Publication Ethics
PJKM addresses suspected research and publication misconduct using procedures informed by the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and the integrity of the scientific record.
Editors are responsible for the integrity, quality, and appropriateness of material published by PJKM.
Manuscripts are assessed without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, nationality, political belief, institutional affiliation, seniority, or other irrelevant characteristics.
Editors and staff must protect submitted manuscripts, author identities, reviewer identities, correspondence, and unpublished information.
An editor must disclose and recuse themselves from handling a manuscript when a real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest may affect impartiality.
Editors select suitable independent reviewers, protect double-anonymous review where applied, and consider reviews critically rather than mechanically.
Decisions must be based on the manuscript's scholarly merit and accompanied by appropriate editorial or reviewer feedback.
Editors investigate credible concerns and use appropriate COPE guidance, including when allegations arise before or after publication.
Editors facilitate corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other notices when needed to maintain an accurate scholarly record.
Authors must submit original work and appropriately acknowledge all ideas, words, data, images, and materials derived from other sources.
A manuscript must not be under consideration by another journal and must not duplicate substantially published work.
Methods, analyses, results, limitations, and conclusions must be reported honestly and with enough detail to permit critical evaluation.
Authors must not fabricate, falsify, selectively omit, or manipulate data, images, tables, statistical outputs, or study records.
Authorship must be limited to individuals who made substantial contributions and can take public responsibility for the work. Guest, gift, and ghost authorship are prohibited.
All authors must approve the submitted and final versions. Contributor roles should be reported accurately when requested by the journal.
Authors must disclose funding sources, sponsor roles, financial relationships, personal relationships, and other interests that could be perceived to influence the work.
Every citation and quotation must be checked against the original source. Citation padding, coercive citation, and citation of irrelevant material are prohibited.
Authors must respond honestly to editorial queries and provide data, ethics documents, consent records, or other supporting information when reasonably requested.
Authors who discover a significant error in submitted or published work must notify the journal promptly and cooperate in correcting the record.
The publisher supports the editorial process, preserves the journal's scholarly record, and provides the operational conditions necessary for timely and ethical publication. The publisher must respect editorial independence and must not interfere with acceptance or rejection decisions for commercial, institutional, political, or personal reasons. Where legal, ethical, or safety issues arise, the publisher will work with the editors to take proportionate and transparent action.
PJKM does not tolerate conduct that undermines the reliability, originality, fairness, or transparency of the scholarly record. Prohibited practices include, but are not limited to:
Using another person's words, ideas, data, or work without proper attribution.
Reusing substantial previously published material without transparent citation or justification.
Inventing data, participants, observations, results, records, or references.
Manipulating research materials, processes, analyses, images, or data so the record is misleading.
Submitting the same or substantially similar manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
Publishing materially overlapping work without adequate disclosure, citation, or editorial justification.
Inappropriately fragmenting one study into multiple papers to inflate publication output.
Guest, gift, ghost, purchased, coerced, or otherwise inaccurate authorship.
Adding irrelevant citations or coercing citations to inflate metrics or benefit particular parties.
Concealing interests that could reasonably be perceived to influence the research or publication process.
Providing false reviewer identities, interfering with reviewer selection, or compromising independent review.
Providing false, incomplete, or misleading information about approval, consent, registration, or compliance.
Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose financial, institutional, professional, intellectual, personal, or other relationships that could influence—or reasonably appear to influence—the research or publication process. Authors must identify all funding sources and describe the funder's role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, and the decision to submit. Disclosure does not necessarily imply wrongdoing; it enables transparent editorial assessment.
Authors must preserve original data and supporting records for an appropriate period consistent with institutional, funder, disciplinary, and legal requirements. When ethically and legally permissible, authors should make the data, code, instruments, protocols, and other materials necessary to understand or reproduce the work available through a suitable repository or upon reasonable request. Restrictions arising from consent, confidentiality, privacy, community agreements, commercial sensitivity, or law must be stated transparently.
Complaints and appeals must be submitted in good faith with sufficient information to permit assessment. An appeal should identify the specific editorial or procedural issue being challenged and provide relevant evidence. The journal will review concerns fairly, confidentially, and without retaliation. When appropriate, a matter may be referred to a different editor, the publisher, an institution, funder, ethics committee, or another competent body.
The editor assesses whether the concern is specific, credible, relevant, and supported by available information.
The relevant party may be asked to explain the issue and provide original data, documentation, ethics records, or other evidence.
Additional editorial, methodological, statistical, ethical, or external expert review may be sought where necessary.
Because journals cannot conduct all forms of research investigation, serious concerns may be referred to the relevant institution, ethics committee, funder, regulator, or authority.
The journal takes action according to the available evidence, seriousness of the concern, effect on the scholarly record, and applicable guidance.
Depending on the stage and severity of the issue, PJKM may take one or more of the following actions:
Post-publication notices will be linked clearly to the affected article, explain the reason for the action, and preserve the scholarly record whenever appropriate. Retraction is intended to correct the literature and protect readers, not merely to punish authors.
This statement has been developed with reference to recognised standards and guidance, including:
