Editorial Policy

The EurAsia Academic Publishing Group (EAPG) follows the guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), and also the Code of Conduct for Editors, which are available at http://www.publicationethics.org/. Any objection to the journal process or decision should be handled by the Editor-in-Chief, and the publisher’s actions should be based on the COPE rules.

Submission of a manuscript to the journal implies that all authors have read and agreed to its content and that the manuscript conforms to the publisher’s policies.

Journals of publisher provide immediate access to their published contents. Articles published are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivatives license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) which permits non-commercial re-use (download, read, print, search, copy, distribute the link, etc.) of open-access articles, as long as the original author and source are properly attributed, and provided the articles are not modified or altered.

Copyright

The journals of or EurAsia Academic Publishing Group (EAPG) allow the author(s) to hold the copyright, and to retain publishing rights without any restrictions.

The copyright agreement must be observed and signed by ALL authors. Authors are responsible for the accuracy of the content published. Submitting manuscripts to every journal of this publisher means that authors agree with publication ethics and peer review policies.

Originality of work

The contents of articles must be original and have not been published, submitted, or under consideration elsewhere. Innovation, originality, authenticity and accuracy must be important features of research articles. Our journals receive different types of research papers including original articles, reviews, short communications, technical reports and letters to editors. Each type of article has a special format and the submission must follow the guidelines that are on every journal website. The publisher will not change any information after publishing unless the changes are required based on the publication ethics. Submitted articles must adhere to the instructions that every journal has elaborated. It is crucial that the submitted articles are within the designated scopes of journals; the subjects of each journal will be carefully examined by editors in chief.

Roles and users in the journals of the EurAsia Academic Publishing Group (EAPG)

Authorship

Everyone who has made notable contributions should be recognized as co-authors. Those who have been involved in specific significant aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. This approach ensures transparency about who is accountable for the integrity of the content.

Authors included in an article must meet all the following criteria:

Made a substantial contribution to research, whether in the content, study design, execution, data collection, analysis, and interpretation or all these areas.
Have prepared, written, substantially revised, or critically reviewed the paper
Reviewed and agreed on all versions of the article and journals before submission, during revision, the final version accepted for publication, and any significant changes at the proofing stage.
Take responsibility and be accountable for the contents of the article and any questions raised about the accuracy or integrity of the published work.

Any changes in authorship before or after publication must be agreed upon by all authors, including those being added or removed. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to obtain confirmation from all co-authors and to provide a full explanation of why the change was necessary. But we recommend authors read our rules about Authorship changes.

Changes to authorship

As a general rule, extensive changes to the authorship of an article are not permitted. During submission of the original and revised versions of the paper, the corresponding author takes responsibility that all persons listed on the paper should be authors (are eligible for authorship per the criteria described above). Extensive changes to the author list will be investigated on a case-by-case basis, and if it cannot be ascertained why an extensive change has taken place, the paper may be rejected on that basis.
Authorship changes on submission of a revised version of a paper: Depending on the nature of the revisions asked for in decision letters sent to authors, new author(s) might be added to a revised version of a paper, particularly if new experimental work has been requested as part of the peer-review process, and if the contributions of previously unnamed persons now merit authorship listing on the revised manuscript (criteria for authorship described above). In the event of the addition of authors at revision, the author contribution paragraph at the end of the manuscript must be updated to reflect what the newly added authors contributed to the paper.
If any authors are being removed from a revised paper, then it should be clear why that author has been removed, and written confirmation should be obtained from all authors (including the author who has been removed) confirming that they are aware of and agree with the removal of the author.
We do not support the addition or removal of authors after acceptance and Proofreading.
However, if a change in authorship is required after the publication of the article, this will be amended via a post-publication notice or erratum. Any changes in authorship must comply with our criteria for authorship, and requests for significant changes to the authorship list after the article has been accepted may be rejected if clear reasons and evidence of author contributions cannot be provided.
If an author’s affiliation changes between the time the research is conducted or the paper is written and the time of publication, the author’s current affiliation should be listed, and where appropriate, the previous affiliation acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section at the copy-editing stage.

Misrepresentation of affiliation is a form of misconduct and the journal will deal with such cases by contacting all relevant institutions to assist with our investigation.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Once submitted, the order cannot be changed without the written consent of all the contributors.

EAPG endorses the Vancouver Guidelines on authorship as defined in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals

Contribution Details

Contributors should describe the contributions made by each of them to the manuscript. The description should be divided into categories such as concept, design, definition of intellectual content, literature search experimental studies, data collection and analysis, statistical analysis, manuscript preparation, editing, and manuscript review. Ghost and false authorship are considered misconduct.

Images and Figures

Authors should include images and figures in their articles only if they are relevant and add significant value to the work being reported. Please avoid adding content of this type that is purely illustrative and does not contribute to the scholarly work.

As part of the Author Publishing Agreement, you must obtain written permission to include any material in your article that is owned and copyrighted by a third party. This includes, but is not limited to, proprietary text, illustrations, tables, data, audio, video, film stills, screenshots, musical notation, and any supplemental material.

Authors should be mindful of any cultural sensitivities or restrictions related to images included in their manuscripts. For instance, images of human remains or deceased individuals may be restricted in some cultures, and authors should follow appropriate ethical guidelines, considering the views and approval processes of the affiliated communities.

Experimental photographic images, including those from microscopy, should accurately reflect the original image. If any images have been modified or enhanced, this must be clearly stated with a full explanation in the manuscript and figure legend to avoid misleading readers. Authors should also be prepared to provide the original, uncropped, unannotated, and unprocessed images to the journal’s editorial office upon request.

Editorship

The editorial board, particularly the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), is responsible for determining which articles submitted to the journal should be published. This decision is made in consultation with board members and based on reviewer recommendations while adhering to legal requirements such as those related to libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

Editors are tasked with ensuring that the peer review process is conducted fairly, without bias, and promptly.
The journal has established policies to guarantee an unbiased review process, even for submissions from editorial board members. Editorial decisions are made independently of the manuscript’s origin, including the authors’ nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion.
Editors also encourage reviewers to address ethical concerns and potential misconduct in submissions, such as unethical research design or inappropriate data manipulation. Reviewers should remain vigilant for redundant publication and plagiarism. All reviewer comments should be shared with authors in full unless they include offensive language. The contributions of reviewers to the journal are regularly acknowledged.
Finally, editors must take all reasonable measures to ensure the quality of the published material, recognizing that different sections of the journal may have varying aims and standards.
If one of the editors such as the editor in chief, or managing editor tends to submit a paper in the journals, his/ her paper must be managed or peer-reviewed without the authors’ interference and unbiasedly by reviewers assigned by other editors.

Reviewers

Reviewers must keep the research papers confidential and are not permitted to share or publish any content from the manuscripts.
They are required to report any unethical practices found in manuscripts, such as double submission, duplication, or plagiarism, to the editors.
If a manuscript presents a conflict of interest for a reviewer, they are ethically required to decline the review process.
Reviewers should submit their comments within the specified deadlines after accepting the editors’ invitation. If they are unable to meet the deadlines, they must promptly inform the editors.
Reviewers are expected to evaluate papers impartially while adhering to the journal’s policies.
Reviewers are prohibited from directly contacting authors regarding the manuscripts under review.

Peer Review Process

On submission, papers are assessed by the Editorial Office (Mainly the Editor-in-Chief) to ensure that they are suitable for the full peer-review process. If there are any aspects of the submission that are not complete or require clarification (for example, incomplete figures or author list) then the submission will be returned to the authors at this stage for completion. If the paper is out of the scope of journals or it has poor quality content, the Editor-in-Chief can reject the paper. The Editor-in-Chief also checks the originality of papers using the Plagiarism Engine Detector. Papers with unacceptable similarities to or overlaps with other publications will be rejected.

If a paper is ready for full peer review, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the paper to an Associate Editor (based on expertise). If the associate editor considers that the paper warrants full peer review, then they will assign two independent reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief may assign papers to reviewers directly.

EurAsia Academic Publishing Group (EAPG) journals follow a single-blinded and double-blinded process of peer review. Reviewers selected are not able to check other reviewers’ comments, and the reviews received are completely independent.

When reviewers’ reports have been received, the Editor-in-Chief or associate editor assesses the reports, makes the decision on the paper, and mails the decision letter to the authors. On a rare occasion, if reviewer reports are conflicting, then the editors (here, we refer to the editor-in-chief or associate editor) can solicit the opinion of a third reviewer.

The decisions that can be made by editors are:

Accept as it stands
Accept with minor revisions
Major revisions invited
Revise and submit as a new paper (papers that have this decision require substantial revision, and the paper would be considered as a new submission and undergo the full peer review process if submitted again)
Reject and transfer
Reject outright

Authors are given either 2 weeks (minor) to 1 month (major) to revise their papers. Authors can request longer if needed. If not returned within the 1- or 3-month times the papers may be subjected to a long peer-review process. If a revised paper has not been received after 6 months (and there has been no contact from the authors requesting additional time), then the paper will be treated as a new submission if submitted again.

For revised papers, an appropriate and precise response to the reviewer reports should be submitted, along with the revised paper. Once a revised paper has been received, it will be assessed by the editors who handled the peer review of the original version. At this point, the editors can evaluate the revision themselves or assign the revised paper to the reviewers who examined the original version. After completion of the second round of the peer-review process, the final decision is then made on the paper and sent to the authors by editors.

It is possible that the peer review process will be repeated after the second revision if the Editor-in-Chief determines that the authors are able to improve their papers step by step.

After acceptance, the publication team will proofread and create the paper’s layout. During this production period, the corresponding author must check for and be responsive to possible queries.

The peer-review process must be clear and unbiased. Peer-review transparency is considered a crucial factor in the journal’s policies.

Appeals

If you wish to appeal a decision that has been made on a paper, the process followed is set out below (and in accordance with the Code of Conduct and Best Practice for Editors and Publishers, published by COPE).

The author contacts the publisher’s office to appeal a decision.
The paper will be sent to an independent member of the Editorial Board for assessment of the original reviewer reports and the original decision. In some cases, the person handling the paper can be the Editor-in-Chief.
During an independent assessment, the adjudicating member of the Editorial Board may consult with the original reviewers and/or authors.
Following an independent assessment, a final decision on the appeal will be sent to the authors.

Note that if there is a further dispute, the Editor-in-Chief will be called upon to make the final decision.

Animal experimentation

Experiments with animals should comply with national legislation and local Institutional Review Board requirements and there should be a statement about this issue in the paper. In the absence of any national regulations, authors/reviewers can seek advice from the Editorial Office. For additional information on the reporting of work on animals, please see the ARRIVE Guidelines. In particular, please ensure that in your paper you state the site where the animal work has taken place, and where the ethics approval has been sought/obtained.

Human experimentation

Papers describing any experimental work with humans should include a statement that the research has been carried out following the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Research should comply with national and Institutional Review Board requirements for ethical approval and informed consent. In the absence of any national regulations, authors/reviewers can seek advice from the Editorial Office

General Guidelines about Studies in Humans, Animals, and Plants

All original research papers involving humans, animals, plants, biological material, protected or non-public datasets, collections, or sites, must include a written statement under an Ethics Approval section including the following:

The name of the ethics committee(s) or institutional review board(s) involved.
The number or ID of the ethics approval(s).
A statement that human participants have provided informed consent before taking part in the research.
Research involving animals must adhere to ethical standards concerning animal welfare. All original research papers involving animals must:
Follow international, national, and institutional guidelines for the humane treatment of animals.
Receive approval by the ethics review committee at the institution or practice at which the research was conducted and provide details on the approval process, names of the ethics committee(s) or institutional review board(s) involved, and the number or ID of the ethics approval(s) in the Ethics Approval section.
Provide justification for use of animals and the species selected.
Provide information about housing, feeding, and environmental enrichment, and steps taken to minimize suffering.
Provide mode of anesthesia and euthanasia.
Research that does not meet the above-listed requirements regarding ethical approval and animal welfare will be rejected.

Plagiarism and Misconduct

EAPG journals follow the guidelines of COPE community published regarding possible misconduct. As the primary goal of EAPG (member of Crossref) is the integrity of research content, people involved in publishing a paper must avoid unethical issues and misconduct. So, we are committed to protecting the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of the content published by our journals. Therefore, apart from the editorial process in which the content of papers is validated, the iThenticate and Turnitin software is applied to check similarities.

There are different facets of plagiarism and misconduct detected by both the publisher and editors and even reviewers.

Passages quoted or closely paraphrased from other authors (or from the submitting authors’ own published work) must be identified as quotations or paraphrases, and the sources of the quoted or paraphrased material must be acknowledged. The use of unacknowledged sources will be construed as plagiarism.

The review process will be halted immediately if any manuscript contains plagiarized material. Other examples of Violation of publication ethics (but are not limited to) are

Affiliation misrepresentation
Breaches in copyright/use of third-party material without appropriate permissions
Citation manipulation
Duplicate submission/publication
“Ethics dumping”
Image or data manipulation/fabrication
Peer review manipulation
Ghost and false authorship
Text-recycling/self-plagiarism
Undisclosed competing interests
Unethical research

Conflicts of Interest

Incompatible aims and concerns can result in wrong judgments and decisions; therefore, authors must disclose all funding, financial and non-financial support and interests. Lack of transparency in revealing profits and financial resources of research can be considered misconduct. Likewise, it is essential that authors clearly state their affiliations and organizational dependency which might cause contradictions. People who are involved in the submission, and peer-reviewing process must consider the significance of conflicts of interest. Reviewers and editors are not excluded. Reviewers must decline manuscripts in which they might share the same interest. If reviewers or editors are in the peer-reviewing process and they identify that they might share the same interest, they have to inform the publisher or editor-in-chief.

Examples of conflicts of interest that should be declared are (but are not limited to):

employment (where you will receive financial gain)
consultancy (where you will receive financial gain)
personal relationships
academic competition

Data Policy

EAPG encourages authors to share their data and upload raw data and datasets to open data repositories for publication. We do not stipulate a particular repository but encourage Authors to find a suitable repository by visiting http://www.re3data.org/.

During article reviewing, authors might be asked to present the raw data which might be necessary as a part of article evolution when editors need to check the accuracy and reliability of data and analysis.

Pre-publication Policy

EAPG welcomes submissions of work that was previously presented as a poster and/or work that has been posted to a pre-print server.
Placing a pre-submission version of an article on a pre-print’s server and/or publishing and presenting research as a poster is not considered a duplicate publication.
Extensions of preliminary work or work previously presented in abstract form are welcomed. For example, we welcome as new submissions any content published on forums such as BioRxiv.

Confidentiality

It is evident that the publishers will access various kinds of information and data that we, as the publisher, are responsible for protecting. EurAsia Academic Publishing Group (EAPG) completely preserved users’ metadata and information.
Likewise, editors and reviewers are committed to preserving authors’ information and their research content until possible work publication. They are not allowed to reveal or use the authors’ information and scholarly content without the authors’ permission. Editors also have to keep the confidentiality of reviewers’ identities. However, to uphold the transparency of peer-review policies, reviewers can consent to share their comments within the system.

Corrections (Erratum), expressions of concern, and retractions

Sometimes after an article has been published it may be necessary to make a change to the published article.

This will be done after careful consideration by the Editor to ensure any necessary changes are done in accordance with guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/).

Any necessary changes will be accompanied by a post-publication notice (erratum)which will be permanently linked to the original article. This can be in the form of a Correction notice, an Expression of Concern, or a Retraction. The purpose of this mechanism of making changes that are permanent and transparent is to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record.

However, in cases of major corrections, the original article will remain unchanged, while the corrected version will also be published. Both the original and corrected versions (erratum) will be linked to each other. A statement indicating the reason for the major change to the article will also be published.

A Retraction notice will be issued where a major error (e.g. in the analysis or methods) invalidates the conclusions in the article, or where research misconduct or publication misconduct has taken place (e.g. research without required ethical approvals, fabricated data, manipulated images, plagiarism, duplicate publication, manipulated peer reviewing process). Authors and institutions may also request the retraction of their articles if their reasons meet the criteria for retraction.

To help minimize the impact of incorrect or misleading publications, all efforts will be made to issue retractions as soon as possible.

Citations

Research and non-research articles must cite relevant, timely, and verified literature (peer-reviewed, where appropriate) to support any claims made in the article.

You must avoid excessive and inappropriate self-citation or pre arrangements among author groups to inappropriately cite each other’s work, as this can be considered a form of misconduct called citation manipulation.

If you’re the author of a non-research article (e.g. a Review or Opinion) you should ensure the references you cite are relevant and provide a fair and balanced overview of the current state of research or scholarly work on the topic.

Archiving and Self-archiving

Without a doubt, preserving the content of journals, including articles, is essential in today’s technological world, where we must address security concerns such as hacking and data breaches.

The contents published by EAPG journals are collected, preserved, and served by CLOCKSS, LOCKSS, and Portico.

Content Auditing: Regular audits are conducted to verify the integrity and completeness of our preserved content.

Regular backup: The EurAsia Academic Publishing Group (EAPG) shall back up and store the data archive of all manuscripts.

Authors are also able to save their last PDF in their institutional or academic repository, providing the link of the journal or publisher to present the authenticity of the published article.

Open Access

Since the open-access policy seeks to ensure that authors’ discoveries and findings are freely available, EAPG provides the full open-access option to ensure that authors are compliant with their funder mandates. For full details of the open access options available, please take a look at our open access policy.

Use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in writing

Transparency

Disclosure Requirement: The use of AI technologies for content generation, editing, or writing must be made clear in the work.
Example: “The author used [AI tool] to assist with [specific task].”
Authors that use AI to create content are subject to plagiarism law

Prohibition of Unacknowledged Use: Academic misconduct claims may arise if the use of AI is not disclosed.

Al is not considered or cannot be listed as an author in creating content, only humans can take responsibility for generating content.

Permitted Uses

AI tools can assist with specific aspects of the review process, such as:

Grammar and Syntax Checks: Identifying language problems or suggesting clearer phrasing.
Summarization: Highlighting arguments, or areas of concern in the work.
Plagiarism Detection: recognizing poorly paraphrased material using plagiarism-checking tools.
Fact-checking: Verifying factual accuracy or checking references.
Formatting Checks: Checking the journal style and guidelines

Some applications of AI in review are frequently limited:

Assigning the Review: It is often forbidden to let AI perform the entire review or produce comprehensive evaluations.

Evaluative Judgments: AI shouldn’t decide on subjective matters like assessing the novelty of a study.

Assessing an argument’s relevance or depth.

Choosing whether to accept, reject, or make the necessary changes to the work.

Sharing Confidential Information: If the reviewed information is sent for processing, AI tools that store user inputs may unintentionally violate confidentiality agreements.

Al might be biased and it is possible to misinterpret complex technical content.

While AI can enhance the efficiency and precision of reviewing academic work, its role should remain supportive and secondary to the reviewer’s expertise and ethical responsibilities. Full transparency, compliance with confidentiality requirements, and adherence to professional guidelines are essential to maintaining trust and integrity in the review process.

Please contact Ethics@eaapublishing.org, if you have any questions about our editorial policy.