Archives des Sciences: A Multidisciplinary Journal is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics, research integrity, transparency, editorial independence, and responsible scholarly communication. Authors, editors, reviewers, and editorial staff are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with recognized principles of ethical academic publishing.
The journal’s publication ethics policies are informed by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Core Practices and related guidance. Where appropriate, the journal also considers recognized ethical and professional standards relevant to the particular discipline, methodology, or type of research under consideration.
Reference to COPE guidance does not imply COPE membership unless such membership is explicitly stated and independently verifiable.
The journal investigates credible concerns regarding research or publication misconduct and takes appropriate action when necessary to protect the integrity of the scholarly record.
1. Author Responsibilities
1.1 Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must submit original work and appropriately acknowledge all sources, ideas, data, text, figures, tables, methods, and other material derived from the work of others.
Plagiarism, including direct copying without attribution, inappropriate paraphrasing, unattributed use of another person’s ideas or data, and other forms of misappropriation, is not acceptable.
Submitted manuscripts may be screened using plagiarism-detection or similarity-checking tools where appropriate. Similarity alone does not establish plagiarism; identified similarities are evaluated in their scholarly context.
1.2 Original Submission and Duplicate Publication
A manuscript submitted to the journal must not be simultaneously under consideration by another journal.
Authors must disclose relevant previous publications, conference proceedings, preprints, reports, theses, datasets, or related manuscripts where substantial overlap exists.
Duplicate publication, redundant publication, inappropriate fragmentation of research into multiple papers, and republication of substantially identical findings without appropriate disclosure are not permitted.
1.3 Authorship
Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial scholarly contributions to the work and who accept responsibility for the published article.
All listed authors should:
have made a meaningful contribution to the conception, design, execution, analysis, interpretation, or preparation of the research;
participate appropriately in drafting or critically revising the manuscript;
approve the version submitted for publication; and
accept accountability for their contributions to the work.
Individuals who contributed to the research but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately, subject to their consent.
The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all legitimate authors are included, inappropriate authors are excluded, and all co-authors approve the submission.
Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be explained and may require written agreement from all affected authors and editorial approval.
1.4 Acknowledgment of Sources
Authors must accurately acknowledge relevant previous research and provide appropriate citations for ideas, methods, data, quotations, and other scholarly material used in the manuscript.
References should be relevant to the research and should not be added solely to increase citation counts or satisfy inappropriate requests from authors, reviewers, editors, or other parties.
Citation manipulation, including excessive self-citation, coordinated citation arrangements, or coercive citation practices, is not acceptable.
1.5 Data Accuracy, Fabrication, and Falsification
Authors are responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data, analyses, figures, tables, and results reported in their manuscripts.
Fabrication, falsification, selective manipulation, inappropriate alteration or omission of data, and misleading presentation of research findings constitute serious forms of research misconduct.
Images must not be altered in a way that misrepresents the original information. Legitimate adjustments should be applied consistently and should not obscure, remove, introduce, or distort relevant features.
Editors may request underlying data, original images, analytical files, protocols, or other supporting material when necessary to evaluate concerns about research integrity.
1.6 Data Availability and Retention
Authors should retain research data and relevant supporting materials for an appropriate period in accordance with disciplinary, institutional, ethical, legal, and funder requirements.
Where appropriate, authors are encouraged to make research data, analytical code, protocols, and other supporting materials available through recognized repositories or upon reasonable request, subject to legitimate ethical, confidentiality, legal, or intellectual-property restrictions.
Articles should include a Data Availability Statement where applicable.
1.7 Conflicts of Interest
Authors must disclose financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research, its interpretation, or its presentation.
Funding sources and the role of funders in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decisions should be disclosed.
Where no competing interests exist, authors should include an explicit statement indicating this.
1.8 Human Participants and Informed Consent
Research involving human participants, identifiable human data, biological materials, clinical information, surveys, interviews, or other forms of human-subject research must comply with applicable ethical standards and institutional or national requirements.
Where required, authors must provide the name of the approving institutional review board, research ethics committee, or equivalent authority together with the relevant approval or reference number.
Informed consent should be obtained when required. Authors must protect participants’ privacy and confidentiality and must not publish identifiable personal information without appropriate authorization.
If formal ethical approval was not required, authors should clearly explain the basis for that determination rather than implying that approval was obtained.
1.9 Animal Research
Research involving animals must comply with applicable institutional, national, and international standards for animal welfare and ethical research.
Authors should provide information regarding relevant ethical approval, licensing, animal-care standards, and procedures used to minimize unnecessary suffering where applicable.
1.10 Clinical and Health Research
Clinical research must comply with applicable ethical, reporting, consent, and registration requirements.
Where prospective clinical-trial registration is required by recognized standards or applicable regulations, authors should provide the registration number and registry information.
The journal may require compliance with established reporting guidelines appropriate to the study design.
1.11 Generative Artificial Intelligence and AI-Assisted Tools
Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, citations, analysis, and conclusions of submitted manuscripts.
Artificial intelligence systems and large language models cannot be listed as authors because they cannot assume responsibility or accountability for scholarly work.
Where generative AI or AI-assisted tools have been used in manuscript preparation, data processing, analysis, image generation, or another substantive aspect of the research, authors should disclose such use transparently when required by the journal.
Routine tools used solely for spelling, grammar, formatting, or reference management generally do not require extensive disclosure unless their use materially affects scholarly content.
AI-generated or manipulated data, references, quotations, results, or images must never be presented as genuine research evidence.
2. Editor Responsibilities
2.1 Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal.
Commercial interests, advertising relationships, author fees, institutional relationships, or other inappropriate considerations must not influence editorial decisions.
Because the journal operates without publication charges, authors’ financial circumstances have no bearing on editorial decisions.
2.2 Fair Evaluation
Editors should evaluate manuscripts fairly and without discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, political belief, personal relationships, or other characteristics unrelated to scholarly merit.
2.3 Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff must treat submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, correspondence, and unpublished information as confidential.
Information concerning a manuscript should be disclosed only to individuals who require access for legitimate editorial, peer-review, technical, ethical, or publication purposes.
Unpublished material obtained through manuscript handling must not be used for personal research or advantage without appropriate permission.
2.4 Conflicts of Interest and Recusal
Editors must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest and should recuse themselves from handling manuscripts when their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
A manuscript authored by an editor, editorial board member, publisher representative, or close collaborator must be handled by an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest.
Such manuscripts must undergo the same editorial and peer-review standards as other submissions.
2.5 Editorial Decisions
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The responsible academic editor makes publication decisions based on the complete scholarly record, including reviewer reports, author responses, revisions, ethical considerations, and independent editorial judgment.
Editors must not guarantee acceptance before completion of the journal’s editorial and peer-review procedures.
3. Reviewer Responsibilities
3.1 Objective and Constructive Review
Reviewers should assess manuscripts objectively, professionally, and respectfully.
Reviews should focus on the scholarly content of the manuscript and provide clear reasoning for significant criticisms or recommendations.
Personal attacks, discriminatory remarks, hostile language, or unsupported accusations are inappropriate.
3.2 Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for peer review are confidential documents.
Reviewers must not share manuscripts, discuss unpublished findings with unauthorized individuals, upload confidential manuscripts to unauthorized external services, or use unpublished information for personal advantage.
3.3 Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers should disclose any financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or personal relationship that could interfere with an impartial assessment.
If a reviewer cannot provide an objective evaluation, the invitation should be declined.
3.4 Timeliness
Reviewers should accept assignments only when they can provide a competent assessment within a reasonable timeframe.
If circumstances prevent timely completion, reviewers should notify the editor promptly.
3.5 Identification of Ethical Concerns
Reviewers should alert the editor when they identify suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, citation manipulation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, ethical problems, or substantial similarity with other published or submitted work.
Reviewers should report concerns confidentially rather than directly contacting the authors.
3.6 Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review
Reviewers must protect manuscript confidentiality when using digital or AI-assisted tools.
Confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, reviewer reports, or identifiable author information must not be uploaded to external AI systems where confidentiality, data retention, or reuse cannot be appropriately controlled.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, and professional quality of their review reports.
4. Peer-Review Integrity
The journal is committed to protecting the independence and integrity of its peer-review process.
Fabricated reviewer identities, manipulated reviewer suggestions, false email accounts, coordinated peer-review arrangements, undisclosed reviewing by third parties, or other attempts to interfere with the review process are considered serious publication misconduct.
The journal may verify reviewer identities, institutional affiliations, professional expertise, and conflicts of interest when necessary.
5. Research and Publication Misconduct
Examples of misconduct include, but are not limited to:
plagiarism;
fabrication or falsification of data;
inappropriate manipulation of images or results;
duplicate or redundant publication;
undisclosed conflicts of interest;
inappropriate authorship;
peer-review manipulation;
citation manipulation;
fraudulent ethical approval or consent information;
falsification of author identities or affiliations;
paper-mill activity;
unauthorized use of confidential material; and
deliberate misrepresentation of research methods or findings.
The journal evaluates allegations on the basis of available evidence and recognized publication-ethics principles.
6. Handling Allegations of Misconduct
Credible allegations of research or publication misconduct will be assessed confidentially and fairly.
Where appropriate, the journal may:
request an explanation or supporting documentation from the authors;
obtain independent expert advice;
contact the relevant institution, research-integrity office, ethics committee, funding organization, or other appropriate authority;
suspend editorial consideration while an investigation is underway;
reject a manuscript;
publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction; or
take other appropriate action necessary to protect the scholarly record.
The journal will avoid making findings of institutional or legal misconduct where such determinations properly belong to universities, research institutions, regulatory bodies, or other competent authorities.
7. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern
The journal is committed to maintaining an accurate and reliable scholarly record.
A correction may be published when an otherwise reliable article contains an error or omission that does not invalidate its principal findings.
A retraction may be considered when there is reliable evidence that the findings are substantially unreliable because of major error or misconduct, when plagiarism or redundant publication has occurred, when unethical research is identified, or in other circumstances where retraction is necessary to protect the scholarly record.
An Expression of Concern may be issued when serious questions have been raised but an investigation has not yet reached a sufficiently reliable conclusion.
Corrections, retractions, and Expressions of Concern should be clearly identified, permanently accessible, and linked to the affected article whenever possible.
8. Complaints and Appeals
Authors, reviewers, readers, and other interested parties may raise concerns about editorial procedures, publication ethics, published content, or other journal practices.
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a substantial factual or procedural error affected the outcome. Appeals should identify the specific issue and provide a reasoned explanation or relevant supporting evidence.
Complaints and appeals will be evaluated objectively and, where possible, by an editor or responsible individual who was not directly involved in the matter being challenged.
Disagreement with a reviewer’s scholarly opinion alone does not necessarily constitute grounds for overturning an editorial decision.
9. Post-Publication Issues
The journal welcomes responsible notification of substantial errors or research-integrity concerns relating to published articles.
Published work may be reviewed after publication when credible concerns arise. Authors are expected to cooperate with legitimate requests for clarification, data, documentation, or correction.
The journal may take appropriate action regardless of how much time has passed since publication when necessary to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.
10. Ethical Oversight
Responsibility for publication ethics is shared by the Editor-in-Chief, relevant academic editors, Editorial Board, and publisher according to their respective roles.
Editorial independence must be maintained when ethical concerns involve an editor, board member, or publisher representative. Where necessary, an independent academic editor or external adviser may be appointed to manage the matter.
Archives des Sciences: A Multidisciplinary Journal is published by SciArt Publisher, Valletta, VLT 1117, Malta.
11. Contact
Questions, concerns, complaints, appeals, or reports relating to publication ethics and research integrity may be directed to: editor@unige.org
Persons reporting concerns are encouraged to provide sufficient information and supporting evidence to permit an appropriate assessment.
12. Changes to This Policy
Archives des Sciences: A Multidisciplinary Journal may revise this Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Policy periodically to reflect developments in scholarly publishing standards, journal practices, technologies, legal requirements, or recognized ethical guidance.
The current version of this policy will be maintained on the journal’s official website. Material revisions should be accompanied by an updated effective or revision date.