1. Policy Statement

Neutrosophic Optimization and Intelligent Systems (NOIS), published by Sciences Force LLC, is committed to fair editorial decision-making, independent scientific assessment, responsible handling of complaints, and the protection of research and publication integrity.

The journal recognizes the right of authors to challenge editorial decisions on legitimate grounds, the right of participants in scholarly publishing to raise concerns about editorial procedures or conduct, and the responsibility of the scholarly community to report credible concerns about the reliability or integrity of research.

NOIS maintains separate procedures for editorial appeals, complaints concerning processes or professional conduct, and reports of suspected research or publication misconduct.

These procedures are intended to ensure that concerns are assessed impartially, evidence is evaluated fairly, relevant parties have an appropriate opportunity to respond, and corrective action is taken when justified.

The journal's approach is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices and the publisher's Appeals, Complaints, and Whistleblowing framework.

This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, readers, publisher personnel, and other individuals with relevant information concerning the journal's activities or publications.

2. Principles of Fairness and Accountability

The handling of appeals, complaints, and integrity reports is governed by the following principles.

Independence: Individuals with a material conflict of interest or direct involvement in the disputed conduct must not determine the outcome of the case.

Procedural Fairness: Concerns must be assessed using relevant evidence, consistent procedures, and a reasonable opportunity for affected parties to respond.

Scientific Integrity: The reliability of scholarly findings and the integrity of the publication record take precedence over reputational or commercial considerations.

Confidentiality: Information must be disclosed only to individuals with a legitimate role in handling the matter or where disclosure is otherwise required or justified.

Proportionality: Actions must reflect the seriousness, credibility, and consequences of the concern.

Timely Handling: Reports must be acknowledged and assessed without unnecessary delay, while allowing sufficient time for complex investigations.

Non-Retaliation: Individuals who raise concerns in good faith or cooperate with legitimate investigations must not be subjected to retaliation within the journal's or publisher's control.

Accountability: Significant decisions, evidence assessments, conflicts of interest, and remedial actions must be appropriately documented.

An allegation is not proof of misconduct. Conversely, the absence of a formal complaint does not remove the journal's responsibility to investigate credible concerns that come to its attention.

3. Three Distinct Reporting Procedures

NOIS distinguishes among three categories of concerns.

1. Editorial Appeals

An editorial appeal is a formal request by an author of record to reconsider a final editorial decision because of a material factual error, methodological misunderstanding, significant procedural irregularity, unmanaged conflict of interest, or new evidence capable of affecting the outcome.

1. Complaints About Editorial Procedures or Conduct

A complaint concerns the fairness, administration, accessibility, timeliness, professionalism, or integrity of a journal process.

Examples include unreasonable delays, communication failures, inappropriate professional conduct, unmanaged editorial bias, or problems concerning publication charges and waiver procedures.

1. Whistleblowing and Research Integrity Reports

An integrity report concerns suspected unreliability, research misconduct, publication misconduct, manipulation of the editorial process, or other serious threats to the scholarly record.

Such concerns may relate to manuscripts under consideration, previously published articles, Special Issues, or the actions of individuals involved in scholarly publishing.

A submission raising several types of concerns may require more than one procedure. The journal must identify the relevant issues and coordinate their handling without compromising independence or confidentiality.

4. How to Submit an Appeal, Complaint, or Integrity Report

The official contact for publication ethics concerns, complaints, and editorial appeals is: ethics_reporting@sciencesforce.com

The sender should identify the journal as Neutrosophic Optimization and Intelligent Systems (NOIS) and indicate the nature of the matter.

Suggested email subject lines are:

Editorial Appeal – NOIS – Manuscript ID

Editorial Complaint – NOIS

Research Integrity Concern – NOIS – Article DOI

Where the concern involves the handling of the reporting channel itself or a person responsible for receiving complaints, the matter may be escalated through the publisher's official contact: contact@sciencesforce.com

Any concern involving the publisher's own conduct must be referred for a conflict-free assessment rather than assigned to a person implicated in the allegation.

The journal may provide additional secure online reporting facilities when available and appropriately configured.

Email reporting remains available as an alternative to an online form.

Reports do not need to follow a rigid template, provided they contain enough relevant information to allow a meaningful initial assessment.

5. Eligibility and Time Limits for Editorial Appeals

Editorial appeals may be submitted by an author of record or by the corresponding author acting with the authorization of the authors concerned.

A formal appeal should normally be submitted within three calendar months of the final rejection decision.

An appeal received after this period may be considered where a substantial justification for the delay exists or where significant new evidence raises a material concern about the original decision.

The journal normally permits one substantive appeal against a final rejection decision for each manuscript.

Repeated appeals based on the same arguments, without significant additional evidence, may be declined with an explanation.

A new submission containing materially different research is not automatically treated as an appeal. Such a submission must satisfy the journal's ordinary submission and originality requirements.

Routine requests for clarification, technical inquiries, and author responses during an active revision process are not formal appeals.

Requests to reconsider post-publication integrity decisions are assessed separately according to the relevant evidence and editorial procedures.

6. Grounds for Editorial Appeal

An appeal may be considered when the author provides credible evidence of one or more of the following.

Material Factual Error

The original decision relied on a demonstrably incorrect statement about the manuscript, its methods, results, mathematical arguments, data, or cited literature.

Methodological or Mathematical Misunderstanding

An important scientific argument, proof, computational procedure, or analytical result was materially misunderstood, and that misunderstanding could reasonably have affected the decision.

Significant Procedural Irregularity

A substantial departure from the journal's established editorial procedures may have affected the fairness or reliability of the assessment.

Unmanaged Conflict of Interest

There is credible evidence that an editor or reviewer had a relevant conflict of interest that was not appropriately managed.

Material New Evidence

Important new information, clarification, analysis, or independently verifiable evidence has become available that could reasonably change the scientific assessment.

A difference of scientific opinion, disagreement with an unfavorable recommendation, or dissatisfaction with a rejection does not by itself establish grounds for an appeal.

The journal does not reverse decisions solely because an author disputes the judgment of qualified independent reviewers.

7. Information Required for an Editorial Appeal

An appeal should identify the manuscript and provide a clear explanation of the alleged error or procedural concern.

Authors should include:

- The manuscript identification number.

- The manuscript title.

- The date of the final editorial decision.

- The specific decision being appealed.

- A precise explanation of the grounds for reconsideration.

- Relevant supporting evidence, including references to the manuscript, review reports, calculations, or documents.

- An explanation of how the identified issue could have materially affected the decision.

Authors should address disputed scientific points directly and provide appropriate evidence rather than general assertions about the importance or novelty of the research.

An appeal should remain professional and respectful. Personal accusations against editors or reviewers must be supported by relevant evidence.

The editorial office may request clarification when the grounds or supporting information are incomplete.

8. Independent Evaluation of Editorial Appeals

A formal appeal must be assigned to an appropriately qualified editor who did not participate in the original disputed decision and has no relevant conflict of interest.

The independent editor is responsible for assessing whether the appeal identifies a material error, significant new evidence, or a procedural problem requiring reconsideration.

The independent editor may review the original manuscript, editorial correspondence, reviewer reports, the appeal, and relevant supporting materials.

Where necessary, additional advice may be obtained from an independent mathematical, computational, statistical, methodological, or subject specialist.

For complex cases, an independent review panel may be constituted, provided that its members are appropriately qualified and free from relevant conflicts.

The editor responsible for the disputed decision may be asked to clarify the original reasoning but must not control the independent appeal outcome.

An appeal is not automatically a new round of external peer review. Additional review is undertaken when necessary to resolve a material concern.

9. Possible Outcomes of an Editorial Appeal

Following independent assessment, an appeal may result in one of the following outcomes.

Original Decision Upheld: The decision remains unchanged because the identified concerns do not establish a material error or sufficient reason for reconsideration.

Reconsideration Authorized: The manuscript is returned for further editorial evaluation or independent peer review.

Revision Invited: The authors are invited to address specific concerns when further scientific development or clarification is justified.

Decision Reversed: The original decision is set aside where substantial evidence demonstrates that it cannot reasonably be maintained.

A decision to reconsider or reopen a manuscript does not guarantee acceptance.

Any subsequent acceptance must satisfy the journal's normal scientific, editorial, and ethical requirements.

Authors must receive a reasoned communication explaining the appeal outcome, subject to legitimate confidentiality restrictions.

The outcome of the ordinary appeal is normally final at the publisher level unless significant new evidence or a serious procedural problem subsequently emerges.

10. Complaints About Editorial Procedures

NOIS accepts complaints concerning the administration or fairness of its editorial processes.

Examples include:

- Unexplained or excessive delays.

- Failure to communicate important editorial information.

- Inconsistent application of published procedures.

- Inappropriate or unprofessional correspondence.

- Procedural unfairness or potential editorial bias.

- Failure to manage a relevant conflict of interest.

- Inappropriate requests for citations.

- Concerns about reviewer conduct.

- Problems involving publication fee information or waiver decisions.

- Accessibility barriers affecting the submission or review process.

- Failure to follow an established complaints or appeals procedure.

Complaints are assessed with reference to the journal's actual procedures, relevant correspondence, submission records, and the circumstances of the case.

The responsible person may seek explanations from individuals involved and examine the relevant editorial history.

Where a complaint concerns scientific rejection, it may be redirected to the editorial appeals procedure.

Where the complaint presents credible evidence of research or publication misconduct, it must be referred to the research integrity procedure.

11. Outcomes of Procedural Complaints

A procedural complaint may lead to:

- An explanation or clarification of the editorial process.

- An acknowledgment of an error and an appropriate apology.

- Correction of inaccurate information or correspondence.

- Assignment of an independent handling editor.

- Renewed or independent consideration of a procedural matter.

- Measures to address unnecessary delay.

- Improvements to submission, review, or communication procedures.

- Additional guidance or training for relevant personnel.

- Amendment of a policy where a substantive deficiency has been identified.

- Referral for formal investigation when more serious concerns arise.

The journal must not change scientific conclusions or accept a manuscript solely to resolve a procedural complaint.

Remedial measures must address the identified problem without compromising independent scientific judgment.

12. Research Integrity and Whistleblowing Reports

NOIS accepts credible reports concerning suspected research or publication misconduct before or after publication.

Relevant concerns may include:

- Fabrication or falsification of data or results.

- Plagiarism and misappropriation of intellectual work.

- Manipulated or duplicated scientific images.

- Deliberately misleading mathematical or computational claims.

- Fabricated references or citation manipulation.

- Compromised or fraudulent peer review.

- Fabricated reviewer identities.

- Undisclosed material conflicts of interest.

- Misrepresented authorship or institutional affiliations.

- Duplicate or redundant publication.

- Misrepresented research ethics approval.

- Unethical research involving human participants, animals, or sensitive information.

- Paper-mill activity or systematic publication manipulation.

- Unauthorized disclosure or misuse of confidential research material.

- Concealment of material errors or attempts to manipulate the scholarly record.

 

Reports should identify the research or editorial activity concerned and describe the reasons for the suspicion.

A person raising a concern is not required to prove misconduct conclusively before submitting a report.

The journal is responsible for assessing whether the information warrants further investigation.

13. Anonymous and Confidential Reporting

NOIS considers anonymous integrity reports when they contain sufficiently specific and credible information to support an assessment.

A report is not rejected merely because the reporter has chosen not to disclose their identity.

The journal recognizes that individuals may have legitimate reasons to remain anonymous, including concerns about professional relationships, employment, personal safety, or retaliation.

Where possible, the journal will communicate with the reporter without unnecessarily seeking identifying information.

The confidentiality of an identified reporter will be protected to the extent reasonably possible and permitted by law.

Absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed, particularly where the information supplied reveals the reporter's identity, legal disclosure is required, or procedural fairness makes limited disclosure necessary.

Relevant personal information should be minimized or redacted when the matter is shared for investigation.

The journal must not attempt to identify an anonymous reporter solely because they submitted a good-faith concern.

Reports lacking sufficient details may require clarification before a meaningful investigation can proceed.

The absence of further information may limit the possible action, but the initial report and any relevant risk assessment should still be handled appropriately.

14. Initial Assessment and Risk Classification

Upon receiving a complaint or integrity report, the designated responsible person must determine the nature of the concern and whether immediate protective measures are necessary.

The initial assessment should consider:

- Whether the concern identifies a specific manuscript, article, or editorial event.

- Whether the allegation is supported by identifiable information or evidence.

- Whether the matter involves an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

- Whether the reliability of published findings may be affected.

- Whether the concern involves potential harm to research participants, patients, the public, or the environment.

- Whether the reported issue may involve systematic manipulation or multiple publications.

- Whether evidence needs to be preserved urgently.

- Whether the matter should be referred to an independent expert, institution, funder, or competent authority.

High-risk matters require prompt attention and appropriate escalation.

The journal may temporarily suspend an affected editorial process when necessary to preserve evidence, prevent further harm, or protect the fairness of an investigation.

A temporary administrative measure is not a finding of misconduct.

15. Preservation and Assessment of Evidence

NOIS is committed to handling evidence accurately, confidentially, and without manipulation.

Relevant records may include manuscript versions, scientific data, original images, mathematical calculations, computer code, reviewer assignments, correspondence, system logs, conflict-of-interest declarations, and publication metadata.

Evidence must be obtained and handled through appropriate authorized procedures.

The journal may seek technical or methodological assistance where the concern requires expertise beyond the editorial team's competence.

Original evidence should be preserved when possible, and substantive actions affecting the record must be documented.

Individuals conducting the assessment must not fabricate, selectively alter, backdate, suppress, or destroy relevant evidence.

Access to sensitive information must be restricted to those with legitimate responsibilities.

Investigations must respect applicable laws, institutional obligations, privacy requirements, and the rights of affected individuals.

16. Independent Investigation and Conflicts of Interest

Individuals implicated in an allegation must not direct, supervise, or decide the outcome of the investigation concerning their own conduct.

A complaint involving a handling editor must be reassigned to an independent editor.

A complaint involving the Editor-in-Chief must be considered by an independent senior editor or another appropriately qualified person who did not participate in the disputed conduct.

A complaint involving multiple members of the editorial leadership may require an appropriately qualified external reviewer.

Where the publisher or its senior personnel are implicated, the matter must not be assigned to the implicated individuals or their direct decision-making control.

An independent external person or suitably constituted conflict-free review arrangement should be used when internal independence cannot reasonably be established.

The existence of an independent reviewer must be genuine, with sufficient authority and access to assess the matter fairly.

No person may be described as an independent ombudsperson or an independent committee member without an actual appointment and appropriate safeguards for impartiality.

The responsibility for implementing appropriate corrective measures remains with the relevant authorized organization, subject to applicable law and the findings of the independent assessment.

17. Fair Treatment of Individuals Subject to Allegations

Individuals whose conduct or research is questioned must be treated fairly.

An allegation must not be presented as a confirmed finding before the evidence has been appropriately assessed.

Where appropriate, affected individuals must be informed of the substance of the concern and given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The journal may withhold or redact information that is unnecessary to the response or whose disclosure would create an unjustified confidentiality, safety, or legal risk.

Responses should be evaluated on their evidential merits.

A failure to respond may affect the available assessment, but it is not automatically proof of misconduct.

Investigations must avoid prejudgment, personal hostility, selective evaluation of evidence, and inappropriate public accusations.

Scientific and ethical conclusions must be proportionate to the evidence available.

18. Cooperation With Research Institutions and Other Authorities

The journal recognizes that research institutions and other competent bodies may have responsibilities or investigatory powers that extend beyond those of a scholarly publisher.

Where allegations concern research conduct, data integrity, ethical approval, authorship disputes, or other matters requiring institutional records, the journal may seek assistance from the relevant institution or research integrity office.

Where appropriate, funding organizations, ethics committees, or legally authorized bodies may also be contacted.

Information shared must be relevant, necessary, and subject to applicable confidentiality and legal requirements.

The journal may request a summary of an institutional investigation or clarification of its findings.

An institutional investigation does not remove the journal's responsibility to assess the reliability of its published record.

Where credible concerns pose a significant risk to readers or the public, the journal may consider an interim editorial notice while an external investigation remains in progress.

The journal must not claim that COPE, Scopus, or another external organization has investigated or endorsed a case unless that involvement is factually established.

19. Outcomes of Research Integrity Investigations

Possible actions depend on the stage of publication, seriousness of the concern, reliability of the findings, and available evidence.

Before Publication

Appropriate actions may include requesting clarification, obtaining additional data or documentation, requiring correction of an error, obtaining independent expert assessment, changing a reviewer or editor, suspending the editorial process, or rejecting the manuscript where justified.

After Publication

Appropriate actions may include a formal correction, addendum, editorial clarification, expression of concern, or retraction according to the nature and consequences of the established problem.

Retractions are intended to correct the scholarly record and identify findings that can no longer be relied upon.

Retraction is not primarily a disciplinary punishment.

Retracted articles ordinarily remain accessible and clearly identified as retracted, with a public notice explaining the action to the extent appropriate.

Where an investigation identifies misconduct by an editor or reviewer, additional measures may include removal from an editorial assignment, termination of an appointment, suspension of reviewing privileges, or referral to an appropriate institution or authority.

Corrective and disciplinary decisions must be justified, proportionate, and appropriately documented.

20. Protection Against Retaliation

NOIS and Sciences Force LLC prohibit retaliation within their editorial, publishing, and professional activities against individuals who raise concerns in good faith or cooperate with legitimate investigations.

Prohibited retaliation may include:

- Threats or intimidation.

- Harassment or abusive correspondence.

- Unjustified adverse editorial treatment.

- Improper disclosure of a reporter's identity.

- Exclusion from legitimate editorial or reviewing opportunities as punishment for reporting concerns.

- Misuse of confidential information to disadvantage a reporter.

- Attempts to pressure a reporter to withdraw a genuine concern.

- Other adverse actions taken because an individual participated in a legitimate reporting or investigation process.

Reports of retaliation must be assessed independently of the original concern where necessary.

The journal and publisher will take appropriate action within their authority when retaliation is established.

The journal cannot guarantee control over decisions made by independent institutions or employers, but may refer credible concerns to an appropriate authority when justified.

The protection of good-faith reporters does not prevent appropriate action against deliberate harassment, threats, falsified evidence, or knowingly malicious allegations.

A concern that cannot ultimately be substantiated is not, by itself, evidence that the reporter acted in bad faith.

21. Deliberately False or Abusive Reports

NOIS distinguishes good-faith concerns from reports knowingly based on fabricated evidence, deliberate misrepresentation, or attempts to harass or intimidate individuals.

A scientifically incorrect allegation, a misunderstanding, or an unsuccessful complaint does not automatically constitute abuse.

Where credible evidence establishes deliberate misuse of the reporting process, the journal may take proportionate action within its authority.

Such measures may include a formal warning, restriction of abusive correspondence, referral to an appropriate authority, or suspension from an editorial or reviewing role where justified.

The journal must not use allegations of bad faith as a means of discouraging legitimate scientific criticism or suppressing concerns about publication integrity.

22. Acknowledgment and Initial Assessment Timelines

NOIS follows the publisher's published indicative targets for the initial handling of appeals, complaints, and research integrity reports.

Acknowledgment of Receipt: Within five business days where contact information is available.

Initial Editorial Appeal Assessment: Within fifteen business days.

Initial Procedural Complaint Assessment: Within fifteen business days.

Initial Research Integrity Triage: Within ten business days, with higher-risk cases prioritized for earlier assessment where necessary.

These periods are target timeframes for acknowledgment and initial evaluation, not guarantees of final case resolution.

Complex investigations may require additional scientific assessment, consultation with institutions, evaluation of confidential records, or independent professional advice.

Where a case extends beyond the initial target, the responsible person should provide an appropriate update when communication is possible and disclosure does not compromise the investigation.

Any further target should reflect the nature and complexity of the matter rather than an arbitrary promise.

The journal will not shorten or terminate an investigation merely to satisfy an administrative deadline.

23. Communication During the Investigation

The journal aims to communicate clearly and respectfully with individuals involved in appeals, complaints, and integrity investigations.

Where appropriate, communication may include confirmation of receipt, the category of the concern, requests for additional information, the status of the initial assessment, and notification of the outcome.

The journal may limit the detail provided when disclosure would compromise reviewer confidentiality, personal privacy, legitimate institutional investigations, or applicable legal requirements.

Individuals are not entitled to unrestricted access to private reviewer identities, confidential manuscripts, internal deliberations, or personal data concerning other parties.

Where a reporter is anonymous and cannot be contacted, the journal may be unable to provide direct updates.

Correspondence must accurately represent the procedural stage of the case and must not imply that an allegation has been substantiated before a justified determination has been made.

24. Escalation and Independent Review of Procedural Concerns

A person who believes that an appeal, complaint, or integrity report was handled contrary to the journal's published procedures may request a review of the handling process.

Such a request should identify the alleged procedural deficiency and explain its significance.

The escalation review must be undertaken by a qualified person who was not responsible for the disputed handling decision and has no material conflict of interest.

Where adequate independence is not available within the journal, an appropriately qualified external person may be appointed.

Escalation concerns the fairness and integrity of the procedure. It does not automatically create a second full scientific appeal.

The reviewer may recommend that the original outcome be upheld, that the procedure be repeated or corrected, or that additional independent assessment be undertaken.

Where jurisdiction and legal authority permit, unresolved concerns may also be referred to relevant institutions, regulators, professional bodies, or other competent external authorities.

COPE guidance may inform the journal's approach, but COPE is not represented as an automatic external appellate tribunal for NOIS.

25. Case Closure and Communication of Outcomes

A case may be closed when the relevant concern has been adequately assessed and any necessary corrective action has been determined.

Closure records should identify the issue, responsible case handler, principal evidence considered, decision reached, reasons for the outcome, and any required follow-up.

The reporting party should be informed of the outcome to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with confidentiality and applicable law.

Where remedial measures have been directed, responsibility for implementation and appropriate follow-up must be recorded.

Closure of a complaint does not prevent the journal from considering genuinely new evidence that may materially affect the reliability of a publication or the integrity of an editorial process.

A case must not be represented as fully resolved when essential corrective action remains incomplete.

26. Confidential Records and Data Protection

Appeals, complaints, and research integrity reports may involve confidential personal information, unpublished research, sensitive allegations, or privileged editorial correspondence.

Records must be stored securely, with access restricted to authorized individuals who require the information for legitimate case-handling purposes.

Case documentation should include relevant submission identifiers, dates, correspondence, evidence, conflicts of interest, assigned handlers, decisions, and follow-up actions.

Information collected during an investigation must not be used for unrelated purposes.

Personal information must be processed in accordance with the journal's Privacy Policy, the publisher's applicable data protection arrangements, and relevant law.

Records must be retained according to documented legal, administrative, and research integrity requirements.

The journal must not publish personally identifiable allegations, private correspondence, or investigation records merely to demonstrate that a complaint was received.

27. Transparency and Continuous Improvement

NOIS recognizes that a credible complaints system must be supported by demonstrable procedures and accurate records.

The journal and publisher should periodically review complaint categories, processing times, case outcomes, recurring procedural weaknesses, and corrective measures.

Where reliable information is available, aggregated and appropriately anonymized statistics may be included in the publisher's transparency reporting.

Reported statistics must identify the relevant period and use consistent definitions.

The journal must not publish invented case counts, success rates, or resolution periods.

Lessons from completed cases may inform improvements in editorial training, reviewer management, submission procedures, communication, research integrity screening, and publication policies.

Material changes to this policy should be recorded through an appropriate policy version history.

The purpose of transparency reporting is to improve accountability and editorial practice without compromising legitimate confidentiality or the rights of individuals.

28. Relationship to Other Journal Policies

This policy operates alongside the journal's Editorial Policies, Publication Ethics Statement, Conflicts of Interest and Funding Transparency Policy, Information for Authors, Privacy Policy, and post-publication correction and retraction procedures.

Detailed scientific and ethical obligations continue to be governed by those policies.

Where more than one policy applies to a case, the journal must coordinate the procedures and apply them consistently.

The existence of a complaint or appeal does not suspend applicable research integrity obligations or automatically invalidate an editorial decision.

Where a material inconsistency between published procedures is identified, the journal and publisher must clarify the applicable procedure and correct the conflicting information transparently.

29. Official Contact Information

Journal: Neutrosophic Optimization and Intelligent Systems (NOIS)

Publisher: Sciences Force LLC, United States

Appeals, Complaints, and Research Integrity Reports: ethics_reporting@sciencesforce.com

Publisher Contact for Escalation: contact@sciencesforce.com   

Editorial Office: nois@sciencesforce.com  

Editorial Policies: https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/policies

Publication Ethics Statement: https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/publication_ethics

Conflicts of Interest and Funding Transparency — Publisher Policy: https://sciencesforce.com/publisher

Information for Authors: https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/information_for_authors

Official Journal Website: https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/index

30. Ethical Guidance and Policy Responsibility

The journal's procedures are informed by the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly those concerning complaints and appeals, allegations of misconduct, whistleblowers, conflicts of interest, and post-publication corrections.

COPE: https://publicationethics.org/

Publisher's Appeals, Complaints, and Whistleblowing Framework: https://sciencesforce.com/publisher

Sciences Force LLC and the authorized editorial leadership of NOIS are responsible for implementing this policy within their respective areas of responsibility.

Their shared objective is to ensure that scientific disagreements are examined fairly, procedural concerns are addressed independently, credible integrity allegations are investigated responsibly, and individuals can report legitimate concerns without fear of improper retaliation.