Publication Ethics

IJARST publishes peer-reviewed research in science and technology. Trust in that record depends on every party — editors, reviewers, authors — behaving consistently. The policies below describe the standards we apply to our own editorial work and the conduct we expect from contributors and reviewers. Our framework follows the principles published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Editorial responsibilities

The editorial team decides which submissions to publish based on the validity of the work, its relevance to the journal's aim and scope, and the recommendation of independent reviewers. Editors evaluate manuscripts solely on intellectual content, without regard to the authors' race, gender, nationality, religious belief, citizenship, sexual orientation, or political philosophy. Editors do not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and the publisher, until the paper is published or formally rejected.

Unpublished material disclosed in a submission is not used by any member of the editorial team for their own research without the explicit written consent of the author. Editors will recuse themselves from handling a manuscript when a competing interest exists; the manuscript is reassigned to another qualified editor.

Reviewer responsibilities

Reviewers assist editors in reaching decisions and, through the editorial feedback they provide, help authors improve their work. Reviewers who feel unqualified to review a manuscript, or who cannot meet a deadline, should decline the invitation promptly so an alternative reviewer can be approached. Any reviewer who has a competing interest with respect to the authors, the companies, or the institutions connected to the manuscript should decline the review.

Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents and are not shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. Reviews are conducted objectively, with judgments expressed clearly and supported by argument. Reviewers identify relevant published work that has not been cited and flag any substantial similarity between the submission and other works they have personal knowledge of.

Author responsibilities

Authors submitting to IJARST warrant that the work described in their manuscript is original, has not been published previously (other than as a preprint or thesis), and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Where the work draws on prior publications by the same authors, those works must be cited.

Authors must accurately present the work they performed and the conclusions they drew. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript and authors should be prepared to provide raw data in connection with editorial review. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Authorship and contribution

Authorship is limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All significant contributors are listed as co-authors. Where others participated in substantive aspects of the project, they are acknowledged. The corresponding author ensures that all appropriate co-authors are included on the manuscript, that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version, and that all co-authors have agreed to its submission.

Plagiarism and originality

Every manuscript is screened for textual overlap with previously published material at the time of submission. Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works; where the work and/or words of others have been used, they must be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism — including unattributed paraphrase, self-plagiarism beyond reasonable methods-section reuse, and image manipulation — is a serious ethical breach and grounds for rejection or retraction.

Conflict of interest disclosure

All authors disclose in the manuscript any financial or personal relationships with people or organizations that could inappropriately influence their work. Examples include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, and patent applications. Reviewers and editors disclose any conflicts and recuse themselves where appropriate.

Handling allegations of misconduct

When an allegation of research or publication misconduct is brought to the journal's attention — for example, suspected duplicate publication, undisclosed conflicts, plagiarism, fabricated data, or authorship disputes — the editorial office follows the COPE flowcharts to investigate. The corresponding author is contacted and given the opportunity to respond. Where an investigation substantiates the allegation, the journal will publish a correction, an expression of concern, or — in serious cases — a retraction.

Corrections and retractions

Honest errors of fact identified after publication are addressed with a published correction linked from the original article. Articles are retracted when findings are unreliable as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error), where there is evidence of plagiarism or duplicate publication, or where ethical issues emerge. Retraction notices state the reason for retraction and are linked from the affected article. The original article is not removed; it is clearly marked as retracted.

Complaints and appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision, or anyone wishing to raise a concern about the journal's editorial conduct, can write to the editorial office at the editor contact address. Complaints are acknowledged within five working days and responded to substantively within thirty.

Indexing and credibility claims

IJARST lists its indexing and credibility coverage on its Indexed page. Where authors require independent verification of any specific listing (for example, the UGC-CARE list as maintained by the University Grants Commission), we direct them to verify directly on the official portal rather than rely on our own statement of inclusion. This separation between journal claim and authoritative source is intentional: the registry, not the journal, is the source of truth.

Questions about a specific case? Email editorijarst@gmail.com or use the contact form. Ready to submit a manuscript that meets these standards? Submit your article