Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The Paradigm Chronicle

Promoting Responsible Research, Ethical Publication and the Integrity of Scholarly Communication

ETHICAL COMMITMENT

CORE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts represent genuine scholarly work and that all research procedures, data, analyses, interpretations, references and conclusions are presented accurately, honestly and transparently.

✓ Originality: Authors should submit original scholarly work and properly acknowledge all material derived from previous sources.

✓ Accurate Reporting: Research methods, evidence, results and conclusions should be described accurately and should not be fabricated, falsified or deliberately misrepresented.

✓ Proper Attribution: Ideas, quotations, theories, tables, figures, data and other material obtained from external sources must be appropriately acknowledged.

✓ Responsible Authorship: Only persons who have made substantial scholarly contributions should be identified as authors.

✓ Ethical Compliance: Relevant research approvals, informed consent and other ethical permissions should be obtained where required.

✓ Disclosure: Funding, sponsorship, competing interests and other relevant relationships should be transparently declared.

✓ Correction of Errors: Authors should promptly inform the journal if they discover a significant error, inaccuracy or ethical concern in submitted or published work.

Protection of Original Scholarship

All manuscripts must represent original scholarly work. Authors are required to acknowledge the words, arguments, theories, interpretations, data, images, tables, figures and other intellectual contributions of previous researchers.

Direct plagiarism, mosaic plagiarism, inappropriate paraphrasing, translation plagiarism, data plagiarism, image plagiarism and other forms of unattributed intellectual appropriation are inconsistent with responsible publication.

Submitted manuscripts may be examined using similarity-detection software together with editorial assessment. A software-generated similarity percentage is not considered in isolation; the nature, source, location and academic significance of matched content may also be evaluated.

Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling

Exclusive Consideration of Manuscripts

Authors should not submit substantially the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal or publisher. A manuscript submitted to The Paradigm Chronicle should not ordinarily be under active consideration elsewhere.

Publication of substantially identical research, data, analyses or conclusions in multiple publications without transparent disclosure may constitute duplicate or redundant publication.

Where a manuscript substantially develops material from a thesis, dissertation, conference paper, working paper, report or other previous scholarly output, the relationship should be disclosed where appropriate and relevant copyright or publication conditions should be respected.

Responsible Attribution of Authorship

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions to the conception, design, execution, analysis, interpretation or preparation of the research.

All listed authors should approve the final manuscript, agree to submission and accept appropriate responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the work.

Gift authorship, honorary authorship, guest authorship and ghost authorship are inappropriate. Individuals who provided limited administrative, technical, advisory or financial assistance should generally be acknowledged rather than listed as authors.

Requests to add, remove or rearrange authors after submission may require written justification and agreement from relevant contributors and remain subject to editorial review.

Data Fabrication and Falsification

Ethics, Consent and Participant Protection

Research involving human participants, interviews, surveys, personal data, vulnerable populations, educational participants, patients or identifiable records should comply with relevant ethical, institutional and legal requirements.

Ethics approval and informed consent should be obtained where required. Relevant approval, consent or exemption information should be reported in the manuscript when appropriate.

The privacy, dignity, confidentiality and anonymity of research participants should be protected appropriately. Personally identifiable information should not be published unless its inclusion is academically necessary, legally permissible and appropriately authorised.

Responsible Use of Animals in Research

Research involving animals should comply with applicable institutional, professional and legal standards governing humane treatment and responsible scientific use.

Relevant ethical approval details should be reported where required, and research methods should demonstrate appropriate attention to animal welfare and responsible experimental practice.

Conflicts of Interest

Transparency regarding Research Support

Authors should identify relevant research grants, financial support, sponsorship or institutional funding received for the study where applicable.

Where a funder or sponsor influenced study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation or decisions relating to publication, the nature of that involvement should be transparently disclosed.

Editorial Integrity and Independence

Editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts are evaluated fairly, confidentially and according to scholarly merit, relevance, methodological quality and ethical compliance.

✓ Fair Evaluation: Editorial decisions should be based on academic merit rather than inappropriate personal, institutional or commercial considerations.

✓ Editorial Independence: Publication decisions should not be improperly influenced by external commercial, political, financial or unrelated pressures.

✓ Confidentiality: Editors should protect unpublished manuscript information and confidential editorial correspondence.

✓ Appropriate Peer Review: Qualified reviewers should be selected according to subject expertise, methodological competence and absence of significant conflicts.

✓ Ethical Oversight: Credible allegations concerning research or publication misconduct should be examined responsibly and proportionately.

EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE

Ethical Conduct during Peer Review

Reviewers contribute independent scholarly assessment and assist editors in evaluating the quality and suitability of manuscripts. Reviews should be objective, confidential, constructive and free from inappropriate personal bias.

✓ Expertise: Reviewers should accept assignments only where they possess suitable academic or methodological competence.

✓ Confidentiality: Manuscripts and unpublished information must be treated as confidential.

✓ Objectivity: Comments should be reasoned, evidence-based and free from personal criticism.

✓ Conflicts: Reviewers should disclose relevant conflicts and decline assignments where impartial assessment may be compromised.

✓ Citation Ethics: Reviewers should not pressure authors to add irrelevant citations for personal, institutional or journal advantage.

✓ Timeliness: Reviews should be completed within the agreed period wherever reasonably possible.

Independent Scholarly Evaluation

Manuscripts considered suitable after initial editorial screening are ordinarily subjected to a double-blind peer-review process involving at least two qualified reviewers with relevant academic or methodological expertise.

Reviewers evaluate aspects such as originality, academic relevance, methodology, evidence, analysis, interpretation, references, presentation, ethical compliance and scholarly contribution.

Reviewer recommendations inform editorial decision-making but remain advisory. The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or authorised Editorial Committee.

Confidentiality

Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial-intelligence and automated technologies may support certain scholarly activities, but they must not replace original intellectual contribution, independent reasoning, critical interpretation or human responsibility.

Artificial-intelligence systems cannot qualify as authors because authorship requires accountability for the integrity, accuracy and ethical compliance of scholarly work.

Where generative artificial intelligence has been materially used in preparing text, analysis, code, images, data presentation or other substantive content, authors should disclose the nature and purpose of that use in accordance with the journal's applicable AI policy.

Editors and reviewers should not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished data or identifiable manuscript material to public generative-AI platforms where privacy, confidentiality, security or retention conditions cannot be adequately assured.

Accuracy and Responsible Citation

References should correspond to genuine and relevant scholarly sources and should be cited accurately. Authors remain responsible for verifying bibliographic information, quotations and DOI details before submission.

Fabricated references, nonexistent publications, invented quotations and deliberately misleading citation practices are unacceptable.

Citation manipulation, unnecessary self-citation, coordinated citation practices or pressure to cite irrelevant material primarily to increase citation metrics is inconsistent with responsible scholarly publishing.

Copyright and Third-Party Material

Fair Consideration of Complaints and Appeals

Authors and other relevant parties may raise reasoned complaints regarding editorial procedure, publication ethics or another journal-related matter where they believe that a significant issue requires review.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that an important academic, methodological, factual or procedural matter was misunderstood or not adequately considered.

An appeal should identify specific grounds for reconsideration and should provide appropriate scholarly or documentary justification. Mere disagreement with a decision does not automatically establish grounds for reversal.

Where practicable, complaints or appeals involving previous editorial decisions may be examined by an editor or editorial representative capable of providing an appropriately independent assessment.

Responsible Investigation of Ethical Concerns

Credible concerns involving plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, duplicate publication, unethical research, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts or other possible publication misconduct may be examined by the journal.

An allegation should not automatically be treated as proof of misconduct. Relevant authors or other parties may be invited to provide explanations, supporting records or documentation before an editorial conclusion is reached.

The journal seeks to respond proportionately to the seriousness of the concern, the available evidence and the potential effect of the matter on the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

Practices Considered Unacceptable

Corrections to Published Articles

Serious Concerns Requiring Further Investigation

An expression of concern may be considered where substantial questions have arisen concerning the reliability or integrity of a publication but available evidence is not yet sufficient to justify correction or retraction.

Such a notice is intended to alert readers transparently while relevant investigation, institutional review or clarification remains incomplete.

Protecting the Reliability of the Scholarly Record

Retraction may be considered where reliable evidence demonstrates that a published article is substantially unreliable because of fabrication, falsification, serious error, plagiarism, unethical research, duplicate publication or another major breach of publication integrity.

A retraction notice should identify the affected publication and explain the basis of the editorial action. Retraction is intended primarily to correct the scholarly record and alert readers that the affected article should no longer be relied upon in its original form.

Minor errors that do not invalidate the principal findings should ordinarily be addressed through correction rather than retraction.

Fair and Proportionate Investigation

When credible concerns arise, the journal may conduct an editorial assessment, request explanations from relevant parties and examine available evidence or supporting documentation.

Where the issue requires expertise or authority beyond the journal's role, serious concerns may be referred to an author's institution, research organisation, ethics committee, funding body or other competent authority.

Editorial action should remain proportionate to the evidence and should distinguish deliberate or reckless misconduct from honest error and legitimate scholarly disagreement.

HANDLING SUSPECTED MALPRACTICE

1 Initial Assessment: Determine whether the concern is sufficiently specific and credible to justify further review.

2 Clarification: Relevant authors or other parties may be requested to provide explanations, records or supporting documentation.

3 Evidence Review: Available material is assessed in relation to the nature, seriousness and potential consequences of the concern.

4 External Referral: Where appropriate, serious matters may be referred to an institution, ethics body or other competent authority.

5 Editorial Action: Appropriate action is taken according to the available evidence and the impact of the issue upon the scholarly record.

POST-PUBLICATION ACTION

IMPORTANT DISTINCTION

FAIR AND INCLUSIVE SCHOLARLY PRACTICE

SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

✓

✦

 

 

The Paradigm Chronicle

Journal of Academic Inquiry & Critical Thought

PUBLICATION ETHICS  •  RESEARCH INTEGRITY  •  RESPONSIBLE SCHOLARSHIP

INNOVATION  •  INSIGHT  •  INTEGRITY