Publication Ethics

NRME Journals
Newredmars Education Publication House

---

1. Ethical Framework

NRME Journals adheres to internationally recognized standards of publication ethics and integrity. The journal follows the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and aligns its editorial and publishing practices with the expectations of leading international journals. All stakeholders authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher are required to uphold these ethical standards.

2. Peer Review Model

NRME Journals follows a double-blind peer review process, where both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review cycle. This approach ensures impartial evaluation and minimizes bias.

• All submissions undergo initial editorial screening for scope, quality, and ethical compliance.
• Eligible manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent experts.
• Reviewers evaluate originality, methodological rigor, clarity, and contribution to the field.
• The Editor makes the final decision based on reviewer reports and academic merit.

3. Responsibilities of Authors

3.1 Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must submit original work that has not been published or submitted elsewhere. All sources must be properly cited. Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is strictly prohibited and may result in rejection or retraction.

3.2 Authorship and Contributions

Only individuals who have made substantial contributions to the research should be listed as authors. All authors must approve the final manuscript and agree to submission. Contributions should be transparently described where applicable.

3.3 Data Integrity

Authors are responsible for ensuring that all data are accurate, complete, and honestly presented. Fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of data constitutes serious misconduct.

3.4 Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships that could influence the research outcomes. Funding sources must be clearly acknowledged.

3.5 Ethical Approval

Research involving human participants or animals must comply with institutional and international ethical standards. Authors must provide evidence of ethical approval and informed consent where required.

4. AI-Generated Content Policy

NRME Journals recognizes the growing use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in research and writing. Authors may use AI tools for language editing or technical assistance; however, AI tools cannot be listed as authors.

• Authors must disclose any use of AI tools in the preparation of the manuscript.
• Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the content.
• AI-generated content must not replace critical scientific analysis or interpretation.
• Any misuse of AI, including fabrication or manipulation of data, will be treated as misconduct.

5. Research Data and Reproducibility

NRME Journals promotes transparency and reproducibility in research. Authors are encouraged to make underlying data available to support verification and reuse.

• Datasets should be deposited in recognized repositories where possible.
• Authors should provide data availability statements describing where and how data can be accessed.
• Methods and materials must be described in sufficient detail to allow replication.
• Any restrictions on data access must be clearly justified.

6. Responsibilities of Editors and Reviewers

Editors and reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and confidentially. They must avoid conflicts of interest and must not use unpublished information for personal advantage. Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit and relevance.

7. Publication Misconduct

The journal does not tolerate misconduct, including plagiarism, data falsification, citation manipulation, or unethical experimentation. Allegations will be investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines.

8. COPE Complaint and Investigation Workflow

NRME Journals follows a structured process for handling ethical complaints and misconduct cases:

1. Complaint Received: Allegation is submitted to the editorial office.
2. Initial Assessment: Editor evaluates the validity and scope of the complaint.
3. Author Notification: Authors are informed and asked to respond.
4. Investigation: Evidence is reviewed in line with COPE guidelines.
5. Decision: Outcomes may include correction, rejection, or retraction.
6. Final Action: Institutional notification may be made if required.

9. Corrections and Retractions

Errors or ethical issues identified after publication will be addressed through formal corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions, ensuring transparency and integrity of the scholarly record.

10. Compliance with Indexing Standards

This policy is designed to meet the requirements of Scopus and other international indexing systems by ensuring ethical accountability, transparency in peer review, and responsible research dissemination.

11. Policy Updates

Newredmars Education Publication House reserves the right to revise this policy in accordance with evolving global publishing standards. Updated versions will be made publicly available on the journal website.