•  
  •  
 

Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics

Abbreviation: MKMI | pISSN: 0216-2482 | eISSN: 2356-4067
The Journal adheres to the highest standards of ethical practices in scholarly publishing, following the guidelines and principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maintaining integrity, transparency, and accountability is fundamental to every stage of the publication process. Below are the ethical standards for authors, editors, and reviewers.
Quick Navigation
↓ Authors ↓ Editors ↓ Reviewers

Authors

  • Accurate and Transparency: Authors of original research reports must present a precise and honest account of the work conducted, including an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data should be accurately represented within the manuscript. The paper should include sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the study. Any fraudulent or knowingly misleading statements are considered unethical and will not be tolerated.
  • Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their work is completely original. If any part of the manuscript includes the work or words of others, proper citation and quotation must be provided in accordance with scholarly standards. Plagiarism, in any form, is considered unethical and unacceptable.
  • Misconduct Avoidance: Authors are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity in their research and publication practices. They should avoid any form of misconduct, including but not limited to data fabrication and falsification, image manipulation, plagiarism, duplicate submission, duplicate (redundant) publication, salami slicing (fragmentation), citation manipulation, and improper authorship practices. Upholding ethical standards is essential to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record and the reputation of the journal.
  • Acknowledgment of Sources: All work of others that has influenced the research must be properly acknowledged. Authors should cite relevant publications that have significantly contributed to shaping or guiding the reported work, ensuring appropriate recognition and transparency.
  • Disclosure of Interests and Funding: All authors are required to disclose any financial or other significant conflicts of interest that could be perceived to influence the accuracy, interpretation, or reporting of their manuscript. In addition, all sources of financial support related to the project should be transparently disclosed.

Editors

  • Editors are responsible for overseeing all articles published in MKMI. They should assist authors in understanding and adhering to the journal’s guidelines for authorship and publication.
  • Editorial decisions should be made based solely on the quality, originality, and scientific merit of the manuscript, without influence from the authors’ nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, religion, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation. Editors must decline any assignment where a conflict of interest may arise.
  • The content of the manuscript sent for peer review must be anonymized to ensure the confidentiality of author identities, and the authors’ details should be kept separate from the reviewer’s copy.
  • Reviewers’ comments and editor’s decisions should be communicated clearly to authors, accompanied by reviewer feedback unless it contains offensive or libelous remarks. Editors should also respect requests from authors to exclude specific reviewers, provided such requests are well-justified and practicable.
  • Ensuring the confidentiality of all submissions throughout the review process is a fundamental obligation of the editors and staff.
  • In cases of suspected misconduct, disputes over authorship, or ethical concerns, editors will follow the guidance provided by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts and procedures to handle the situations appropriately and ethically.

Reviewers

  • Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review plays a vital role in assisting the editor to make informed decisions about manuscript suitability for publication. Through constructive communication with authors, reviewers may also help improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript.
  • Promptness: Reviewers who feel unqualified to review a manuscript or anticipate delays should notify the editor promptly and excuse themselves from the review process to ensure timely evaluation.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose or discuss the manuscript with others unless explicitly authorized by the editor.
  • Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be objective, impartial, and based solely on the scientific merit of the work. Personal criticisms or biases are inappropriate. Reviewers should clearly articulate their evaluations with well-supported arguments.
  • Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any observations that certain ideas, derivations, or data have been reported previously must be supported with appropriate citations. Reviewers should also alert the editor to any significant overlap or similarity between the manuscript under review and other published work they are aware of.
  • Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: All privileged information obtained during peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts where conflicts of interest—such as competitive, collaborative, or personal relationships with authors or affiliated institutions—may compromise objectivity.
↑