1. Editorial Commitment and Scientific Principles

Neutrosophic Optimization and Intelligent Systems (NOIS) is an international, peer-reviewed, open access scholarly journal published by Sciences Force LLC, United States.

The journal is committed to publishing scientifically sound research that advances mathematical foundations and uncertainty modeling, optimization theory and computational algorithms, artificial intelligence, and intelligent systems.

NOIS regards editorial independence, scientific rigor, research integrity, fair peer review, transparency, and accountability as essential to trustworthy scholarly publishing.

The journal's editorial practices are informed by internationally recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

These references provide professional guidance and do not imply membership, certification, accreditation, or endorsement by any external organization.

All manuscripts are evaluated according to their scientific merit, relevance, methodological soundness, clarity, integrity, and contribution to existing knowledge. Authors are treated fairly regardless of their nationality, institutional affiliation, geographical location, gender, religion, political views, or other personal characteristics unrelated to the scientific quality of their work.

2. Editorial Governance and Independence

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the overall scientific direction, editorial standards, and integrity of the journal's scholarly content.

The Co-Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board, and appointed handling editors support these responsibilities within their designated areas of expertise and authority.

Sciences Force LLC provides the journal's publishing infrastructure, administrative support, production services, dissemination, and preservation arrangements. These responsibilities must not compromise independent scientific judgment.

The publisher, journal leadership, sponsors, and other interested parties must not exert improper influence over manuscript evaluation or acceptance decisions.

Editorial decisions are based on scientific and ethical considerations, not on publication charges, waiver eligibility, potential citation performance, personal relationships, institutional prestige, or commercial interests.

Editors must maintain appropriate records of significant editorial actions and disclose any interests that could compromise their independence.

When a relevant conflict exists, responsibility must be transferred to a qualified and independent editor.

3. Journal Scope and Editorial Suitability

NOIS considers manuscripts that make a substantive contribution to one or more of its core research areas.

These include mathematical and computational approaches to uncertainty, neutrosophic theory and related mathematical foundations, optimization models and algorithms, artificial intelligence, and intelligent computational systems.

Interdisciplinary research is welcome when its central scientific contribution is clearly connected to these areas.

The journal considers the actual research question, theoretical or methodological development, supporting evidence, and significance of the results when determining suitability.

The presence of a particular technical term, mathematical label, or computational technique does not automatically establish relevance or originality.

Proposals consisting primarily of renamed concepts, alternative notation, superficial modifications, or routine applications of established methods without a meaningful scientific contribution may be declined.

Detailed information is provided in the journal's Aims and Scope.

4. Manuscript Categories

NOIS considers the following scholarly contributions:

Original Research Articles present new theoretical results, substantive methodological advances, computational innovations, or significant scientifically supported findings.

Review Articles provide comprehensive, critical syntheses of relevant scientific literature, methodological developments, unresolved questions, and research directions.

Mini-Review Articles offer focused and analytical assessments of a clearly defined research topic.

Perspectives present reasoned, evidence-informed discussion of emerging scientific developments, conceptual challenges, or future research directions.

Correspondence provides concise scholarly communication concerning scientific questions, technical observations, or previously published research.

Comments present focused scientific analysis or criticism of published work, including its mathematical arguments, methodology, computational results, or interpretation.

Editorial notices, formal corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices are identified separately from externally peer-reviewed research.

Each manuscript category is assessed according to the nature and significance of its scientific contribution.

5. Submission and Initial Editorial Assessment

All manuscripts must be submitted through the journal's official Open Journal Systems platform.

Before external peer review, submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment addressing journal scope, scientific contribution, methodological adequacy, manuscript completeness, ethical compliance, and adherence to author instructions.

The assessment may include examination of relevant previous work, mathematical reasoning, computational evidence, data documentation, originality, and the appropriateness of the selected manuscript category.

A manuscript may be declined without external review when it is outside the journal's scope, lacks a sufficient scientific contribution, contains fundamental methodological problems, or fails to satisfy essential ethical requirements.

Administrative deficiencies that can reasonably be corrected may instead be returned to the authors for completion.

A desk rejection must be based on legitimate editorial grounds and recorded accurately. It must not be used to manipulate reported acceptance statistics or other performance indicators.

Authors should receive a clear communication of the outcome and the principal reasons for a negative editorial decision.

Initial editorial assessment must not be represented as independent external peer review.

6. Peer-Review Model

NOIS uses a double-anonymous peer-review model for scholarly manuscripts selected for external scientific evaluation.

Under this arrangement, authors' identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewers' identities are withheld from authors.

The journal takes reasonable steps to protect anonymity through appropriate preparation of review files, restricted access to identifying information, and suitable configuration of the editorial management system.

Anonymity cannot be guaranteed absolutely when authorship can be inferred from public preprints, prior publications, distinctive methods, or other publicly available information.

Original Research Articles, Review Articles, and Mini-Review Articles that pass initial editorial screening normally undergo external assessment by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

Perspectives, Correspondence, and Comments presenting substantive scientific claims or technical criticism are referred for independent external assessment when specialist review is necessary.

Non-research editorial communications and formal publication notices may undergo appropriate editorial or research-integrity assessment rather than conventional external peer review.

Any material exception to the standard review process must be justified, documented, and disclosed where relevant.

The journal does not routinely publish confidential reviewer reports or reviewer identities.

7. Reviewer Selection and Independence

Reviewers are selected on the basis of scientific expertise, independence, ability to evaluate the manuscript, and capacity to provide a meaningful assessment.

Editors should identify the expertise needed to assess all essential aspects of the work, including mathematical proofs, optimization procedures, computational experiments, statistical methods, and application-specific evidence.

Reviewer identities, institutional affiliations, and professional credentials must be assessed through reasonable verification procedures.

Authors may suggest reviewers where this is permitted by the submission process. Such suggestions are advisory and do not determine reviewer appointments.

Editors must not rely exclusively on author-supplied reviewer contact information.

Reviewers must disclose relevant competing interests before accepting an assignment.

A reviewer must not assess a manuscript when a significant personal, financial, professional, institutional, or academic relationship prevents an impartial evaluation.

Editors may seek additional independent reports when specialist expertise is required, reviewer assessments differ substantially, or unresolved scientific concerns remain.

Reviewer selection and evaluation procedures must be protected against impersonation, fabricated reviews, coercion, and other forms of peer-review manipulation.

8. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, and evidence-based assessments.

Their reports should evaluate the scientific contribution, accuracy of the methods, validity of the reasoning, adequacy of the evidence, relevance of the literature, and reliability of the conclusions.

Where relevant, reviewers should examine mathematical definitions and proofs, algorithmic design, experimental comparisons, statistical interpretation, data availability, and computational reproducibility.

Criticism must focus on the scholarly work rather than the personal characteristics of the authors.

Reviewers must not request irrelevant citations or use the review process to increase citations to their own publications, the journal, or associated researchers.

Confidential manuscripts must not be used for personal research, professional advantage, or unauthorized disclosure.

A reviewer must not delegate an assessment or involve another person without prior editorial authorization.

Reviewers must promptly report suspected ethical irregularities or significant conflicts of interest to the responsible editor.

Detailed expectations are established in the journal's Peer Review Integrity and Reviewer Guidelines.

9. Editorial Decisions and Revisions

The authorized handling editor is responsible for reaching a reasoned editorial decision after considering the available scientific evidence, relevant reviewer reports, and applicable journal policies.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor must examine the substance of the reports rather than rely exclusively on numerical scores or recommendation labels.

Possible outcomes include acceptance, revision, and rejection, together with other procedural decisions supported by the editorial management system.

Where revisions are required, authors must provide an updated manuscript and a point-by-point response addressing substantive reviewer and editorial comments.

The handling editor determines whether the revisions resolve the identified concerns and whether further independent review is necessary.

A request for revision is not a promise of eventual acceptance.

Significant changes to the methods, data, mathematical arguments, results, or conclusions may require additional scientific assessment.

Final acceptance requires an affirmative decision by the authorized editor after the applicable scientific, ethical, and editorial requirements have been satisfied.

No publication payment, favorable review report, or personal relationship can guarantee acceptance.

10. Editorial Timelines and Reporting

NOIS publishes indicative targets to help authors understand the expected editorial process.

The journal's published targets are:

Initial Desk-Rejection Notification: Up to five business days, where practicable, for submissions declined during initial screening.

First Decision Following External Peer Review: Approximately eight to ten weeks from submission.

Final Editorial Decision: Typically fifteen to twenty-nine weeks from submission, including revisions where applicable.

Online Publication Following Final Acceptance: A target of five working days, subject to completion of essential production, verification, and publication requirements.

These figures are planning targets, not guaranteed deadlines or independently verified historical averages.

Actual processing times depend on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision requirements, ethical inquiries, and production circumstances.

The journal will not compromise scientific evaluation to meet a numerical processing target.

Any published acceptance rate, rejection rate, or historical editorial processing statistic must be based on verifiable records and a clearly explained calculation method.

Further information is provided in the Editorial Timeline and Acceptance Rate policy.

11. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors and Editorial Board Members

Editorial appointments do not provide preferential access to publication.

Manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, Co-Editor-in-Chief, handling editors, or Editorial Board members are subject to the same scientific and ethical requirements as comparable submissions from other authors.

An editor who has authored a manuscript or has a significant conflict of interest must not manage its editorial assessment, select its reviewers, influence the review process, or participate in the publication decision.

Such manuscripts must be assigned to an appropriately qualified independent editor.

If the Editor-in-Chief is involved, the manuscript must be handled by an independent senior editor who is not subject to the conflicted editor's influence.

The independent handling arrangements, relevant recusals, reviewer assignments, and final editorial decision must be documented.

Conflicted individuals must not obtain privileged access to confidential peer-review information in their capacity as editors.

Where editorial independence cannot be adequately protected, the journal must not proceed through a compromised editorial process.

12. Authorship, Contributorship, and Author Identification

Authorship must accurately reflect substantial intellectual contributions and responsibility for the scholarly work.

Every listed author must have made a qualifying contribution, participated in drafting or critically revising important intellectual content, approved the final version, and accepted responsibility for the integrity of their contribution.

Honorary, guest, gift, ghost, coerced, purchased, or otherwise misleading authorship is unacceptable.

Administrative seniority, institutional position, funding acquisition, or general supervision alone does not justify authorship.

NOIS does not impose an arbitrary maximum number of authors. The number and order of authors must reflect genuine scholarly contributions and the authors' collective agreement.

In accordance with the publisher's authorship framework, submissions must include a CRediT contributor-role statement identifying each author's contributions.

Every author is also required to provide a verified ORCID iD in accordance with the publisher's identification requirements.

CRediT roles support transparency but do not, by themselves, determine whether an individual qualifies for authorship.

Individuals who contribute without meeting authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately, with their permission.

The corresponding author is responsible for coordinating authorship approval, required declarations, editorial communication, and the accuracy of submitted author metadata.

13. Changes in Authorship and Affiliations

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must include a clear explanation and written agreement from all existing authors and any individuals being added or removed.

The editor may request supporting evidence when a proposed change raises questions about contributions, consent, or research integrity.

Substantial authorship disputes may require suspension of editorial handling while relevant evidence is examined or the matter is referred to the authors' institutions.

Published authorship changes must be evaluated through an appropriately documented post-publication procedure and, where necessary, a formal correction.

Author affiliations must accurately identify the relevant institutional relationships.

The institution where the research was conducted or substantially supported should be identified, with a current affiliation provided where appropriate.

Affiliations must not imply institutional appointments, sponsorship, or research participation that did not exist.

The journal must not modify authorship information retrospectively without an appropriate record of the reason and authorization.

14. Funding and Competing Interests

Authors must disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests that could reasonably influence, or appear to influence, the conduct, reporting, interpretation, or publication of their research.

All relevant research funding, grant information, material support, and sponsorship arrangements must be identified.

Where no external funding was received, an accurate statement to that effect must be provided.

Authors must disclose any role of a funder or sponsor in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decisions.

Editors and reviewers must declare relevant interests and withdraw from responsibilities where impartiality cannot be adequately protected.

A disclosed conflict does not automatically establish misconduct. The journal evaluates its relevance and determines appropriate safeguards.

Undisclosed material interests identified after publication may require investigation or correction of the public record.

The journal's detailed Conflicts of Interest and Funding Transparency Policy governs disclosure and management procedures.

15. Originality, Plagiarism, and Text Similarity

NOIS requires accurate acknowledgment of ideas, text, mathematical results, data, images, software, and other scholarly contributions obtained from earlier work.

Plagiarism, misleading unattributed reuse, and the presentation of another person's intellectual contribution as original work are prohibited.

Inappropriate duplication of an author's own previously published work may also constitute redundant publication or unacceptable text recycling.

The journal may use similarity-detection tools to assist editorial assessment.

A similarity score is not, by itself, a determination of plagiarism.

NOIS does not use a fixed percentage threshold as the sole basis for deciding whether plagiarism has occurred or whether a manuscript should be accepted or rejected.

Editors examine the source, extent, location, significance, and attribution of similarities in context.

Standard terminology, references, appropriately cited methodological descriptions, and other legitimate overlap must be distinguished from unattributed intellectual reproduction.

Significant plagiarism may occur even when the overall similarity score is low.

Authors must be given an appropriate opportunity to explain substantial concerns when this is consistent with a fair assessment.

Confirmed violations may lead to rejection or proportionate post-publication action, depending on their nature and seriousness.

16. Duplicate Submission, Preprints, and Prior Dissemination

A manuscript submitted to NOIS must not be under simultaneous consideration by another scholarly journal.

Authors must disclose relevant previous dissemination, including preprints, conference proceedings, theses, technical reports, and closely related publications.

Posting a manuscript as a preprint does not automatically prevent consideration by NOIS, provided that the preprint is disclosed and the work satisfies the journal's originality and publication requirements.

An extended version of an earlier conference paper may be considered when it offers a substantive additional contribution, identifies the earlier publication, and complies with applicable copyright and licensing obligations.

Minor rewriting, changes in notation, revised terminology, or the division of substantially identical findings into multiple publications do not establish sufficient grounds for separate publication.

Where substantial overlap is suspected, the editor evaluates the related publications, the scientific differences, the author's explanation, and relevant permissions.

The journal does not treat an allegation of duplication as proof of deliberate misconduct without appropriate assessment.

17. Citation Integrity

References must be accurate, relevant, and sufficient to support the statements and methods presented in a manuscript.

Authors are responsible for checking cited sources, bibliographic details, and claims attributed to earlier research.

Fabricated references, misleading citation practices, irrelevant references added for metric manipulation, and inappropriate citation networks are unacceptable.

Editors and reviewers must not pressure authors to cite unrelated publications, their own work, or NOIS articles without a legitimate scholarly reason.

Requests for additional citations must be supported by a clear scientific justification.

Suspected citation manipulation is assessed according to the available evidence and may lead to appropriate editorial or post-publication action.

18. Scientific Reporting and Methodological Standards

All manuscripts must explain their objectives, assumptions, methods, supporting evidence, and limitations with sufficient precision for independent scientific evaluation.

Mathematical manuscripts must provide clearly defined concepts, valid arguments, and proofs appropriate to the claims presented.

Assertions concerning existence, uniqueness, equivalence, convergence, stability, optimality, or general validity require justification under explicitly stated assumptions.

Computational and optimization studies must adequately describe their mathematical formulations, algorithms, parameter settings, constraints, evaluation procedures, and relevant computational environments.

Where appropriate, experimental claims must be assessed using suitable benchmarks, relevant baseline methods, fair comparison procedures, and meaningful measures of performance.

Artificial intelligence studies must address relevant evaluation design, training and testing procedures, possible data leakage, limitations, and factors affecting generalizability.

Claims that an algorithm or model outperforms alternatives must be supported by credible and sufficiently comprehensive evidence.

Theoretical examples, simulations, and numerical illustrations must not be presented as general mathematical proofs when they do not establish the claimed result.

The journal welcomes rigorous critical assessments, counterexamples, and negative findings when they contribute meaningful scientific knowledge.

19. Research Data, Software, and Reproducibility

NOIS supports transparency and reproducibility appropriate to the nature of each scholarly contribution.

Authors must provide sufficient information to permit meaningful examination of the evidence supporting their work.

Research submissions must include an accurate Data Availability Statement, including where no new data were generated or analyzed.

A Code Availability Statement is required when custom software, scripts, algorithms, or computational workflows materially support the reported findings.

Where legally and ethically permissible, authors are encouraged to share relevant datasets, software, protocols, and supporting materials through suitable repositories.

Restrictions involving participant privacy, confidentiality, security, intellectual property, licensing, or other legitimate obligations are recognized.

Where materials cannot be publicly shared, the authors must explain the relevant restriction and provide sufficient methodological information for meaningful scientific assessment.

Editors may request supporting information when substantial questions arise about the accuracy or reliability of reported findings.

Inability to provide a particular dataset or file does not automatically prove misconduct. The reasons and implications must be evaluated in context.

Detailed requirements are established in the Research Data, Code and Reproducibility Policy.

20. Research Ethics and Protection of Participants

Studies involving human participants, identifiable personal data, clinical information, biological material, or animals must comply with applicable legal, institutional, and ethical requirements.

Where ethics approval is required, authors must identify the appropriate reviewing authority and disclose relevant approval information.

Where approval was not required or an exemption was granted, the manuscript must accurately explain the basis for that determination.

Human-participant research must address informed consent where applicable.

Consent to participate in research is distinct from consent to publish identifiable personal information.

Authors must obtain appropriate publication consent before disclosing identifiable photographs, recordings, descriptions, or other protected personal information.

Research involving children or participants unable to provide legally effective consent must comply with relevant guardian-consent and assent requirements.

Animal research must comply with applicable welfare requirements and describe relevant ethical oversight.

Ethical compliance must be documented accurately. Approval, exemption, or consent must not be fabricated or claimed retrospectively without a valid basis.

21. Integrity of Images, Figures, and Research Results

Figures, images, graphs, tables, and computational visualizations must represent research findings accurately.

Authors must not manipulate scientific images or other research material in ways that conceal, fabricate, exaggerate, or misrepresent the underlying evidence.

Legitimate adjustments for visibility and presentation may be made where scientifically appropriate, but they must not alter the interpretation of the results.

Composite images and substantial image processing must be described when necessary to avoid misleading readers.

Numerical values, mathematical expressions, units, statistical results, and graphs must be checked against their supporting calculations and source data.

The journal may request original files or supporting documentation when credible concerns arise.

Suspected manipulation is subject to an evidence-based editorial assessment, with appropriate corrective action when warranted.

22. Generative Artificial Intelligence and AI-Assisted Research

NOIS recognizes that generative artificial intelligence and AI-assisted technologies may be used in research and manuscript preparation.

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, attribution, and ethical compliance of their submitted work.

Artificial intelligence systems cannot be listed as authors because they cannot approve a manuscript, accept responsibility for its content, or fulfill authorship obligations.

Materially relevant use of generative AI must be disclosed in accordance with the journal's Generative AI and AI-Assisted Research Policy.

The disclosure should explain the tool's role and distinguish assistance with language or presentation from activities that materially affect the research process, analysis, or results.

Authors must independently verify factual statements, references, mathematical arguments, calculations, data interpretations, and any research content produced with AI assistance.

AI tools must not be used to fabricate references, observations, experimental findings, mathematical proofs, reviewer reports, author identities, or other scholarly evidence.

The use of AI does not excuse plagiarism, unreliable methods, incorrect calculations, undisclosed data manipulation, or misleading claims.

Editors and reviewers must protect unpublished manuscripts and confidential editorial information. They must not upload confidential submission material to external AI systems without appropriate authorization and safeguards.

Any use of AI in editorial or review activities must preserve confidentiality, accountability, scientific judgment, and compliance with the journal's applicable policies.

23. Research Integrity Concerns and Investigations

NOIS takes credible concerns about research integrity and publication misconduct seriously.

Concerns may involve fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulated peer review, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed competing interests, citation manipulation, unethical research, or other conduct that threatens the reliability of the scholarly record.

An allegation does not, by itself, establish misconduct.

The journal evaluates concerns proportionately, preserves relevant evidence, seeks explanations where appropriate, and refers matters to independent expertise or responsible institutions when necessary.

Individuals implicated in a complaint must not control its assessment or determine its outcome.

Confidentiality must be maintained to the extent compatible with fair investigation, legitimate disclosure, and applicable legal obligations.

Possible actions include requesting clarification, conducting further review, suspending editorial handling, rejecting a manuscript, publishing a corrective notice, or referring serious concerns to relevant institutions or authorities.

The objective is to protect the reliability of the research record through fair, evidence-based procedures.

24. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

The journal has an ongoing responsibility to address consequential errors and credible integrity concerns identified after publication.

A formal correction may be issued when a significant error requires amendment but the principal scientific findings remain sufficiently reliable.

An expression of concern may be appropriate when serious questions about a published article remain unresolved and readers require notice while further assessment takes place.

A retraction may be necessary when the findings are unreliable or substantial ethical or publication irregularities undermine confidence in the work.

Post-publication action must be determined by the available evidence and the need to maintain an accurate scholarly record.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions must be clearly identified, publicly accessible, and linked to the affected article.

Retraction is intended primarily to correct the scholarly literature rather than punish authors.

Retracted articles ordinarily remain accessible as part of the historical record, clearly marked to prevent readers from relying on their findings without appropriate caution.

Material changes must not be concealed through undocumented replacement of published files or alteration of publication dates.

Relevant article metadata and persistent identifier records should be updated when necessary.

Detailed procedures are provided in the Publication Ethics Statement and the publisher's research-integrity policies.

25. Editorial Appeals, Complaints, and Whistleblowing

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that a material factual error, procedural irregularity, conflict of interest, or other significant issue affected an editorial decision.

An appeal is not an automatic entitlement to reconsideration merely because an author disagrees with a reviewer's scientific opinion.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer-review integrity, publication ethics, or the reliability of published material are assessed under the journal's established complaints procedure.

A complaint involving an editor must be handled by an appropriately independent person.

Good-faith reporting of suspected misconduct or editorial interference must not result in retaliation.

The journal may consider anonymous reports when the information supplied is sufficiently specific and credible to permit meaningful assessment.

Complaints and appeals must be supported by an appropriate record of the evidence, assigned responsibility, procedural actions, and outcome.

Publication Ethics, Complaints, and Appeals: ethics_reporting@sciencesforce.com

Publisher Contact for Escalation: contact@sciencesforce.com

Further procedures are provided in the Complaints, Appeals and Whistleblowing Policy.

26. Special Issues and Guest Editorial Responsibilities

Special Issues, invited collections, and other themed scholarly contributions are subject to the journal's core scientific and ethical standards.

Guest editors must have appropriate scientific expertise, clearly defined responsibilities, and no unresolved conflict of interest affecting the collection.

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated independent senior editor retains responsibility for appropriate oversight of the editorial process.

Guest editors must not guarantee acceptance, arrange preferential publication, select inappropriate reviewers, or influence scientific outcomes for financial, personal, or institutional reasons.

Manuscripts involving guest editors, organizers, sponsors, or their close collaborators must follow an independent editorial route where required.

Special Issue submissions must undergo scientific assessment appropriate to their article category and must not be represented as independently peer-reviewed unless that assessment occurred.

Sponsorship arrangements and relevant competing interests must be disclosed.

If the integrity of a Special Issue's editorial process is questioned, the journal may undertake independent review and implement necessary corrective measures.

27. Open Access, Copyright, and Publication Charges

NOIS provides immediate open access to its published scholarly articles.

Authors retain copyright in their original published work under the journal's applicable copyright arrangements.

The journal uses the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) for articles published under its current licensing policy.

The applicable license and copyright information must be stated clearly in published article records and files.

NOIS does not charge a manuscript submission fee.

The journal's standard Article Processing Charge, any temporary waivers, applicable reductions, payment conditions, and refund arrangements are described in the official publisher fee schedule and the journal's Publication Fees, Waivers and Refunds Policy.

Publication charges are not payable before formal manuscript acceptance.

Fee arrangements and waiver decisions must remain separate from scientific editorial assessment.

Payment never guarantees acceptance and cannot substitute for peer review.

Authors should consult the current published fee policy before submission rather than rely on historical fee announcements.

28. Publication Records, Metadata, and Preservation

NOIS is committed to maintaining accurate, traceable, and accessible records of its scholarly publications.

Published article information must accurately identify the authors, affiliations, title, journal, publication date, bibliographic details, and applicable DOI.

Submission, revision, acceptance, and publication dates must correspond to actual documented events when they are displayed.

Bibliographic metadata should be consistent with the published version of record.

DOI registration, scholarly discovery services, and digital preservation arrangements serve different purposes and must be described accurately.

Registration with a bibliographic service or preservation provider must not be represented as acceptance into a selective citation index.

The journal supports appropriate long-term digital preservation of its scholarly content and the traceability of formal post-publication corrections.

Editorial correspondence, reviewer assignments, relevant disclosures, and significant editorial decisions must be retained securely for legitimate administrative, legal, and research-integrity purposes.

Confidential records must be protected against unauthorized access, alteration, or disclosure.

29. Post-Publication Scientific Discussion

NOIS recognizes that scientific evaluation continues after publication.

Readers and researchers may submit evidence-based comments, technical analyses, and scientifically grounded criticism of published articles.

Substantive comments may be considered for publication as Correspondence or formal Comments, subject to appropriate editorial assessment and independent review where required.

Authors whose work is the subject of significant scientific criticism should normally have an opportunity to respond.

Scientific disagreement should be addressed through evidence, reasoning, and professional discussion rather than personal allegations.

When post-publication examination identifies a consequential error or serious integrity concern, the journal determines whether a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or another appropriate action is required.

The journal does not reject legitimate scientific criticism solely because it challenges previously published findings.

30. Policy Implementation, Consistency, and Review

These Editorial Policies provide the general framework for the scientific and ethical governance of NOIS.

Detailed requirements are established in the journal's specialized policies concerning peer review, publication ethics, author submissions, conflicts of interest, data and code availability, generative AI, privacy, complaints, copyright, and publication charges.

The journal's leadership and publisher are responsible for ensuring that these requirements are implemented consistently within their respective areas of responsibility.

Where a material inconsistency is identified between published policy statements, the journal must clarify the applicable requirement, correct the conflicting information, and communicate significant changes transparently.

Policy changes must not be used retrospectively to misrepresent an earlier editorial procedure or alter the historical publication record.

The journal reviews its editorial policies when developments in scientific practice, professional guidance, legal requirements, publishing technology, or identified integrity risks make revision necessary.

Editorial integrity depends on the consistent application of these principles, supported by documented procedures, independent scientific judgment, and appropriate accountability.

Related Policies and Official Information

Aims and Scope https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/aims_and_scope

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

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

Peer Review Integrity and Reviewer Guidelines https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/peer_review_integrity

Conflicts of Interest and Funding Transparency https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/conflicts_of_interest

Research Data, Code and Reproducibility Policy https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/reproducibility_policy

Generative AI and AI-Assisted Research Policy https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/generative_ai

Complaints, Appeals and Whistleblowing Policy https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/complaints

Privacy Policy and Personal Data Protection https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/privacy_policy

Open Access Policy https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/open_access_policy

Publication Fees, Waivers and Refunds https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/publication_fees

Editorial Timeline and Acceptance Rate https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/editorial-timeline

Publisher's Policies https://sciencesforce.com/publisher

Official Editorial Contact: nois@sciencesforce.com

Publication Ethics, Complaints, and Appeals: ethics_reporting@sciencesforce.com

Publisher: Sciences Force LLC, United States

These policies are intended to support fair, rigorous, transparent, and accountable scholarly publishing and to protect the integrity of research published in Neutrosophic Optimization and Intelligent Systems.