MUK Publications

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Global and Stochastic Analysis (GSA)

Global and Stochastic Analysis (GSA) is committed to maintaining a transparent, scholar-friendly, and highly ethical publication process. Our guidelines are grounded in the core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We provide a collaborative, objective environment where authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher work in tandem to enrich the global scientific knowledge network.

1. Submission and Production Guidelines

To ensure a smooth and efficient workflow, authors must adhere to the following technical and operational requirements during submission:

·         Submission Portal: Manuscripts must be uploaded directly to the official journal website. Authors must ensure the paper’s content strictly matches the journal's specialized scope to avoid placing unnecessary administrative pressure on the editorial office.

·         Format and Typography: Manuscripts must be submitted in Microsoft Word format (.docx) using standard, globally readable fonts such as Times New Roman. Decorative or rare fonts are explicitly discouraged to avoid cross-system rendering issues for editors and reviewers.

·         Citation Style: The journal mandates the strict use of the APA style for all citations, references, and bibliographies.

·         Anonymity & File Preparation: To support our double-blind peer review process, the submission must be split into two separate files:

1.      Covering Letter File: Includes the paper title; the paper category (research, review, or case study); a statement on the paper's uniqueness; an acknowledgment section; and a brief Curriculum Vitae (CV) of the authors.

2.      Manuscript File: Contains the abstract, main text, figures, charts, and references—completely stripped of author names, affiliations, or identifying metadata.

2. Code of Ethics for Authors

Originality, Plagiarism, and Text Recycling

Global and Stochastic Analysis accepts only entirely original research. The journal enforces strict parameters regarding text duplication:

·         Plagiarism & Duplication: Re-specifying, rotating, or repackaging previous data to publish multiple similar-looking papers creates unnecessary confusion and damages scholarly integrity. The journal does not accept duplicate publications.

·         Text Recycling (Self-Plagiarism): Authors must not insert substantial sections of their own previously published work into a new manuscript without explicit citation. Doing so breaches publishing ethics and invites copyright conflicts.

·         Prior Publication: Authors must formally declare in their cover letter that the submitted manuscript has not been published earlier in any journal or book, and is not concurrently under review elsewhere.

Integrity of Data and Imagery

·         Falsification & Fabrications: Conclusions must be strictly derived from legitimate data. Fabricating, filtering, or falsifying scientific data constitutes severe research misconduct.

·         Copyrighted and Provocative Media: If a manuscript includes copyrighted illustrations, charts, or photographs, the author is responsible for obtaining written authorization from the copyright holder. Provocative or unauthorized imagery must be replaced prior to publication.

·         Objective Representation: Authors should avoid using their research for ideological propaganda, extremist thought, or unsubstantiated assertions. GSA welcomes unbiased, progressive, and liberal academic discourse that constructively assesses global agreements, scientific conferences, and organizational works.

Authorship Claims and Disputes

·         Inclusivity: Authorship must be extended to anyone who has made a significant contribution to the study. Power hierarchies must not be used negatively to suppress legitimate authorship claims.

·         Cooperation: The corresponding author must remain actively responsive to editorial queries.

·         Dispute Resolution: The publisher, editor, and reviewers bear no legal liability for internal authorship conflicts. Disputes between co-authors must be resolved privately or through a designated institutional committee established by the editorial office and publisher.

Author Anonymity Protocols

In exceptional and rare circumstances where disclosing an author's true identity poses an authentic, verified threat to their life or the physical safety of their immediate relatives, the editorial office, in strict consultation with the publisher, may evaluate keeping the author's identity anonymous under the guidance of COPE case protocols.

3. Code of Ethics for Editors

Independence and Fairness

The journal editor takes publication decisions independently with the assistance of the editorial board. The publisher maintains a strict separation of operations and never interferes with or encroaches upon the editor's evaluation regarding a paper's scientific originality or suitability.

·         Editorial choices are made without regard to the author's race, caste, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or political ideology.

·         Editors are protected from external or corporate pressures, operating within an independent creative sphere to protect the ingenuity of the journal.

Peer Review Management

·         Double-Blind Protocol: Editors act as the central coordinator among authors, reviewers, and the publisher. They must execute every step of the double-blind process meticulously, ensuring that neither the reviewer nor the author can discover or influence the identity of the other.

·         Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected based on an objective match between their documented past research and the manuscript's specific technical content. Three independent expert reviewers are assigned to each qualifying manuscript.

·         Decisions and Timelines: The editor's evaluation regarding a paper’s thematic alignment is final and legally binding on all parties; the publisher or editor cannot be sued in this regard. If an editor determines a paper does not meet the journal’s standards, the author must respect the decision and address the feedback rather than pressurizing the editorial office.

Strict Plagiarism Limits

Editors utilize technical software alongside manual evaluation to enforce precise similarity metrics:

·         Overall Similarity Index: A manuscript is considered eligible for publication if its cumulative similarity index is between 15% and 20% or lower. Any value exceeding this prescribed limit will result in immediate rejection.

·         Single-Source Limitation: The similarity index must be less than 1% from any single individual source. If a manuscript draws more than 1% from a single source without appropriate encapsulation or overriding justification, it will not be published.

4. Code of Ethics for Reviewers

Professionalism and Promptness

·         Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts within a strict window of 4 to 8 weeks. If a reviewer realizes they cannot complete the review within this timeframe, they must notify the editor immediately so the manuscript can be reassigned to another expert. Authors must not place unnecessary pressure on the editor to accelerate this timeline.

·         Reviewers must perform the assessment personally; delegating or having another individual write the review report under their name is strictly prohibited.

Confidentiality and Objectivity

·         Reviewers must treat the manuscript and its underlying data as privileged, confidential information. They must not share details of an unpublished paper with colleagues or use the ideas obtained during review for personal, commercial, or competitive advantage.

·         Critiques must remain strictly confined to the scientific content. Personal criticisms of the author are entirely inappropriate.

5. Conflict of Interest (COI) Guidelines Matrix

To preserve the absolute integrity and objectivity of the scientific knowledge network, Global and Stochastic Analysis mandates strict disclosure rules. The matrix below outlines specific responsibilities and operational boundaries required for each key stakeholder profile when identifying potential conflicts of interest.

Guidelines for Authors

Authors must explicitly declare all financial and non-financial conflicts of interest (e.g., employment, consulting fees, honoraria) before submission. Verified conflicts will be transparently disclosed at the end of the published text. Authors must also list all funding sources and sponsors responsible for supporting the research.

Guidelines for Editors

·         If an editor shares an institutional affiliation, ongoing project, or personal relationship with an author, they must recuse themselves. The publisher will appoint an independent Guest Editor to manage the manuscript.

·         If an editor submits their own research manuscript to the journal, the evaluation must be completely insulated from them. A separate editorial officer from an entirely different institution must manage the peer review process.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers must recuse themselves from evaluating a manuscript if:

1.      They have co-authored or written a book/paper with any of the manuscript's authors within the last 3 years.

2.      They have worked within the same department, institution, or joint project as the author within the last 3 years.

3.      They have a direct advisor-student relationship (e.g., doctoral supervisor or current candidate) with the author.

4.      The author is a close friend or family member.

5.      There is an immediate financial, commercial, or competitive benefit tied to the manuscript's approval or rejection.

Whistle-blowers and Violations

If a whistle-blower alerts the journal to an undisclosed conflict of interest, the editor and publisher will immediately establish an independent committee to investigate. If the charges are verified, the manuscript will be rejected or retracted in accordance with our formal retraction policies.

6. Ethical Code for Studies Involving Human Subjects

Informed Consent

Any research involving human participants must secure explicit, written informed consent prior to experimentation. A person is considered a human subject if their personal data, biomedical samples, biometric identifiers, DNA profiles, medical history, clinical images, or private life experiences are actively utilized as data in the study.

·         Documentation: Written evidence of informed consent must be maintained by the researcher and the experimenting institution. Editors will request these validation documents prior to sending any manuscript out for peer review.

·         Vulnerable Populations: For studies involving children, explicit consent must be obtained from their parents or legal guardians. For vulnerable groups or individuals with severe learning disabilities, a continuous process consent technique must be executed alongside consent provided by their next of kin.

·         Exemptions: Informed consent is not required if the data utilized is entirely a matter of verified public record.

Privacy and Institutional Oversight

Research involving human subjects must be approved by an institutional ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB). Identifiable personal parameters (such as exact dates of birth, telephone numbers, emails, or unmasked facial imagery) will not be published without separate, unambiguous participant consent. Data regarding human subjects must serve a strict academic pursuit and must never be leveraged for sensationalism or public fame.

7. Post-Publication Critiques, Corrections, and Retractions

Post-Publication Critiques & Corrections

·         Substantive Critiques: The journal welcomes open academic dialogue and post-publication critiques. If a critique is found to be substantive, the editor will convey it to the author for a formal response. Both the critique and the author's response will be peer-reviewed and published in tandem in the subsequent issue.

·         Errata and Corrigenda: If an inadvertent error is discovered post-publication, a correction notice will be published in the next issue. The corresponding author's consent will be secured before publishing. If an author within a collaborative group dissents from the correction, their specific dissent will be recorded alongside the erratum.

Retraction Policy

GSA follows the standard COPE retraction flowcharts to correct the public knowledge domain. The journal will issue an official retraction of a published paper if:

1.      There is clear evidence of major, systemic errors in calculations, experimental designs, or findings that render the research unreliable.

2.      Data fabrication, intentional falsification, or plagiarism above the prescribed limits is discovered post-publication.

3.      The authors failed to secure proper legal authorization to utilize another scholar’s data, or infringed upon the copyright of another author, peer, or photographer.

4.      The paper documents inherently unethical research practices or violates human subject protections.

Execution of Retractions: Retracted articles will be removed from active electronic display and added to GSA's formal public index of retracted articles. The original title will remain listed in the journal issue table of contents but will be prominently flagged as RETRACTED alongside a clear narrative explanation of the retraction reasons underneath the flag.

Legal Indemnity for Critiques and Disputes

Anyone who believes their data or copyrighted work has been improperly used in a GSA publication may contact the author directly to settle the dispute. No legal suit, liability claim, or court action can be brought against the journal editor, the editorial board, or the publisher regarding these independent author disputes, retraction decisions, or scope rejections.

8. Publisher Responsibilities & Digital Archiving

Funding and Open Access Model

Global and Stochastic Analysis (GSA) operates under an Open Access publishing framework to ensure that all accepted scientific research is immediately and permanently accessible online to the global community without subscription barriers.

To sustain our high-quality production pipeline, professional typesetting, and long-term digital archiving infrastructure, the journal utilizes an Article Processing Charge (APC) model. Authors whose manuscripts are accepted for publication following rigorous double-blind peer review will be required to pay a specified APC.

The publisher maintains a strict firewall between financial processing and editorial decision-making; the collection of publication fees has absolutely no bearing on the scientific evaluation, acceptance, or rejection of any submitted manuscript.

Digital Preservation and Integrity

To prevent misuse, preserve scholarly integrity, and protect against data loss, all journal files are archived on secure, dedicated servers. The publisher actively maintains the journal’s electronic architecture to ensure compatibility across changing digital platforms, devices, and viewing applications, guaranteeing that the format of the papers, mathematical notation, and visual data arrays (figures and charts) remain unaltered over time.

References

·         COPE Council. (2017). Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics.

·         COPE Council. (2019a). COPE Discussion Document: Predatory Publishing.

·         COPE Council. (2019b). COPE Retraction Guidelines.

·         COPE Council. (2019c). COPE Discussion Document: Authorship.

·         COPE Council. (2021). COPE Flowcharts and Infographics: Handling of Post-Publication Critiques.

·         COPE Council. (2022). COPE Advice to Editors on Geopolitical Intrusions on Editorial Decisions.

·         International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2021). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.