The Journal of Soft Computing and Artificial Intelligence (JSCAI) is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of ethics, integrity, and transparency in scholarly publishing. We fully comply with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). All parties involved in the publication process (authors, editors, and reviewers) are expected to adhere to these ethical principles, ensuring that JSCAI meets the requirements of major indexing services and upholds public trust in its content.
Author Responsibilities
- Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that their submission is entirely original and has not been previously published or concurrently submitted elsewhere. All sources and prior work must be properly cited; any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, or manipulation of figures or findings is strictly prohibited and will result in rejection or retraction of the paper. All manuscripts are screened with plagiarism-detection software (e.g., iThenticate) to verify originality. The journal’s threshold for unoriginal content is a maximum of ~20% similarity (excluding references and common phrases), and any submission exceeding this or containing copied text will be scrutinized and potentially declined.
- Authorship and Contributions: Authorship must accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work. Only those who have significantly participated in the research conception, design, execution, or writing and revision of the manuscript should be listed as authors. Guest, honorary, or “gift” authorships are not permitted. The corresponding author should ensure that all legitimate contributors are included and that no one is improperly omitted. All authors share responsibility for the content of the paper and should approve the final version.
- Data Integrity: Authors are expected to present their data and results honestly. Any fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting of data is a severe ethical violation. Underlying data should be retained by the authors and made available upon request for editorial or reviewer inspection, in line with our reproducibility and data availability policy (see Data Availability and Reproducibility below). Manipulation or misrepresentation of data (including images or charts) to produce a misleading result is unacceptable and will lead to rejection or withdrawal of the article.
- Citation and Acknowledgment of Sources: Proper attribution of ideas, text, and data from other works is required. Authors must cite all relevant literature and sources that influenced their work. If any figures, tables, or extensive excerpts from other publications are used, authors must obtain the necessary permissions (unless the material is under an appropriate open license) and give credit to the original source. Failure to acknowledge the work of others constitutes plagiarism, which is not tolerated.
- Avoidance of Redundant Publication: Submitting the same research or substantial parts of it to more than one journal (duplicate submission) is unethical. If elements of the work have been published elsewhere (e.g., as a conference paper or preprint), this must be disclosed at submission. JSCAI may consider such work only if it does not violate the originality requirement and proper attribution to the prior dissemination is given.
- Disclosure of Funding and Conflicts of Interest: All financial support and any other potential conflicts of interest must be transparently disclosed by the authors. This includes funding sources (grants, institutional support), as well as any personal or financial relationships that might be perceived to influence the research outcomes or interpretation. Authors should include a Funding Acknowledgement and a Conflict of Interest Statement in their manuscript, listing any grants, institutional affiliations, or personal interests related to the work. If no conflicts exist, the authors should explicitly state that there are none.
- Ethical Research Compliance: For studies involving human participants or animals, authors must ensure that all experiments were performed in compliance with relevant ethical guidelines and regulations. Authors are required to obtain approval from an appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB/IACUC) before conducting the research, and to include a statement in the manuscript identifying the approving authority and approval number if applicable (see Ethics Approval for Human and Animal Research below). Any research that does not meet these ethical requirements (e.g. lack of informed consent, or improper treatment of animals) will not be considered for publication.
- Accuracy and Corrections: Authors have a continuing obligation to ensure the accuracy of their published work. If a significant error or inaccuracy is discovered in an article, whether identified by the authors themselves or brought to their attention by others, authors must promptly notify the JSCAI editorial office. In cooperation with the editors, authors should retract or correct the paper as needed, such as by issuing an erratum or retraction notice. Authors are expected to participate in investigations of misconduct or disputes and provide any required clarifications or data when requested.
Editorial Responsibilities and Integrity
- Impartial Decision-Making: The Editorial Board of JSCAI is committed to editorial independence and impartiality. Submissions are evaluated solely on their scholarly merit—originality, methodological soundness, significance, and clarity—without regard to the authors’ race, gender, age, institution, nationality, or personal relationships. Business needs or external policies do not influence editorial decisions; acceptance or rejection is based only on the paper’s quality and relevance to the journal’s scope.
- Double-Blind Peer Review Oversight: JSCAI employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process for all research submissions. Editors select qualified and independent reviewers (typically at least two) with appropriate expertise, and ensure that the identities of authors and reviewers remain concealed throughout the review process. Editorial staff must ensure that reviewers have no identifiable information about the authors in the manuscript files and vice versa, to promote an unbiased evaluation.
- Confidentiality: Editors and editorial staff must treat all submissions as confidential documents. Manuscript content (including data, figures, or supplementary files) and correspondence with authors and reviewers are not to be shared outside of the editorial process. Editors will not disclose information about a manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, or other editorial advisors, as appropriate. All unpublished material must remain confidential and must not be used by editors or board members for their own research or personal advantage. The confidentiality obligation applies during and after the review process.
- Conflict of Interest Management: Editors must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript in which they have a potential conflict of interest. If an editor is the author (or co-author) of a submission, or has any competitive, collaborative, or personal connections to the authors or content (such as being from the same institution or having a financial stake in the work), they will withdraw from the decision process and delegate the manuscript to an independent editor or the editorial board. Our editorial management system ensures that no editor makes decisions on their own work or on papers where a conflict exists. Editors also require reviewers to declare any conflicts (see Conflict of Interest Policy below) and will take such declarations into account when assigning and interpreting peer reviews.
- Accountability and Corrections: The Editorial Board is responsible for upholding the integrity of the academic record. If errors, ethical issues, or misconduct are discovered in a published work, the editors will take prompt action in accordance with COPE guidelines. This includes issuing corrections, expressions of concern, or retraction statements as needed. Corrections will be published for minor errors that do not undermine the overall findings, whereas retractions or withdrawal notices will be issued for serious issues (such as fabricated data, plagiarism, or major methodological flaws). All such notices will be clearly identified and linked to the original article, to maintain transparency in any post-publication changes.
- Editorial Board Governance: The journal’s editors continuously review and improve editorial policies in line with evolving best practices. We follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors and the Principles of Transparency mentioned above, which include safeguarding ethical standards, encouraging debate (through letters or comments) when appropriate, and ensuring timely handling of submissions. The Editorial Board also ensures that peer-review records are kept and that editorial decisions are documented for accountability.
Peer Review Ethics and Confidentiality (Double-Blind Review)
JSCAI’s peer review process is fundamental to our publication ethics, ensuring that published research is rigorous, credible, and unbiased. The journal uses a double-blind peer review model, meaning that both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review. Specifically, reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors are not told who has reviewed their manuscript. This practice helps to eliminate potential bias and conflicts of interest in the evaluation of manuscripts.
All reviewers are expected to uphold the following ethical responsibilities during peer review:
- Objectivity and Constructiveness: Reviews should be conducted in an impartial, professional manner. Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific merit, originality, and clarity, not on personal opinions about the authors. Critiques should be constructive, providing clear arguments and supporting evidence for their recommendations. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. We encourage reviewers to be specific in their feedback and, where possible, to reference relevant literature or standards that support their assessment of the work’s quality or needed improvements.
- Timeliness: Reviewers who accept an invitation to review are expected to complete their evaluations within the agreed timeframe. If a reviewer finds they will be unavoidably delayed or cannot complete the review, they should promptly inform the editor so that alternative arrangements can be made. Timely reviews help ensure fair and efficient editorial decisions.
- Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use any information from the manuscript for any purpose outside the context of the review. This includes not using the data or ideas in one’s own research until the work is published. Reviewers should not retain the manuscript or its data after completing the review; all copies should be deleted. Communication with authors must be facilitated only through the journal’s platform—reviewers should not contact authors directly. Additionally, reviewers must not upload or solicit input on the manuscript’s content from any generative AI tools or external platforms, as this could risk breaching confidentiality or intellectual property rights. All consultation about the manuscript should be limited to what is permitted by the journal (e.g., discussing with a co-reviewer or mentor may be allowed only if the journal’s policy permits and the editor is informed).
- Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Prior to reviewing, reviewers must consider whether they have any potential conflict of interest (financial, academic, or personal) with respect to the manuscript’s content or authors. If such a conflict exists (for example, the reviewer works in the same department as one of the authors, has collaborated with them recently, or stands to benefit financially from the work), the reviewer should decline the review and inform the editor of the situation. Under no circumstance should a reviewer with a significant conflict attempt to review the work, as this compromises the fairness and objectivity of the process.
- Competence and Ethical Compliance: By accepting a review assignment, a reviewer implicitly assures that they have the appropriate expertise to assess the manuscript’s content and that they will adhere to all ethical guidelines. If a reviewer feels a manuscript is on a topic outside their expertise, they should decline promptly. Reviewers are also encouraged to point out relevant published work that is not cited in the manuscript, or any concerns about ethical aspects of the research (such as potential plagiarism, redundant publication, or improper research conduct) that they notice. Any suspected ethical issue should be flagged in the confidential comments to the editor.
JSCAI maintains reviewer anonymity unless a reviewer chooses to waive it (if the journal policy and the situation allow). The journal records all peer review communications and decisions to ensure transparency and accountability in the review process. Reviewer performance (e.g., quality and timeliness of reviews) is monitored by the editors, and repeated failure to adhere to these ethics may result in a reviewer being removed from the reviewer pool.
Conflict of Interest Policy
JSCAI defines a conflict of interest (COI) as a situation in which financial, commercial, legal, familial, or professional connections could be reasonably perceived as compromising the objectivity or influence the outcomes of the research or its review process. Transparency about such relationships is crucial to maintain trust. The journal has the following policies for authors, reviewers, and editors:
- Authors: Authors are required to disclose all potential conflicts of interest that could be viewed as influencing the research. This includes any financial interests (such as funding, paid consultancies, stock ownership, patents, or royalties related to the work) and any non-financial relationships (personal or professional affiliations, advisory roles, or intellectual rivalries) that might bias the work. All such information should be provided in the manuscript’s Conflict of Interest statement and will be published with the article. If an author is unsure about whether something constitutes a relevant conflict, the safest course is to disclose it. The journal may require additional clarification or documentation for any disclosed conflicts. If no conflicts exist, the authors should explicitly state, “The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”
- Reviewers: Reviewers must evaluate their own situation for conflicts before accepting a review invitation. If a reviewer has any financial stake in the work’s outcomes, is collaborating with the authors, has recently (within the past few years) co-authored with an author, works at the same institution as an author, or has a personal relationship (positive or negative) with the authors, this likely constitutes a conflict of interest. In such cases, reviewers should decline to review and explain the general reason to the editor (confidentially). We expect reviewers to be neutral and free of bias; therefore, any factor that compromises a reviewer’s impartiality disqualifies them from reviewing that paper. Reviewers should also not use their review role to further their own interests—for example, they should not delay a review to benefit their own competing work, and they must not use knowledge gained from the manuscript for personal advantage. If a potential conflict of interest is discovered after a review has been submitted (e.g., the reviewer did not recognize a connection at first), the reviewer should contact the editor immediately to address the issue. JSCAI upholds reviewer neutrality and confidentiality strictly.
- Editors and Editorial Staff: Editors must avoid any conflicts of interest in handling manuscripts. If the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor has a submission in the journal or has a close connection to the authors (such as same institution, direct collaboration, or personal relationship), that editor will have no involvement in the review or decision process of that manuscript. Instead, the responsibility will be handed over to another editor without conflicts, or a guest editor if needed, to ensure a fair process. Editors also should not handle manuscripts where they have a competitive interest (for example, a very similar work under review at the same time in JSCAI). All editorial team members and staff are required to disclose any secondary affiliations or interests that could be perceived as influencing their editorial duties. These disclosures are reviewed by the journal management. Additionally, editors will not exploit unpublished information from a manuscript for their own research; they must recuse themselves and refrain from using any content if there is a conflict. By adhering to COPE’s guidelines on editorial conflicts, JSCAI ensures that decisions are free from undue influence and bias.
Handling of Misconduct, Corrections, and Retractions
JSCAI takes research and publication misconduct very seriously. Any allegations of unethical behavior are investigated thoroughly, with the process guided by COPE’s established flowcharts and recommendations. The following outlines our policies on handling misconduct and maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record:
- Plagiarism and Duplicate Publication: If plagiarism (using others’ work without attribution) is detected at any stage, the manuscript will be rejected outright; if discovered post-publication, the article will be retracted. Similarly, submissions that are found to be duplicate or highly overlapping publications of the authors’ other works (beyond acceptable secondary publication with disclosure) will be refused. All submissions are scanned for plagiarism as described above, and the editorial board may conduct further investigation (such as requesting source files or explanations from authors) if suspicious content or patterns are observed.
- Data Fabrication/Falsification: Any indication that data has been fabricated (made-up) or falsified (altered or selectively reported to mislead) will result in immediate action. The manuscript under review will be rejected, and if the work is published, a retraction will be issued. The retraction notice will detail the reasons (e.g., data fabrication discovered in Figures X and Y, or falsified experimental results). JSCAI follows COPE guidelines in these situations, ensuring the retraction is clearly linked to the original article and is indexed appropriately to alert readers. We also reserve the right to inform authors’ institutions or funding agencies of confirmed misconduct when necessary.
- Image Manipulation: Authors must not enhance, obscure, move, or remove features from images (such as micrographs, gels, or charts) except for adjustments that apply to the entire image (e.g., changing brightness uniformly) and are disclosed in the figure legend. Any inappropriate manipulation for the purpose of misleading (for instance, splicing lanes on a gel without disclosure) is considered scientific misconduct. Detected image manipulation will be handled in line with data falsification policies above.
- Improper Use of Human/Animal Subjects: Research that does not adhere to ethical standards for human or animal treatment (such as lack of ethics approval or causing undue harm to subjects) constitutes misconduct. If such issues are identified, the journal will reject the submission or retract the published paper, as appropriate. We may also notify oversight bodies if egregious ethical violations are uncovered.
- Corrections and Errata: If minor issues (e.g., honest errors in data, author names, or affiliations) are found post-publication that do not amount to misconduct and do not change the overall conclusions of the work, JSCAI will publish a corrigendum (author correction) or erratum (publisher correction) to correct the record. The correction will appear on the journal’s website and be linked to the original article. Authors or readers who identify such an error should contact the editorial office, and the editors will coordinate the issuance of the correction after verifying the details.
- Retraction Policy: In cases where flaws or misconduct seriously undermine a paper’s findings or credibility (e.g., proven plagiarism, fraudulent data, major calculation errors, or unethical research), the journal will retract the article. Retractions include a statement that the article is retracted, co-signed by the editors, and explain the reason for retraction (to distinguish misconduct from honest error). Retracted articles will be clearly marked in all online versions, and the retraction notice will be indexed to ensure future readers are aware of the issue. JSCAI follows COPE’s Retraction Guidelines in executing this process. If all authors agree to retract (for example, in cases of honest error), the retraction will note this. If an author disagrees, the retraction may still proceed if the evidence of misconduct is clear, with the notice stating that one or more authors did not consent.
- Expressions of Concern: In some instances, if an issue is suspected but not yet confirmed (for example, an institutional investigation is underway about a paper’s data integrity), the journal may publish an interim Expression of Concern to alert readers that the work is under scrutiny. This notice will be updated later with the outcome (resolved by either a correction or retraction, or in rare cases, removal of the notice if the concerns were disproven).
- Appeals and Disputes: JSCAI provides authors the opportunity to appeal editorial decisions or raise concerns about review accuracy, especially in cases of alleged bias or misunderstanding. Appeals must be submitted in writing with detailed justification. They will be reviewed by an editor (or an ethics committee) not involved in the initial decision. However, frivolous or unsubstantiated appeals will not overturn decisions. In case of disputes over authorship, data, or ethical matters, the journal may involve the publisher or the author’s institution as appropriate, following COPE guidance on conflict resolution.
Our overarching approach is to ensure fairness and integrity. All investigations of misconduct are conducted with confidentiality and respect for due process. Individuals accused of wrongdoing will have a chance to respond. JSCAI will update or correct the literature as needed to maintain a trustworthy academic record, and will report patterns of serious misconduct to relevant authorities (e.g., institutional ethics committees or funding bodies) when warranted.
Use of AI Tools in Manuscript Preparation
In response to the increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted tools in research writing, JSCAI has adopted clear policies to ensure transparency and responsibility in their use. The primary principle is that authors are accountable for all content in their manuscript, including any text or images generated by AI tools.
- Permissible Use of AI: Authors may utilize generative AI tools (such as large language models or grammar-checking software) only for assistance in improving language, grammar, and clarity of the text. Acceptable uses include suggesting rephrasing for better readability or correcting linguistic errors. AI tools must not be used to generate scientific content in lieu of the author’s own work — for example, inventing research data, analysis, or conclusions. The core creative and intellectual contributions must come from the authors.
- AI as Author: AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors on any submission. Authorship implies the ability to take responsibility for a work, respond to critiques, and hold copyright, which AI entities cannot do. JSCAI will only recognize natural persons as authors who can fulfill all authorship criteria. Any contribution from AI (in writing or analysis) does not equate to authorship and should instead be documented in the Methods or Acknowledgments as appropriate.
- Disclosure Requirement: Transparency about the use of AI is mandatory. Authors must disclose in their manuscript and/or the submission form any use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in the writing process. This disclosure should include the name of the tool (e.g., ChatGPT, Grammarly, DeepL) and a brief description of how it was used (e.g., “to improve English language and grammar in the introduction section”). JSCAI provides a section in the submission system for an “AI Usage Statement,” and we encourage authors to also place an AI disclosure in the manuscript (such as a footnote or acknowledgement) that will appear in the published article. If no AI tools were used, no statement is required. Example disclosure: “During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used ChatGPT to refine the language and grammar. The authors reviewed and edited the AI-generated suggestions for accuracy and take full responsibility for the content of the paper.”. This statement will be published with the article to maintain transparency.
- Author Responsibility for AI-generated Content: Any content generated with the help of AI tools must be carefully reviewed and verified by the authors. Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, validity, and originality of the content of their manuscript, including parts that may have been suggested by AI. AI tools can produce authoritative-sounding text that may be incorrect, biased, or plagiarized. It is the authors’ duty to ensure that no such errors or biases remain. All factual information and references must be checked against reliable sources by the human authors. If the use of AI leads to any ethical issues (such as inadvertently plagiarized text or fabricated citations), the authors will be held accountable for the breach of publication ethics. Submissions with undisclosed AI-generated content that violates originality or accuracy standards will be treated as misconduct.
- Limitations on AI Use: AI tools should not be used to circumvent the standard peer review or editorial processes. For instance, authors should not use AI to auto-generate citations or references, as these are often fictitious or error-prone. Fabrication of references is a form of academic misconduct. Similarly, authors should not rely on AI to draw scientific conclusions that are not directly supported by their data. The role of AI, if used, should be limited and primarily editorial (language polishing) rather than substantive. When in doubt about whether an AI use is appropriate, authors are encouraged to consult the editorial office.
- Editorial and Reviewer Use of AI: To protect confidentiality and editorial integrity, JSCAI prohibits editors and reviewers from inputting unpublished manuscripts (or portions thereof) into AI or automated tools that are not secure. Reviewers should not use AI to write or substantively critique a manuscript—reviews must be the product of the reviewer’s own expert analysis. Automated grammar-checkers or reference formatters can be used on one’s own review text, but not on the manuscript content. Editors may use plagiarism detection or language editing tools in evaluating a manuscript, but will not use AI to make decisions or generate decision letters that contain confidential manuscript information. These measures ensure that we do not inadvertently expose sensitive content to third-party AI services and that the human expertise remains central to peer review.
By implementing these AI policies, JSCAI aims to embrace useful technological advances while safeguarding the scholarly standards of authorship and accountability. We recognize that AI can aid writing and editing, but it cannot replace the critical thinking, originality, and ethical responsibility of human researchers.
Data Availability and Reproducibility
JSCAI strongly supports open science practices, recognizing that data availability and reproducibility are key components of ethical and rigorous research. We encourage authors to make their research data, code, and other relevant materials accessible to readers and reviewers to the greatest extent possible, in order to allow others to verify and build upon the findings.
- Data Availability Statements: All submissions should include a Data Availability Statement describing whether and how the data underlying the findings can be accessed. If the data are publicly available, authors should provide the repository name (or database) and any applicable accession numbers or DOIs. For example: “All simulation datasets generated and analyzed during this study are available in the Zenodo repository, DOI:XXX” or “Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.” If there are legal, ethical, or privacy constraints preventing public data sharing (such as confidential human subject data), the statement should clearly explain these restrictions and what conditions apply for access. The journal understands that not all data can be open, but we require transparency about its availability.
- Open Data and Repositories: Whenever feasible, authors are strongly encouraged to deposit their datasets in reputable, discipline-appropriate public repositories (for example, code in GitHub or GitLab with a permanent archive like Zenodo, datasets in Figshare, Dryad, or institutional repositories). Data should be curated and documented well enough that others can understand and use it. If a study uses third-party data that are already publicly available, authors should properly cite those data sources in the reference list (data citation). All datasets or code that are referred to in the article should be persistently accessible if possible.
- Reproducibility of Methods: Authors must provide sufficient methodological details to enable others to replicate the study’s results. This includes clear descriptions of algorithms, experimental procedures, computational analyses, and statistical methods. If the work involves software or code, authors should either provide the source code or give detailed pseudo-code and specify all parameter values and dependencies to ensure the results can be reproduced. We encourage authors to follow discipline-specific reporting guidelines (e.g., PRISMA for systematic reviews, CONSORT for clinical trials, or ARRIVE for animal experiments) to ensure comprehensive reporting.
- Supplementary Material: Large data files, technical details, or additional results can be published as supplementary material alongside the article. JSCAI can host reasonable amounts of supplementary content, or authors can use external repositories and link them. The supplementary files should be referenced in the main text and undergo peer review along with the manuscript.
- Peer Review of Data: Reviewers and editors may evaluate the robustness of the results by examining the provided data or code. In some cases, the editorial office might request authors to supply raw data or computational scripts during the review process for verification purposes. Authors should be prepared to share such materials confidentially if asked, or to run additional analyses to confirm findings, as part of addressing reviewers’ concerns. Any refusal to share data without a valid reason may raise concerns regarding the manuscript’s credibility and could influence the editorial decision.
- Replication and Post-publication: We welcome and support efforts by other researchers to replicate or reproduce studies published in JSCAI. If authors of a published paper later discover an issue that affects reproducibility (e.g., an error in a dataset or code), they should inform the journal so that a correction or explanatory note can be published. Conversely, if a reader or researcher uncovers a major reproducibility issue in a JSCAI paper, we encourage them to contact us; the journal may facilitate a dialog or investigation, and publish correspondence or updates as needed.
By mandating data transparency and thorough method reporting, JSCAI aligns with evolving standards in scholarly publishing that aim to enhance the reliability and utility of research. We believe that openly accessible data and methods not only uphold ethical accountability but also accelerate scientific progress by enabling others to validate and extend existing work.
Ethics Approval for Human and Animal Research
Research that involves human participants or animal subjects must be conducted in accordance with the highest ethical standards. JSCAI requires authors to obtain appropriate ethics approvals and follow relevant guidelines for such studies, as a precondition for publication.
- Human Subjects: Any study involving human subjects (including surveys, interviews, observations, clinical research, or any collection of identifiable private data) must be reviewed and approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or equivalent independent ethics committee before the research is carried out. Authors should explicitly state in the manuscript: (a) the name of the approving institution’s ethics committee, (b) the approval number or ID, and (c) that participants gave informed consent (if applicable). All human research should be performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and other relevant international guidelines for human subject research. If an IRB determined that the study was exempt from approval or waived the need for consent, this should be clearly stated with the justification. Informed Consent: Researchers must obtain informed consent from participants for their involvement in the study and specifically for publication of the results or any personal data. For minors or vulnerable populations, consent from legal guardians and assent from the participants (when possible) is required. Authors should include a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants (or a statement explaining why consent was not required, as per IRB guidelines). Additionally, any information that could identify individuals (names, photos, detailed demographics) should be omitted or anonymized unless essential and explicitly approved by the individual (with proof of consent for publication of identifying information).
- Animal Subjects: Any research involving vertebrate animals or higher-order invertebrates must have approval from the appropriate Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or equivalent ethics board. Authors must indicate in the Methods section the details of the animal care and use approval (institutional committee name, approval or protocol number) and affirm that all experiments were performed in accordance with applicable guidelines and regulations (for example, ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research, and national laws such as the U.S. Animal Welfare Act or EU Directive 2010/63/EU). The welfare of animal subjects should be a priority: procedures should minimize pain and distress, and humane endpoints should be employed when necessary. Any use of anesthetics or euthanasia methods must be described and should conform to accepted veterinary standards. If the study involves endangered species or field research, permits or licenses obtained for the work should be mentioned.
- Compliance and Reporting: JSCAI will not consider for publication any research involving humans or animals that has not obtained the necessary ethical approvals. During submission, authors will be asked to confirm compliance with these policies and may need to provide documentation. The editors reserve the right to request copies of ethics approval letters or consent forms for verification. If concerns arise about the ethical aspects of a submitted work, the journal may consult external experts or COPE guidelines for advice. Published articles will include statements in the Methods or Acknowledgments regarding ethical approval and consent.
- Clinical Trials and Registries: In line with best practices for human research, any clinical trial (involving health-related interventions on participants) must be registered in a recognized public trial registry (such as ClinicalTrials.gov or WHO’s ICTRP) prior to enrollment of participants. The trial registration number and registry name should be provided in the manuscript. This ensures transparency and helps avoid selective reporting.
Adherence to these ethical standards for human and animal research is non-negotiable. JSCAI upholds the position that the dignity, rights, and welfare of research subjects (human or animal) take precedence over the interests of science and society. By enforcing strict ethical compliance, we contribute to responsible research conduct and public confidence in the published findings. Authors who fail to meet these requirements will have their work returned or rejected, and if ethical issues are discovered post-publication, the article may be retracted and the authors’ institutions notified.
By articulating these comprehensive ethical principles and publication policies, JSCAI demonstrates its commitment to fostering an environment of integrity and excellence in academic publishing. All contributors—authors, reviewers, and editors—share the responsibility of adhering to these guidelines. We believe that maintaining rigorous ethical standards not only safeguards the credibility of this journal but also advances the broader scientific enterprise, ensuring that new knowledge in soft computing and artificial intelligence is trustworthy, reproducible, and ethically sound. JSCAI proudly aligns with COPE and other international ethics frameworks in this endeavor, and will continuously update its policies to reflect emerging best practices in scholarly publishing and research ethics.
December 29, 2025
Page
1-19
