1. Originality and Plagiarism:

   1. Authors must ensure that their manuscripts are original works and have not been published elsewhere. Any form of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is strictly prohibited.
   2. Proper citations must be provided for any content derived from other sources.

2. Multiple or Redundant Publications:

   1. Authors should not submit the same research to more than one journal simultaneously. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals constitutes unethical publishing behavior.

3. Data Accuracy and Falsification:

   1. Authors must present accurate and truthful data in their manuscripts. Fabrication, manipulation, or falsification of data is considered unethical and unacceptable.
   2. Authors should be prepared to provide raw data for editorial review if requested.

4. Acknowledgment of Sources:

   1. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in shaping their research.

5. Authorship of the Manuscript:

   1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.
   2. All contributors who do not meet the authorship criteria should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgments” section.
   3. The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication.

6. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest:

   1. All authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships that could be perceived as influencing their research (conflicts of interest). Funding sources must also be disclosed.

7. Human and Animal Rights:

   1. Authors conducting research involving human participants or animals must ensure that the study follows ethical standards, including obtaining appropriate institutional approvals.
   2. A statement confirming that ethical standards were met must be included in the manuscript.

8. Corrections and Retractions:

   1. If authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they are required to promptly notify the journal editor and cooperate in retracting or correcting the paper.

1. Publication Decisions: The editor-in-chief has full authority over the editorial content and publication decisions. Editors are responsible for deciding which of the submitted manuscripts will be published based on their academic merit and alignment with the journal’s scope.

2. Fair Play: Editors must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

3. Confidentiality: Editors must ensure the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and not disclose any information about a manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, or other editorial advisers.

4. Conflicts of Interest: Editors should not be involved in decisions about manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest, whether through competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

5. Ethical Concerns and Investigations:

   1. Editors should take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification.
   2. If ethical concerns are raised about a submitted manuscript or published paper, editors will follow COPE’s flowcharts to investigate and take appropriate action, which may include issuing a correction, retraction, or other notes.

1. Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat the manuscripts they receive for review as confidential documents. They must not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone outside of the review process.

2. Objectivity: Reviews must be conducted objectively, and reviewers must express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.

3. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. If reviewers notice any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and any other published paper, they should report it to the editor.

4. Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

5. Timeliness: Reviewers should complete their reviews within the specified timeline. If they are unable to do so, they should inform the editor promptly and excuse themselves from the review process.

1. Editorial Independence: The publisher is committed to ensuring that editorial decisions are based on academic merit and are free from external influence. The publisher does not interfere with the editorial process or decisions made by the editorial board.

2. Ethical Oversight: The publisher ensures that the journal adheres to ethical standards for research integrity, plagiarism prevention, and conflict of interest management. The publisher works closely with COPE to address any ethical issues that arise.

3. Corrections and Retractions: In cases of proven scientific misconduct, plagiarism, or fraudulent publication, the publisher, in collaboration with the editor, will take appropriate measures to correct or retract the affected paper.

4. Archiving and Access: The publisher ensures that content published in GRR is securely archived and freely accessible in compliance with the journal’s open-access policy.

If ethical misconduct is detected in a submission to Global Regional Review (GRR), the journal follows the procedures outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to address the issue. Below are the steps that are typically taken in such cases:

1. Investigation of the Misconduct
   1. Initial Assessment: Upon detecting or receiving a report of possible ethical misconduct, the editor-in-chief, along with the editorial board, will conduct an initial assessment to determine the validity of the claim.
   2. Confidential Inquiry: The parties involved (authors, reviewers, etc.) will be notified confidentially, and further information or clarification may be requested from them.
   3. Cooperation with Institutions: In cases of severe misconduct, such as fabrication of data or plagiarism, the editor may contact the author’s institution or research body to seek their assistance in investigating the matter.
2. Possible Outcomes: Depending on the severity of the ethical breach, the following actions may be taken:
   1. For Minor Misconduct (e.g., Minor Plagiarism or Misattribution of Citations):
      1. Author Notification: The author may be contacted and asked to revise the manuscript to correct the issue (e.g., properly cite sources).
      2. Correction in Published Article: If the paper has already been published, a correction or clarification may be issued.
   2. For Major Misconduct (e.g., Fabrication of Data, Substantial Plagiarism):
      1. Rejection Before Publication: If misconduct is detected during the review process, the manuscript will be rejected outright.
      2. Retraction of Published Paper: If a paper has already been published, and the misconduct is confirmed, GRR will retract the article. A retraction notice will be issued, explaining the reasons for the retraction, and the paper will remain available with a clear retraction label.
      3. Ban on Future Submissions: Authors found guilty of serious misconduct may be banned from submitting to GRR in the future.
      4. Notification of Affected Parties: The editor will notify the author’s institution, funding agencies, and possibly other relevant bodies to address the ethical breach.
3. Retraction and Correction Procedures
   1. Retraction Notice: In the case of retraction, GRR will issue a formal retraction notice that details the reasons for the retraction, ensuring transparency for readers.
   2. Corrections and Errata: For less severe cases where corrections are sufficient (e.g., unintentional errors or misreporting), an erratum or correction may be issued without retracting the paper.
4. Appeals Process
   1. Opportunity to Respond: Authors accused of misconduct will be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations. The journal will consider the author’s defense before making a final decision.
   2. Appeal: If authors disagree with the decision, they may submit an appeal. The journal will review the appeal and, if warranted, re-investigate the case with appropriate evidence.
5. 5. Transparency and Integrity
   1. Public Disclosure: Any actions taken regarding ethical misconduct, such as retraction or correction, will be communicated clearly to the public to maintain transparency and the journal's integrity.
   2. Prevention: GRR uses tools like plagiarism detection software to prevent ethical misconduct before publication.
6. Guidance from COPE: For all ethical issues, GRR follows the COPE guidelines and flowcharts, ensuring that decisions are fair, transparent, and consistent with best practices in scholarly publishing.