International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal "Expert"
Publication Ethics
Research Integrity and Publication Misconduct Policy
The International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert” is committed to protecting the reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scholarly record.
This policy defines the ethical requirements applicable to authors, editors, reviewers, members of the Editorial Board, and the Publisher. It also establishes the Journal’s procedure for receiving, assessing, and resolving concerns relating to research integrity, publication misconduct, submitted manuscripts, and published scholarly works.
The Journal applies its own editorial procedures and institutional policies. Internationally recognised guidance and research-integrity frameworks, including the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) , the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing , developed jointly by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME, and the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity — Revised Edition 2023 (ALLEA) , are used as reference points where relevant.
External guidance does not replace the Journal’s own responsibility for interpreting and applying its policies and procedures.
1. Principles of Research and Publication Integrity
Research submitted to the Journal must be conducted and reported honestly, transparently, responsibly, and in a manner that enables appropriate scholarly assessment.
The Journal expects submitted work to demonstrate:
- originality and proper acknowledgement of sources;
- accurate and responsible presentation of research methods, data, analysis, and conclusions;
- transparent authorship and contributor attribution;
- disclosure of relevant funding and conflicts of interest;
- compliance with applicable ethical and legal requirements;
- responsible use and disclosure of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies;
- cooperation with legitimate editorial requests concerning research integrity.
Editorial evaluation is based on scholarly merit, methodological quality, relevance to the Journal’s scope, clarity of presentation, and contribution to knowledge.
Editorial decisions concerning acceptance, revision, or rejection are independent of the Publisher and are not determined by Article Processing Charges, institutional status, nationality, personal relationships, or other non-scholarly considerations.
Related: Editorial Policies
4. Research Data and Reliability
Authors are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of research data, calculations, analyses, interpretations, and other materials supporting the conclusions of the manuscript.
Where necessary for editorial assessment or the consideration of an integrity concern, the Journal may request relevant supporting materials, including:
- underlying or source data;
- analytical files;
- methodological documentation;
- research instruments;
- information concerning data provenance;
- ethics approvals or consent documentation;
- other materials reasonably necessary to verify the reliability of the work.
The inability or refusal to provide relevant supporting information may be taken into account where serious concerns about the reliability of the manuscript have arisen.
Data access and sharing remain subject to applicable legal, ethical, privacy, confidentiality, contractual, and third-party restrictions.
Authors must provide the Data Availability statement required under the Journal’s Publication Conditions.
Related: Publication Conditions
5. Citation and Source Integrity
References must be selected and used for legitimate scholarly purposes.
Authors must not engage in citation manipulation intended primarily to increase the citation counts or perceived influence of particular authors, journals, institutions, or publications.
Editors and reviewers must not require the addition of citations that are unrelated to the scholarly substance of the manuscript.
Where inappropriate citation practices or coordinated citation manipulation are suspected, the Editorial Office may request clarification and consider the matter under this policy.
6. Conflicts of Interest and Funding
Authors must disclose financial, professional, institutional, personal, editorial, or other interests that could reasonably be perceived as affecting the research, its interpretation, or the publication process.
Sources of research funding must be disclosed in accordance with the Journal’s Article Declarations requirements.
For published articles, conflict-of-interest information is presented in the dedicated Conflicts of Interest section within the unified declarations/metadata block.
Editors and reviewers must disclose conflicts that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.
Where a relevant conflict exists, the editor or reviewer must withdraw from involvement in the manuscript or case.
Related: Editorial Policies · Publication Conditions
7. Research Involving Human Participants, Animals, or Protected Data
Research involving human participants, animals, personal data, or other activities subject to formal ethical or legal oversight must comply with the requirements applicable to the research concerned.
Where ethics approval is required, authors must provide appropriate information concerning the approving body and, where available, the approval or reference number.
Where informed consent is required, authors are responsible for ensuring that appropriate consent has been obtained.
The Journal may request evidence of:
- ethics approval;
- informed consent;
- permissions;
- data-protection compliance;
- other relevant ethical documentation.
8. Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies
The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies must comply with the Journal’s Generative AI Policy and applicable requirements contained in the Publication Conditions .
Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and scholarly validity of submitted content.
Where generative AI or AI-assisted technologies have been used in a manner requiring disclosure, authors must provide the applicable AI Use Disclosure.
Generative AI systems cannot assume responsibility for scholarly authorship and must not be treated as substitutes for accountable human authors.
Editors and reviewers must protect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and comply with the Journal’s restrictions concerning the use of generative AI and external AI services in editorial and peer-review processes.
Scientific evaluation and editorial decision-making remain human responsibilities.
9. Responsibilities of Editors and Editorial Independence
Editors are responsible for protecting the integrity, confidentiality, fairness, and independence of the editorial process.
Editors must:
- assess manuscripts according to scholarly criteria and Journal policies;
- protect confidential manuscript information;
- avoid using unpublished material for personal or professional advantage;
- disclose relevant conflicts of interest;
- withdraw from handling manuscripts or integrity cases where impartiality cannot reasonably be ensured;
- respond appropriately to credible research-integrity or publication-ethics concerns;
- ensure that significant ethics-related actions and decisions are appropriately documented.
Editorial decisions concerning manuscripts are made independently of the Publisher.
The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for the administration of editorial processes but must not personally determine a matter in which they have a relevant conflict of interest.
Where the Editor-in-Chief is conflicted, responsibility must be transferred to a qualified, non-conflicted member of the Editorial Board or another appropriately designated independent editor.
Related: Editorial Policies
10. Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers must conduct their assessments independently, objectively, confidentially, and within the scope of their academic expertise.
Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest that could affect or reasonably appear to affect their impartiality and must decline or withdraw from the review where appropriate.
Manuscripts and associated materials received for review are confidential. Reviewers must not disclose or use unpublished information for purposes unrelated to the review.
Reviewers must comply with the Journal’s restrictions concerning the use of generative AI or external AI services in peer review.
Where a reviewer identifies possible plagiarism, fabrication, inappropriate citation practices, undisclosed conflicts, duplicate publication, peer-review manipulation, or another integrity concern, the matter should be reported confidentially to the handling editor rather than independently investigated by the reviewer.
Related: Review Ethics · Guidelines for Reviewers
11. Manuscripts Submitted by Editorial Board Members or Other Persons Associated with the Journal
Membership in the Editorial Board or another formal relationship with the Journal does not provide preferential treatment in manuscript evaluation.
Where an Editor-in-Chief, editor, Editorial Board member, reviewer, Publisher representative, or another person associated with the Journal is an author or co-author of a manuscript, that person must not participate in:
- reviewer selection;
- peer-review management;
- assessment of reviewer reports;
- editorial correspondence concerning the evaluation;
- the final publication decision.
The manuscript must be handled by a qualified person who has no relevant conflict of interest.
Where the Editor-in-Chief is an author or otherwise conflicted, the manuscript must be assigned to a non-conflicted qualified member of the Editorial Board or another appropriately designated independent editor.
Where applicable, the published article must contain an appropriate conflict-of-interest disclosure.
12. Similarity Screening
Similarity reports are interpreted by editors and are not treated as automatic evidence of plagiarism.
No finding of plagiarism or other publication misconduct is made solely on the basis of a numerical similarity score. The nature of the overlap, its context, attribution, source, and scholarly significance are considered during editorial assessment.
Where the identified similarity raises a substantive integrity concern, the Journal may request clarification or supporting information and proceed under the procedure set out below.
13. Reporting Research or Publication Integrity Concerns
Concerns may relate to a submitted manuscript, a published article, peer review, authorship, data integrity, citation practices, undisclosed conflicts of interest, generative AI use, or other matters relevant to research or publication integrity.
Concerns may be raised by authors, reviewers, readers, editors, institutions, or other parties.
A concern should contain sufficient information to:
- identify the manuscript or publication concerned;
- explain the nature of the issue;
- identify relevant evidence or supporting information where available.
Concerns may be submitted to the Editorial Office through the Contact page or directly by e-mail to editor@aspect-pro.bg .
Anonymous concerns may be considered where they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information.
A credible concern is not dismissed solely because of the identity, affiliation, or status of the person raising it.
14. Procedure for Handling Allegations and Integrity Concerns
Registration and Acknowledgement
The Editorial Office records the concern and the supporting materials received.
Receipt of a sufficiently identifiable concern will normally be acknowledged within five working days.
Preliminary Assessment
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated non-conflicted member of the Editorial Board conducts an initial assessment to determine:
- whether the matter falls within the Journal’s responsibilities;
- whether sufficient information is available for further consideration;
- whether clarification or additional evidence is required;
- whether immediate protective action is necessary;
- whether any person involved in handling the matter has a relevant conflict of interest.
The purpose of the preliminary assessment is not to presume misconduct but to determine the appropriate next procedural step.
Conflicts of Interest and Independent Handling
Any person with a material conflict of interest must not participate in the assessment or decision.
Where the Editor-in-Chief has a relevant conflict of interest, responsibility for the matter is transferred to a qualified non-conflicted member of the Editorial Board or another appropriately designated independent editor.
Where a concern involves the Publisher, the matter must be considered through an independent process that excludes persons directly involved in the issue.
Where the preliminary assessment indicates that further independent consideration is required, the matter is assigned to a qualified non-conflicted member of the Editorial Board or another appropriately designated independent editor, taking into account the nature of the concern and the applicable Journal procedure. Where appropriate, additional qualified non-conflicted persons may be consulted or involved.
Request for Clarification or Evidence
Where clarification is required, the corresponding author or other relevant party will normally be invited to respond within ten working days.
Depending on the matter, the Journal may request:
- underlying research data;
- analytical or methodological files;
- ethics approvals or consent documentation;
- evidence concerning authorship or contributor roles;
- relevant correspondence;
- source materials;
- disclosure records;
- information concerning the use of generative AI or automated tools;
- other evidence reasonably necessary to understand the concern.
Additional time may be allowed where justified by the circumstances.
Institutional or External Involvement
The Journal conducts editorial assessment of matters affecting manuscripts and the scholarly record but does not replace universities, employers, research institutions, ethics bodies, regulatory authorities, or other organisations empowered to conduct formal investigations.
Where a serious matter cannot be resolved through editorial assessment alone, the Journal may contact:
- the author’s institution;
- a research-integrity office;
- an ethics committee;
- a funding body;
- another competent organisation.
The Journal may take appropriate editorial action while an external investigation is pending where this is necessary to protect the integrity of the publication process or scholarly record.
Editorial Determination
After considering the available information, the Journal documents the outcome and determines whether editorial action is required.
Persons with a relevant conflict of interest do not participate in the determination.
The nature of any action depends on the seriousness of the concern, the available evidence, the stage of publication, and the potential effect on the reliability or integrity of the scholarly record.
15. Possible Editorial Outcomes
For manuscripts that have not yet been published, possible outcomes may include:
- no further action;
- request for clarification or correction;
- request for additional supporting information;
- suspension of editorial processing while a matter is examined;
- rejection of the manuscript;
- referral to an institution or other competent body.
For published articles, an integrity concern may lead to:
- correction;
- corrigendum or erratum;
- addendum;
- Expression of Concern;
- retraction;
- article removal in exceptional circumstances.
Post-publication measures: Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern & Article Removal Policy
16. Post-Publication Integrity and Administrative Withdrawal
Where an integrity concern affects already published content, the Journal acts to protect the accuracy and transparency of the scholarly record.
Corrections, retractions, Expressions of Concern, and article removal are governed by the Journal’s Corrections, Retractions, Expressions of Concern & Article Removal Policy .
Administrative cases are governed separately by the Journal’s Administrative Article Withdrawal Policy .
17. Complaints and Appeals
Complaints concerning editorial handling, publication ethics, Journal procedures, or decisions arising from an ethics-related matter, and appeals against editorial decisions, are handled in accordance with the Journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy .
A complaint or appeal may be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office by e-mail or through the dedicated Submit a Complaint or Appeal mechanism available on the Complaints and Appeals page.
The submission should identify the matter concerned, explain the complaint or substantive grounds for appeal, and provide relevant supporting information where available.
Complaints and appeals are subject to an Initial Scope and Admissibility Review under the Complaints and Appeals Policy. This initial review does not determine whether the matter is substantively justified.
Where substantive consideration is required, the matter is handled by an appropriate non-conflicted editorial authority. Appeals against editorial decisions are independently reviewed in accordance with the governance and conflict-of-interest provisions established in the Complaints and Appeals Policy.
The outcome and reasons are communicated and appropriately documented subject to applicable confidentiality requirements.
Related: Complaints and Appeals
18. Confidentiality and Record Keeping
Research-integrity and publication-ethics matters are handled with appropriate confidentiality.
Information concerning a case is shared only where reasonably necessary for:
- editorial assessment;
- obtaining clarification or evidence;
- independent consideration;
- institutional or external investigation;
- implementation of an editorial decision;
- protection of the scholarly record.
The Editorial Office retains appropriate documentation concerning significant integrity matters, including relevant correspondence, evidence considered, conflicts and recusals, decisions, and post-publication actions.
Confidentiality does not prevent the Journal from contacting an institution or competent body where external involvement is justified.
19. External Standards and Reference Framework
This Publication Ethics Policy is an institutional policy of the International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert”.
In developing and applying its procedures, the Journal refers, where relevant, to internationally recognised guidance and research-integrity frameworks, including:
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
- Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing — Version 4 , developed jointly by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME
- The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity — Revised Edition 2023 (ALLEA)
- applicable ethical and legal standards governing research involving human participants, animals, personal data, and protected information
These sources are used as reference frameworks. Their wording is not incorporated as a substitute for the Journal’s own policies, procedures, or editorial responsibility.
20. Policy Governance and Review
This policy is owned by the Editorial Board of the International Interdisciplinary Scientific Journal “Expert” and approved by the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.
The policy is reviewed periodically and may be updated in response to:
- developments in research and publication ethics;
- changes in international guidance;
- applicable legal or regulatory requirements;
- changes in Journal procedures;
- experience gained through the application of the policy.
Material revisions are identified through the version number and review date displayed at the beginning of this policy.
Journal Policies, Standards and Procedures
The following documents form the Journal’s integrated framework for editorial governance, research integrity, peer review, author and publication requirements, transparency, open access, and preservation of the scholarly record.