must decline to evaluate manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the paper.

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

1. Editors hold full authority and responsibility for accepting or rejecting manuscripts.
2. Editors are accountable for the content and overall quality of the journal.
3. Editors should balance the needs of both authors and readers when seeking to enhance the publication.
4. Editors must ensure the quality of published articles and uphold the integrity of the academic record.
5. Corrections or errata must be issued whenever necessary by editors.
6. Editors should be aware of the funding sources behind the research they publish.
7. Decisions must be based solely on the significance, originality, clarity, and relevance of the work to the journal’s scope by editors.
8. Editorial decisions should not be reversed or overturned without a compelling reason.
9. Editors are responsible for maintaining reviewer anonymity.
10. All published research must comply with internationally recognized ethical standards.
11. Papers should only be accepted when there is reasonable certainty of their quality and validity.
12. If misconduct is suspected, whether before or after publication, editors must act and make persistent efforts to resolve the issue.
13. Rejection should not be based on suspicion alone; evidence of misconduct is required.
14. Editors must avoid conflicts of interest involving staff, authors, reviewers, or board members.