1. Fundamental Ethical Principles

SMAR is committed to the principles of research integrity, scientific impartiality, transparency, accountability, confidentiality, academic freedom, and editorial independence. 

In its practices concerning research and publication ethics, the journal takes into consideration the core practices, guidelines, and flowcharts published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Fabrication of data, manipulation of data or images in a manner that may misrepresent scientific findings, plagiarism, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, manipulation of the peer-review process, and similar violations of research or publication ethics are not accepted.

SMAR may investigate issues relating to research and publication ethics that arise before or after publication in order to safeguard the integrity of the scholarly record. Where necessary, relevant individuals and institutions may be requested to provide information or documentation.

2. Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript they submit is original, is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal, and presents the research data, methods, findings, and conclusions accurately, completely, and without misleading representation.

Ideas, statements, data, images, methods, or other materials belonging to others must be used with appropriate attribution. Where materials subject to copyright or permission requirements are used, obtaining the necessary permissions is the responsibility of the authors.

Ethics committee approval, informed consent, and any other permissions required by the nature of the research must be obtained before the research begins. Authors are required to disclose clearly all sources of research funding and any potential conflicts of interest.

If authors identify a significant error or inaccuracy in a published article that may affect the scholarly record, they must promptly inform the editorial office and cooperate with the journal in any necessary post-publication procedures.

3. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers should accept assignments only for manuscripts that fall within their areas of expertise and should provide their evaluations in a scientific, well-reasoned, impartial, and constructive manner.

Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and other documents accessed during the review process. They must not use unpublished information, data, or ideas for personal, academic, or commercial advantage.

Reviewers who have a personal, academic, institutional, or financial conflict of interest that could affect the impartiality of the evaluation should withdraw from the review process.

If reviewers suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, or any other breach of research or publication ethics, they should report the matter to the editorial office.

4. Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

Editors make decisions concerning manuscripts solely on the basis of the scientific quality, originality, ethical compliance, methodological rigor, contribution to the field, and alignment of the manuscript with the journal’s aims and scope.

Authors’ nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political views, institutional affiliation, or other personal characteristics must not influence editorial decisions.

Editors are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the evaluation process, ensuring scientific expertise and impartiality in reviewer selection, and recusing themselves from the handling of manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest.

If an editor or editorial board member is an author of a manuscript, or has a personal, academic, institutional, or financial conflict of interest related to it, that individual does not participate in any stage of the review or decision-making process. The editorial process for such manuscripts is handled independently by another editor who has no conflict of interest with the manuscript.

5. Ethics Committee Approval, Participant Rights, and Authorship

For research requiring ethics committee approval, the necessary approval must be obtained before the research begins. The name of the ethics committee, the date of the decision, and the decision or document number must be clearly stated in the manuscript. Authors are required to upload the relevant ethics committee approval document and any other ethical permission documents required by the nature of the research to the system at the time of submission.

In research involving human participants, informed consent must be obtained where required. Privacy must be protected, and the necessary permissions must be obtained for the use of personal information, photographs, audio recordings, or visual materials that may enable participants to be identified.

Where scales, tests, questionnaires, images, or other research instruments subject to copyright or permission requirements are used in the research, obtaining the necessary permissions is the responsibility of the authors. 

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made a meaningful contribution to the conceptualization, design, methodology, data collection or analysis, interpretation of findings, or preparation of the scholarly manuscript. Gift or honorary authorship is not accepted.

To ensure transparent reporting of authors’ scholarly contributions, CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) is used to define contribution roles. Each author’s percentage contribution and CRediT contributor roles must be clearly declared. In manuscripts with multiple authors, the total contribution percentages must equal 100%, and the declaration must be based on the joint assessment and approval of all authors. In single-authored manuscripts, the contribution percentage must be stated as 100%. Details concerning the implementation of CRediT contributor roles are provided in the Author Guidelines. Requests to add or remove an author, or to change the order of authors after submission, must be justified. The editorial office may request the written approval of all authors where deemed necessary.

6. Originality, Research Data, Conflicts of Interest, and Funding

For manuscripts submitted to SMAR, authors are required to upload a similarity report generated using either iThenticate or Turnitin at the time of submission. Authors are responsible for ensuring that the similarity report is generated from the current and complete version of the manuscript submitted for consideration.

As part of the journal’s technical preliminary screening, the overall similarity rate should not exceed 20%, while similarity originating from any single source should not exceed 2%. However, the similarity rate alone does not constitute a determination of plagiarism or a measure of ethical compliance. The nature of the matches, appropriate attribution, direct quotations, and scholarly context are evaluated editorially.

The same or substantially similar manuscript may not be under simultaneous consideration by another journal. If the study is based on a thesis, has been posted as a preprint, presented previously as a conference abstract, or has otherwise been made publicly available in an earlier version, this must be disclosed to the editorial office at the time of submission.

Authors are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data used in their research. The editorial office may request research data and related documentation for the purposes of scientific verification or the investigation of a potential ethical violation. 

Where there are no legal, ethical, or confidentiality-related restrictions, authors are encouraged to share research data through reliable data repositories. Authors are responsible for securely retaining the data used or generated in the research in a manner that allows for scientific verification and the investigation of potential ethical concerns. The editorial office may request the submission of research data and supporting documentation where deemed necessary. If there are legal, ethical, or confidentiality-related restrictions on the sharing or provision of data, these restrictions must be clearly stated.

Authors, reviewers, and editors are required to disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that could affect, or could reasonably be perceived as affecting, the evaluation or interpretation of the study.

If the research received financial support, the funding source must be clearly stated. Where the funder had any role in the research design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, preparation of the manuscript, or decision to publish, this role must also be disclosed.

7. Post-Publication Actions, Complaints, and Appeals

If a significant error is identified in a published article that affects the accuracy of the scholarly record but does not invalidate the fundamental conclusions of the study, a correction may be published.

If a serious error or a confirmed violation of research or publication ethics renders the findings of the study unreliable, the article may be retracted. The bibliographic record of the retracted article is retained, and its retracted status is clearly indicated.

Where there are substantial grounds for concern regarding serious scientific or ethical issues but the investigation has not yet been concluded, an Expression of Concern may be published.

Authors, reviewers, and readers may submit reasoned complaints and appeals concerning the journal’s editorial processes, publication ethics practices, or published scholarly content through SMAR’s official contact address. 

Appeals against editorial decisions must include specific scientific or procedural grounds. Mere disagreement with an editorial decision does not constitute sufficient grounds for reconsideration.

Where a complaint or appeal directly concerns the editor who would otherwise be responsible for evaluating it, the matter is handled by another editor or authorized individual who has no conflict of interest. Where appropriate, the guidelines and flowcharts developed by COPE are consulted.