Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Commitment to Ethical Scholarly Publishing

Neutrosophic Optimization and Intelligent Systems (NOIS), published by Sciences Force LLC, is committed to maintaining the integrity, reliability, independence, and transparency of scholarly publishing.

The journal recognizes that trust in scientific literature depends not only on the quality of published research but also on the ethical conduct of authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers. Each party has a responsibility to protect the accuracy of scientific communication and to prevent, identify, and address practices that undermine the scholarly record.

NOIS follows an ethical framework informed by the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing developed jointly by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME.

This statement establishes the journal's ethical responsibilities, identifies unacceptable publication practices, and explains the procedures used to evaluate concerns and determine appropriate corrective action.

These principles apply to all scholarly content published by NOIS, including regular and special-issue contributions, and operate alongside the journal's Editorial Policies, Aims and Scope, and Information for Authors.

1. Editorial Independence and Ethical Governance

Editorial decisions at NOIS must be based on the scientific merit, methodological validity, relevance, originality where applicable, and ethical compliance of the submitted work.

The Editor-in-Chief and authorized handling editors are responsible for maintaining independent scientific judgment throughout the editorial process.

The publisher supports the journal's administration, technical infrastructure, production, dissemination, and preservation without exercising improper influence over scientific acceptance decisions.

Financial interests, publication charges, sponsorship, institutional relationships, personal connections, and potential indexing considerations must not determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

Editors are expected to exercise their responsibilities fairly, consistently, and without discrimination. They must disclose relevant conflicts of interest and withdraw from decisions where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.

When a manuscript involves the Editor-in-Chief, another senior editor, or a member of the Editorial Board, responsibility must be assigned to an appropriately qualified independent editor without a material conflict of interest.

The handling of such submissions must follow the same scientific and ethical standards applied to manuscripts from other authors.

The journal does not provide preferential treatment to members of its editorial leadership, publishing organization, or affiliated institutions.

2. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and ethical conduct of the research they submit.

By submitting a manuscript to NOIS, authors confirm that the work has been prepared honestly, that the reported findings are supported by the underlying research, and that all necessary permissions and ethical approvals have been obtained.

Authors must accurately describe their research objectives, methodology, assumptions, data sources, analysis, results, and limitations.

They must not knowingly omit or misrepresent information in ways that could materially distort the interpretation of their findings.

Authors must provide appropriate acknowledgment of prior research and distinguish their contributions from established methods and previously published results.

All listed authors must have made a qualifying intellectual contribution, approved the submitted work, and accepted responsibility for their respective contributions.

Honorary, guest, gift, ghost, and coerced authorship are unacceptable.

The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors are informed of the submission, subsequent revisions, editorial decisions, and final publication arrangements.

Requests to change authorship after submission must be justified and supported by the documented agreement of all affected authors.

Authors must cooperate with legitimate editorial inquiries concerning research integrity, including requests for clarification, relevant supporting documentation, and explanations of potential errors.

An author's responsibility to the scholarly record continues after publication.

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

Editors must evaluate manuscripts fairly and protect the integrity of the editorial process.

They are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts selected for external review are assigned to suitably qualified and independent reviewers.

Editors must consider the scientific substance of reviewer reports rather than relying solely on numerical scores or recommendations.

They must maintain the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and must not exploit privileged information obtained through editorial duties.

Editors must not request irrelevant citations for the purpose of improving the citation performance of themselves, the journal, or associated researchers.

Where concerns about originality, research integrity, ethical approval, or publication misconduct arise, editors must assess the available evidence and initiate appropriate procedures.

Editors must also give reasonable consideration to credible concerns raised after publication, regardless of whether those concerns originate from authors, readers, reviewers, institutions, or other sources.

Editorial decisions involving allegations of misconduct must be proportionate, documented, and free from avoidable conflicts of interest.

4. Ethical Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers contribute to the reliability of scientific publishing by providing independent, competent, and evidence-based evaluations.

Reviewers must accept assignments only when they possess sufficient expertise and can assess the manuscript fairly.

Before undertaking a review, they must disclose relevant financial, institutional, professional, or personal interests that could compromise their independence.

Review reports should identify substantive scientific strengths and weaknesses, evaluate the validity of the methods and findings, and offer constructive recommendations.

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

Reviewers must not use confidential information, unpublished results, research ideas, or materials obtained through the review process for their own advantage or that of another person.

They must not share manuscripts or delegate reviews without prior editorial authorization.

Reviewers who identify suspected plagiarism, fabricated results, manipulated images, unreliable mathematical claims, or other integrity concerns must communicate those concerns confidentially to the handling editor.

Reviewers must not independently contact authors or institutions about confidential submissions without appropriate editorial authorization.

Coercive citation requests, reciprocal reviewing arrangements, and attempts to manipulate editorial outcomes are prohibited.

5. Ethical Responsibilities of the Publisher

Sciences Force LLC, as the publisher of NOIS, is responsible for supporting ethical publishing practices and maintaining appropriate publishing infrastructure.

The publisher must respect the editorial independence of the journal and avoid interference in decisions made on scientific grounds.

Its responsibilities include supporting accurate publication records, appropriate handling of author rights, transparent disclosure of publication charges, protection of confidential editorial information, and maintenance of the journal's published content.

The publisher must cooperate with the editorial leadership when research integrity concerns require investigation or corrective action.

Where correction, expression of concern, or retraction is warranted, the publisher must support the implementation, visibility, and appropriate metadata maintenance of the resulting notice.

The publisher must not knowingly use misleading statements concerning the journal's indexing status, affiliations, editorial endorsements, peer-review practices, or other aspects of its scholarly identity.

6. Authorship, Contributorship, and Accountability

Authorship must reflect genuine intellectual responsibility for the published work.

Individuals who satisfy the journal's authorship requirements must be recognized appropriately, while contributors who do not qualify for authorship should be acknowledged with their permission.

Original research submissions must provide an accurate description of author contributions.

Authors must not misrepresent the role of collaborators, research assistants, students, supervisors, sponsors, or institutions.

The journal does not recognize funding acquisition, general supervision, administrative authority, or institutional seniority alone as sufficient grounds for authorship.

Changes to the author list or author order must be transparently explained and approved according to the journal's Editorial Policies.

When a substantive authorship dispute cannot be resolved through documented agreement, the journal may suspend editorial processing and request clarification from the relevant institution.

For published work, material authorship corrections must be handled through an appropriately documented post-publication procedure.

7. Conflicts of Interest and Funding Transparency

All participants in the publishing process must disclose interests that could reasonably affect, or appear to affect, their professional judgment.

Authors must declare relevant financial and non-financial competing interests, including research funding, employment relationships, consultancy arrangements, intellectual property interests, institutional associations, and personal or professional relationships.

Funding declarations must accurately identify the organizations supporting the research and describe any significant role played by funders or sponsors in the study or publication process.

Where no relevant competing interests exist, authors must provide an explicit declaration to that effect.

Editors and reviewers must disclose potential conflicts before undertaking responsibility for a manuscript.

A material conflict may require recusal, reassignment, or additional safeguards.

The journal considers both disclosed and undisclosed conflicts according to their relevance and potential effect on the scientific assessment.

Failure to disclose a material interest may require investigation and, when appropriate, correction of the published record.

8. Originality, Plagiarism, and Redundant Publication

NOIS requires honest representation of the origin and contribution of submitted research.

Plagiarism includes presenting the words, ideas, methods, data, figures, results, or other intellectual contributions of another person as one's own without appropriate acknowledgment.

Unacceptable text recycling, misleading reuse of previously published material, and substantial duplication of earlier work may also constitute publication misconduct.

The journal may use established similarity-detection tools, including iThenticate or equivalent services, to assist editorial screening.

Similarity reports must be interpreted by qualified editors in the context of the manuscript and its sources.

No single similarity percentage establishes the presence or absence of plagiarism.

Substantial unattributed intellectual appropriation may occur even when the overall similarity percentage is low.

Authors must disclose relevant preprints, conference papers, theses, and other earlier dissemination of the work.

Preprint posting does not automatically disqualify a manuscript from consideration, provided that the relevant disclosure, originality, and copyright requirements are satisfied.

A manuscript must not be simultaneously submitted for journal publication elsewhere.

Submissions that substantially overlap with previous publications must demonstrate a legitimate and meaningful scholarly contribution beyond the earlier material.

Allegations of plagiarism or redundant publication are evaluated on the evidence available, with appropriate consideration of the authors' explanations and the circumstances of the case.

9. Research Data Integrity, Mathematical Validity, and Reproducibility

NOIS expects the research it publishes to be scientifically reliable and sufficiently documented to permit meaningful independent assessment.

Data fabrication, falsification, deliberate misrepresentation of results, and unsupported presentation of experimental findings are unacceptable.

For theoretical and mathematical research, authors must report definitions, assumptions, propositions, proofs, and conclusions accurately and provide adequate justification for claimed results.

For optimization and computational research, authors must document the essential components of their methods, including relevant algorithms, datasets, experimental configurations, performance measures, and evaluation procedures.

For artificial intelligence and intelligent-system studies, authors must provide sufficient information to assess the validity of the experimental design, the relevance of baseline comparisons, and potential sources of bias or data leakage.

Authors must not present simulated, synthetic, or illustrative results as measurements obtained from real-world observations.

Studies using synthetic or simulated data must identify the nature of those data and explain how they were generated.

Research articles must include an appropriate data availability statement indicating where supporting data or materials may be accessed, whether access is restricted, or whether no new data were generated.

Where necessary for scientific verification, editors may request relevant data, software, mathematical derivations, research protocols, or supporting documentation.

Legitimate restrictions involving personal privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property, security, or applicable law must be considered.

Failure to provide particular materials does not automatically establish misconduct. The editorial response must take account of the stated limitations, available alternatives, and effect on the reliability of the findings.

Where credible concerns remain unresolved, the journal may request additional verification, obtain independent expert advice, or take appropriate editorial action.

10. Ethical Oversight of Human and Animal Research

Although NOIS principally publishes mathematical and computational research, some interdisciplinary studies may involve human participants, personal information, biological material, clinical data, or animal research.

Such studies must comply with applicable legal, institutional, and internationally recognized ethical requirements.

Where ethics committee or institutional review board approval is required, authors must provide the name of the approving body and available approval identifiers.

Where research was formally exempted from review, or review was not required, the manuscript must explain the basis for that determination.

Studies involving human participants must address informed consent in accordance with applicable laws, institutional requirements, and the approved research protocol.

The journal distinguishes consent to participate in research from consent to publish identifiable personal information.

Where identifiable images, recordings, personal histories, or other individual details are included, appropriate publication consent must be obtained unless a valid legal and ethical exception applies.

For minors and individuals who cannot provide legally effective consent, the requirements for consent by parents, guardians, or legally authorized representatives, together with participant assent where appropriate, must be respected.

Medical research involving human participants should comply with the applicable principles of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, as revised in October 2024.

Animal studies must provide appropriate ethical oversight information and explain relevant animal welfare protections. Applicable reporting standards, including the ARRIVE guidelines, should be followed where relevant.

The journal does not impose a universal age threshold for legal consent because the applicable requirements depend on jurisdiction, study design, and participant circumstances.

Failure to provide required ethical approval, consent, or sufficient justification for an exemption may prevent publication.

11. Privacy, Confidentiality, and Intellectual Property

The journal respects the confidentiality of submitted research and the legitimate privacy interests of authors, reviewers, research participants, and other individuals.

Unpublished manuscripts, confidential reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and research integrity records must be accessed only by individuals with an authorized and legitimate role.

Confidential information may be disclosed when reasonably necessary for a legitimate investigation or legal obligation, subject to applicable safeguards.

Authors must respect privacy, data protection requirements, and the lawful rights of third parties whose information or materials appear in their research.

The use of copyrighted text, images, tables, diagrams, software, datasets, or other materials must comply with applicable permissions, licenses, or lawful exceptions.

Redrawing or adapting copyrighted material does not automatically eliminate the need for permission.

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

NOIS publishes its articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), while third-party materials may remain subject to separately identified rights or restrictions.

The journal does not knowingly publish material obtained through unlawful access, unauthorized disclosure, or other serious breaches of confidentiality.

12. Responsible Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

NOIS recognizes that generative artificial intelligence and AI-assisted tools may support aspects of research and scholarly communication, but their use must not compromise research integrity, accountability, confidentiality, or the reliability of published findings.

Artificial intelligence systems cannot be listed as authors or co-authors.

Human authors remain responsible for every scientific claim, mathematical result, citation, dataset, image, and conclusion included in their manuscripts.

AI-assisted language editing may be used under appropriate human supervision. Materially relevant use of generative AI in preparing manuscript content must be disclosed.

Where AI systems form part of the scientific methodology, including model development, computation, data generation, simulation, classification, or analysis, their use must be described with enough detail to permit meaningful evaluation.

Authors must verify the accuracy of AI-assisted content and must not include fabricated references, unsupported results, invented observations, or misleading scientific statements.

The generation or manipulation of research data, images, or experimental outcomes in a manner that falsely represents the underlying research is prohibited.

To protect manuscript confidentiality, reviewers and editors must not upload unpublished submissions, confidential reports, or editorial correspondence into unauthorized external generative AI systems.

Generative AI must not replace the independent scientific judgment required of reviewers and editors.

Any suspected misuse of AI is assessed according to its effect on originality, research integrity, confidentiality, intellectual property, or the reliability of reported results.

13. Integrity of Peer Review and Prevention of Manipulation

NOIS applies a double-anonymous peer-review model to manuscripts selected for external evaluation.

Research articles and reviews sent for external review are normally assessed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Initial editorial screening and desk rejection are distinct from external peer review.

The identities and qualifications of reviewers must be assessed through reasonable verification procedures, and relevant conflicts of interest must be considered before assignments are confirmed.

The journal prohibits fabricated reviewer identities, manipulated reviewer accounts, fraudulent review reports, unauthorized delegation of reviews, coordinated favorable-review arrangements, and attempts to improperly influence editorial decisions.

Author-recommended reviewers are not automatically appointed. The journal retains responsibility for selecting and verifying reviewers independently.

Editors and reviewers must not engage in coercive citation practices or make publication decisions for the purpose of manipulating citation indicators.

Where evidence suggests compromised peer review, the journal may suspend the affected editorial process, seek independent reassessment, investigate related submissions, and take proportionate corrective action.

Published articles affected by compromised peer review may be reassessed when the integrity or reliability of their scientific evaluation is in serious doubt.

14. Special Issues and Guest Editor Ethics

Special Issues are subject to the same ethical standards as regular journal submissions.

Guest Editors must possess relevant expertise, disclose competing interests, and work within the journal's authorized editorial procedures.

They must not exercise editorial authority over manuscripts they have authored or over submissions involving material conflicts of interest.

Such manuscripts must be assigned to independent editors.

Guest Editors may coordinate scholarly evaluation and make recommendations within their authorized responsibilities, but independent final editorial accountability remains with the journal's designated editorial leadership.

Special Issues must not operate under predetermined acceptance quotas, preferential publication arrangements, or payment-dependent editorial decisions.

Concerns about reviewer manipulation, unusual publication patterns, overlapping authorship, citation practices, or other integrity risks must be assessed through the journal's established procedures.

15. Allegations of Publication Misconduct

NOIS considers credible allegations of research or publication misconduct regardless of whether they concern submitted manuscripts or published articles.

Potential misconduct includes plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, peer-review manipulation, citation manipulation, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed material conflicts of interest, unethical research, misrepresentation of affiliations or approvals, and systematic manipulation of the publication process.

The journal distinguishes allegations from established findings.

An allegation alone does not constitute proof of misconduct, and editorial action must reflect the evidence and seriousness of the concern.

Initial Assessment

The responsible editor or an authorized independent person evaluates the concern to determine whether it is sufficiently specific and credible to warrant further examination.

Where appropriate, the journal preserves relevant submission records, reviewer information, correspondence, publication metadata, and supporting documentation.

Request for Clarification

When a concern requires an explanation from the authors or other involved parties, they are given an appropriate opportunity to respond and provide relevant evidence.

Where several authors are involved, the journal may contact individual authors separately when necessary to establish the facts.

Independent Evaluation

Concerns involving specialized mathematical, computational, statistical, forensic, or ethical questions may be referred for independent expert assessment.

Where the matter falls within the responsibility of a research institution or requires access to records that the journal cannot independently verify, the journal may request an institutional investigation.

Editors do not substitute their own findings for institutional determinations of matters outside their competence, but they retain responsibility for protecting the reliability of the journal's publication record.

Editorial Outcome

Possible outcomes include dismissal of an unsupported allegation, a request for clarification or amendment, manuscript rejection, correction of published material, publication of an expression of concern, or retraction when justified.

Any restrictions on future submissions or referrals to institutions must be proportionate, supported by the circumstances, and consistent with applicable requirements.

The journal aims to handle investigations without unnecessary delay while allowing sufficient time for fair examination and evidence-based decisions.

 

16. Systematic Manipulation and Publication Integrity

NOIS recognizes that publication misconduct may involve coordinated activity extending beyond a single manuscript.

Indicators may include fabricated reviewer information, unusual manuscript similarities, falsified authorship or affiliations, manipulated citations, duplicated figures or datasets, implausible research records, or patterns suggesting commercially organized manuscript production.

Such indicators require assessment in context and must not be treated as conclusive evidence in isolation.

Where a credible pattern of systematic manipulation is identified, the journal may coordinate an investigation across related submissions or articles, consult independent specialists, and cooperate with relevant institutions or publishing integrity organizations.

Investigations should distinguish individual responsibility from broader patterns and avoid unjustified assumptions about authors whose work may have been affected.

When multiple published articles are found to have serious integrity problems, corrective measures may be coordinated while preserving clear records for each affected publication.

The journal's approach is informed by relevant COPE guidance on systematic manipulation of the publication process.

17. Corrections and Amendments to Published Articles

The journal has a continuing responsibility to address significant errors identified after publication.

A formal correction may be appropriate when an article contains an identifiable error that requires amendment but its principal findings remain sufficiently reliable.

Examples may include consequential errors in mathematical expressions, tables, figures, numerical results, authorship information, affiliations, methods, or reported data.

Before issuing a correction, the responsible editor evaluates the nature of the error and whether the proposed amendment adequately resolves its effect on the article.

Correction notices must identify the affected publication, explain the essential change, and be clearly linked to the original article.

The correction must be publicly accessible and distinguishable from the original research article.

Where relevant, associated article metadata and publication records must be updated to reflect the correction.

Changes that materially alter results or conclusions require careful consideration of whether a correction is sufficient or another post-publication action is necessary.

18. Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be published when credible and potentially serious questions arise about the integrity or reliability of a published article, but the available evidence is not yet sufficient to determine the appropriate final outcome.

An expression of concern may also be considered when an investigation cannot be completed within a reasonable period or when important concerns remain unresolved.

The notice must identify the article, describe the nature of the concern to the extent appropriate, and avoid presenting unproven allegations as established facts.

An expression of concern is not equivalent to a retraction or a finding of misconduct.

The notice remains linked to the affected article and may be followed by a correction, retraction, updated notice, or another appropriate conclusion once further information becomes available.

The journal follows applicable COPE guidance when deciding whether an expression of concern is warranted.

19. Retractions and Preservation of the Scholarly Record

Retraction may be necessary when the scientific findings or conclusions of a published article are no longer sufficiently reliable or when serious ethical or publication irregularities warrant formal action.

Relevant circumstances may include major methodological or analytical errors, unreliable data, fabrication or falsification, plagiarism, unethical research, duplicate publication, or compromised peer review that materially undermines confidence in the work.

Retraction decisions are made according to the evidence and the need to protect the scholarly record.

The purpose of retraction is to correct the scientific literature and inform readers, not to punish authors.

A retracted article ordinarily remains accessible as part of the historical publication record, clearly marked as retracted.

A formal retraction notice must be publicly accessible, identify the affected article, explain the reasons for the action as far as reasonably possible, and be linked to the original publication.

Relevant DOI and bibliographic metadata must be updated as appropriate to make the article's status discoverable.

Authors should be informed and given an appropriate opportunity to respond. However, an editor may issue a justified retraction when the evidence warrants it even if agreement among the authors cannot be obtained.

Retracted material must not be silently deleted, replaced, or presented as an unchanged publication.

The journal's procedures are informed by the COPE Retraction Guidelines updated in 2025.

20. Complaints, Appeals, and Independent Review

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other interested parties may raise concerns about editorial conduct, peer-review integrity, publication ethics, or the scientific reliability of published material.

Complaints should identify the relevant manuscript or publication and explain the concern as clearly as possible.

The journal treats complaints seriously and evaluates the available evidence in accordance with its Editorial Policies.

Complaints concerning the conduct of an editor must not be resolved solely by the individual whose conduct is disputed.

Such matters are referred to an appropriately qualified independent person or editorial authority without a relevant conflict of interest.

Authors may appeal a rejection decision when they can identify a substantial factual error, procedural irregularity, conflict of interest, or another relevant issue that could have materially affected the outcome.

Appeals are not an opportunity to obtain automatic reconsideration merely because an author disagrees with the scientific judgment of reviewers.

The journal normally considers one formal appeal against a final rejection decision, with further independent assessment when justified.

Good-faith reporting of ethical concerns must not result in retaliation or discriminatory editorial treatment.

The identity of a complainant is protected to the extent reasonably possible and consistent with a fair investigation and applicable legal obligations.

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

21. Post-Publication Scientific Discussion

NOIS recognizes that scholarly evaluation continues after publication.

Readers and researchers may submit evidence-based comments, technical criticisms, or requests for clarification concerning published articles.

Substantive scholarly comments may be considered for publication as scientific correspondence or formal comments, subject to appropriate editorial assessment and independent review where necessary.

Authors of an article that is the subject of a substantial scientific critique should normally be offered an opportunity to respond.

Post-publication discussions must be conducted respectfully and should address scientific arguments, methods, evidence, or interpretation rather than personal accusations.

When a critique reveals a significant error, the journal considers whether a correction, expression of concern, or retraction is required.

The journal does not suppress scientifically legitimate criticism solely because it challenges previously published findings.

22. Ethical Recordkeeping and Confidentiality of Investigations

The journal maintains records necessary to support editorial accountability, resolve publication ethics concerns, and document significant decisions.

Relevant records may include manuscript submissions, reviewer assignments, conflict-of-interest disclosures, editorial correspondence, decisions, investigation findings, and post-publication notices.

Access to confidential records is restricted to authorized persons with legitimate responsibilities.

Information is retained and handled in accordance with applicable legal requirements, privacy obligations, and the journal's documented administrative and research integrity needs.

Records must not be falsified, backdated, altered to conceal irregularities, or selectively removed to misrepresent the editorial history.

Published article dates and relevant bibliographic metadata must accurately reflect the underlying publishing events.

Where an error in the public record is identified, correction must occur through a transparent and appropriately documented process.

23. Editorial Transparency and Publication Charges

NOIS provides immediate open access to its published articles under its stated copyright and licensing arrangements.

The journal's publication charges, applicable waivers, and payment conditions are governed by the publisher's publicly available fee policy.

Editorial assessment, peer-review assignment, manuscript acceptance, and publication integrity decisions must remain independent of payment arrangements.

No payment guarantees acceptance or substitutes for scientific evaluation.

The journal does not claim membership, certification, or endorsement by external publishing ethics organizations unless that status has been formally established.

Similarly, bibliographic registration, DOI assignment, digital preservation, and inclusion in research discovery services must not be presented as equivalent to acceptance by a selective citation indexing database.

24. Implementation, Accountability, and Policy Review

Responsibility for implementing this statement rests with the journal's editorial leadership and publisher within their respective roles.

Editors, reviewers, and authors are expected to comply with the ethical requirements applicable to their participation in the publication process.

The journal reviews its publication ethics arrangements when changes in professional guidance, legal obligations, editorial procedures, or identified integrity risks make revision necessary.

Material changes to ethical requirements should be communicated through the journal's official website and applied consistently.

The journal recognizes that publication ethics requires continuing oversight, accurate documentation, fair procedures, and appropriate corrective action rather than reliance on declarations alone.

Its central responsibility is to protect the trustworthiness of scholarly communication and preserve the integrity of the scientific record.

25. Related Policies and Official Contacts

This Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement should be read together with the journal's detailed editorial and submission policies.

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

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  

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

Publisher's Publication Fee Policy: https://sciencesforce.com/article/processing/fees

Editorial Office: nois@sciencesforce.com

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

Publisher: Sciences Force LLC, United States

Reference Framework

The journal's publication ethics framework is informed by the following professional guidance:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): https://publicationethics.org/

COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME — Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12

COPE — Retraction Guidelines: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4

World Medical Association — Declaration of Helsinki:

https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/

ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research: https://arriveguidelines.org/