1. Definitions and Key Terms

This section defines important terms used throughout the Journal of ICET Ethical Guidelines, Plagiarism, and AI Policy. These definitions are consistent with international publication ethics standard guidelines.

1. 1. Authorship

A designation given to individuals who have made a significant intellectual contribution to a study’s conception, design, execution, or interpretation. Authorship implies accountability for the integrity and accuracy of the entire work.

1. 2. Contributorship

A detailed statement describing the specific roles and contributions of each author (e.g., data analysis, writing, supervision, funding acquisition).

1. 3. Plagiarism

The presentation of another person’s ideas, words, data, or creative work as one’s own, without appropriate acknowledgment. This includes direct copying, paraphrasing without citation, or using figures, data, or code without permission.

1. 4. Self-Plagiarism (Text Recycling)

Reusing significant portions of one’s previously published work without proper citation or acknowledgment, creating the false impression of originality. Acceptable reuse includes clearly cited methodological or background material.

1. 5. Similarity

The degree of textual or conceptual overlap between a submitted manuscript and previously published works. High similarity may indicate potential plagiarism or self-plagiarism and is assessed through similarity detection tools (e.g., iThenticate, Turnitin).

1. 6. Self-Similarity

Textual overlap between an author’s new manuscript and their own previously published materials. While some overlap (e.g., methods, standard definitions) may be acceptable, extensive self-similarity without citation constitutes self-plagiarism.

1. 7. Fabrication

The intentional creation or invention of data, results, or findings that were never obtained through actual research.

1. 8. Falsification

Manipulating research materials, data, images, or processes in a way that misrepresents the research findings.

1. 1. Duplicate Submission

Submitting the same or substantially similar manuscript to more than one journal at the same time, in violation of publication ethics.

1. 10. AI-Generated Content (AI Content)

Any text, image, code, data, or figure created or substantially modified using artificial intelligence tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, DALL·E). AI content may support writing or analysis but cannot replace human authorship or accountability.

1. 11. AI Assistance Disclosure

A formal statement required from authors, reviewers, or editors describing any AI tools used in the preparation, review, or management of a manuscript, including their purpose and scope of use.

1. 50. Conflict of Interest (COI)

A situation in which personal, financial, institutional, or professional relationships could influence—or appear to influence—the judgment, objectivity, or decisions of an author, reviewer, or editor.

1. 1000. Retraction

The formal withdrawal of a published article from the journal records due to confirmed cases of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or serious ethical violations. Retractions are published with clear justification to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

1. 14. Correction (Erratum)

A notice issued to amend a minor error or omission in a published article that does not alter its overall validity or conclusions.

• • Expression of Concern

A temporary notice issued by the journal when credible concerns arise regarding the integrity of a published article, pending the outcome of a formal investigation.

1. 16. Confidentiality

The ethical obligation to protect unpublished research, reviewer identities, and private correspondence from unauthorized disclosure.

1. 17. Misconduct

Any deliberate act that breaches research and publication ethics, including plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, unethical authorship practices, or misuse of AI technologies.

1. 18. Reproducibility

The ability of other researchers to replicate a study’s results using the same methods, data, and conditions, which is essential to scientific credibility.

1. 19. Transparency

The commitment to disclose all relevant information—such as data sources, funding, conflicts of interest, and AI use—to ensure accountability and reader trust.

1. 20. Correction Policy

A formal process for identifying, communicating, and rectifying errors in published works while maintaining the scholarly record’s integrity.

2. Introduction

The Journal of Innovations in Computing and Emerging Technologies (ICET) is dedicated to promoting integrity, transparency, and fairness in the dissemination of research in computer science and related disciplines. These ethical guidelines define the responsibilities and expected conduct of authors, reviewers, and editors, ensuring that all published content upholds the highest academic and professional standards.

The ICET policies adhere to globally recognized principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), ICET, and reflect current practices by leading international publishers.

The journal affirms the following core values:

• Integrity - All submissions must represent original, verifiable research.
• Transparency - Conflicts of interest, funding, and data sources must be disclosed.
• Fairness - Decisions are based solely on scholarly merit, not personal or institutional bias.
• Confidentiality - The peer review process is confidential and respected by all parties.
• Accountability - Authors, reviewers, and editors share responsibility for the integrity of the scientific record.
• Responsible AI Use - Emerging technologies, including AI tools, must be used transparently and ethically.

Violations of these guidelines may result in rejection, retraction, notification to institutions, or bans from future submissions, depending on severity.

3. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors play a central role in maintaining the integrity and credibility of the scholarly record. The Journal of ICET expects all authors to adhere to the highest standards of ethical research and publication conduct. Every submitted manuscript must reflect genuine, original work based on accurate data, proper attribution, and transparency in methodology, authorship, and funding. By submitting to this journal, authors affirm that their work complies with established principles of honesty, accountability, and responsible use of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence.

The following responsibilities outline the ethical expectations for all authors contributing to this journal.

1. 1. Ensure originality

• • Submissions must be original and not published elsewhere (except for approved preprints).
  • Parallel submissions to multiple journals are prohibited.
  • Properly acknowledge the work and ideas of others through accurate citations.

1. 2. Avoid plagiarism and duplication

• • Any verbatim or closely paraphrased text, data, figures, or code must be properly cited.
  • Self-plagiarism, such as reusing substantial portions of one’s previous work without citation, is not allowed.

1. 3. Define authorship and contributions clearly

• • Only individuals who made significant intellectual contributions should be listed as authors.
  • The contributorship statement must describe each author’s role (e.g., conceptualization, methodology, writing, supervision).

1. 4. Provide data and reproducibility statements

• • When possible, underlying data, code, and models should be made available through repositories or upon request.
  • Restrictions (confidentiality, NDAs, etc.) must be clearly stated.

1. 5. Disclose conflicts and funding

• • Authors must declare all sources of funding, institutional support, and any potential conflicts of interest.

1. 6. Ensure accuracy and accountability

• • All authors share collective responsibility for the integrity and correctness of the publication.
  • Errors identified post-publication must be promptly reported to the editor.

1. 7. Declare AI use

3. • If AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Grammarly, Copilot) were used in writing, data analysis, or figure generation, this must be disclosed using the AI Disclosure Template (see Section 8).
4. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer reviewers are vital to the integrity, objectivity, and advancement of scientific publishing. Their evaluations directly influence editorial decisions and help authors improve the quality and clarity of their research. The Journal of ICET expects reviewers to uphold the highest standards of professionalism, confidentiality, and fairness throughout the review process. Reviews should be conducted with diligence, impartiality, and respect for the authors’ intellectual effort.

The following principles outline the ethical responsibilities expected from all reviewers contributing to this journal.

•              1. Maintain confidentiality
• Treat all manuscripts as confidential. Do not share, discuss, or upload them to public or AI-based tools.
  2. Provide objective and constructive feedback

• Evaluate the manuscript impartially, based on scientific merit, originality, and clarity.
• Avoid personal criticism or bias.
  3. Declare conflicts of interest

• Decline review invitations when there is a personal, professional, or financial conflict with any author or institution involved.
  4. Report ethical concerns

• Notify the editor of any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical misconduct.
• Provide evidence (e.g., similarity report, prior publication links).
  5. AI-assisted reviewing

• Reviewers must not upload manuscripts to public AI tools.
• If AI assistance is used privately (e.g., grammar checking of the reviewer’s own comments), it must be disclosed to the editor and used only for non-confidential content.

5. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors serve as the custodians of scholarly integrity and are responsible for ensuring that every manuscript is evaluated fairly, transparently, and based solely on academic merit. The Journal of ICET entrusts editors with maintaining rigorous peer review standards, protecting the confidentiality of all submissions, and fostering an unbiased and inclusive publication environment. Editors are expected to act with independence, integrity, and accountability in all editorial decisions, upholding both the credibility of the journal and the trust of the research community. The following responsibilities define the ethical expectations for all editors and members of the editorial board.

• 1. Ensure fair and unbiased review
• Evaluate manuscripts solely on scholarly merit, relevance, and originality.
• Avoid discrimination or bias in editorial decisions.
  2. Preserve confidentiality
• Do not share author or reviewer information outside the editorial workflow.
• Manuscripts and reviews must not be uploaded to public AI tools.
  3. Oversee the peer review process
• Select qualified, independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
• Prevent conflicts of interest in reviewer assignment or editorial decision-making.
  4. Interpret similarity reports responsibly
• Editors must evaluate the context of overlaps rather than rely on a numeric similarity percentage.
• Overlap in methods or references is not automatically plagiarism.
  5. Handle misconduct professionally
• In suspected cases of plagiarism, falsification, or AI misuse, editors will:
  • • Notify the author(s) and request explanation.
    • Escalate unresolved cases to the editorial board.
    • Notify relevant institutions if serious misconduct is confirmed.
  • AI use by editors
• Editors may use AI for administrative drafting (e.g., standard emails) only if no confidential manuscript data is input.
• Editorial decisions must be made by humans.

6. Plagiarism Policy
   1. Definition

Plagiarism involves presenting another person’s ideas, text, data, or images as one’s own without proper acknowledgment. This includes:

• Direct plagiarism - copying text verbatim without quotation or citation.
• Mosaic plagiarism - rephrasing another’s work with minimal changes.
• Self-plagiarism - reusing one’s own published material without proper citation.
• Data plagiarism - using others’ data, tables, or figures without permission or citation.
  2. Detection and Procedure

To uphold the integrity of the scholarly record, the journal employs a structured and transparent process for detecting and addressing plagiarism and related ethical concerns. All manuscripts undergo similarity screening and editorial evaluation prior to publication. When potential misconduct is detected, the journal follows a fair, confidential, and evidence-based procedure in line with COPE’s recommended best practices. The following steps outline the detection, verification, and response mechanisms adopted by the journal.

1. Automatic Screening

All submissions are screened using iThenticate / Crossref / Turnitin Similarity Check.

2. Editorial Assessment

The handling editor reviews the similarity report. Overlaps are interpreted contextually.

3. Author Clarification

If excessive overlap is detected, authors will be contacted for explanation or revision.

4. Sanctions for confirmed plagiarism:
   • Minor overlap: request for correction/revision.
   • Major overlap or reuse: rejection and temporary submission ban (1–3 years).
   • Deliberate misconduct: rejection, permanent ban, and institutional notification.
5. Post-publication

If plagiarism is found after publication, the paper may be retracted, with notice of retraction published on the journal website.

7. AI Content Policy

The Journal of ICET recognizes the growing role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in research, writing, and editorial workflows. While such tools can enhance efficiency and clarity, their use must be transparent, ethical, and fully supervised by humans. The journal upholds the principle that AI cannot be credited as an author and must never replace human judgment, interpretation, or accountability in the research process. All contributors’ authors, reviewers, and editors, are responsible for ensuring that AI use does not compromise originality, data integrity, confidentiality, or the peer review process.

The following policy establishes clear standards for acceptable AI use across all stages of publication.

1. 1. For Authors

The responsible use of AI by authors is essential to preserve the originality, credibility, and scholarly value of scientific work. Authors may employ AI tools to enhance readability or improve language clarity, but not to generate or manipulate research findings, data, or citations. Any use of AI must be transparent and fully disclosed within the manuscript. Ultimately, authors bear complete responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and authenticity of all submitted content, regardless of whether AI tools were used in its preparation.

• Authors may use AI tools only for language editing, grammar correction, or formatting.
• AI must not be used to generate new research findings, citations, or content without human verification.
• All AI use must be disclosed clearly in the manuscript.
• Authors remain fully responsible for the content’s accuracy, originality, and citation integrity.
  1. 1. Disclosure Template:

To ensure transparency and accountability, every manuscript must include a clear statement describing whether AI tools were used during its preparation. This disclosure helps maintain consistency with international publication ethics standards and allows readers to understand the extent of AI involvement in the research or writing process. Authors should select the appropriate statement below to include in their manuscript.

“During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used [Tool name, version] for [purpose]. The authors reviewed and verified all generated content and take full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the work.”

If no AI tools were used, include:

“No generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in the creation of this manuscript.”

1. 2. For Reviewers

AI technologies must never compromise the confidentiality or independence of the peer review process. Reviewers should exercise extreme caution and avoid uploading any part of a manuscript to external or public AI platforms. Limited AI use for personal editing or grammar correction is acceptable only when explicitly disclosed to the editor. Reviewers remain solely responsible for ensuring that their evaluations are fair, accurate, and unaffected by automation or external influence.

• Do not upload manuscript text or data to any public AI service (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini).
• If AI tools are used to aid writing of the review (e.g., grammar correction), reviewers must disclose it to the editor.
• Reviewers remain accountable for the accuracy and fairness of their reviews.
  3. For Editors

Editors have a duty to uphold the human-centered integrity of the editorial process. AI tools must not be used to assess, summarize, or make decisions regarding manuscripts. However, editors may use AI responsibly for routine, non-confidential administrative tasks, such as communication drafting or workflow organization. Editorial decisions must always be made by humans and grounded in scholarly judgment, ethical standards, and transparency.

• Editors must not use AI tools for evaluating or summarizing manuscripts.
• Administrative use (e.g., drafting non-confidential communications) is acceptable if no private content is shared.
• All final editorial judgments must be made by humans.

8. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Transparency in potential conflicts of interest is fundamental to preserving the trust, objectivity, and credibility of the scholarly publication process. The Journal of ICET requires all participants in the publication process, authors, reviewers, and editors, to disclose any personal, financial, or institutional relationships that could inappropriately influence (or be perceived to influence) their work or judgments. Full disclosure enables editors to make fair, unbiased decisions and ensures that readers can interpret published research in its proper context

The following principles outline the journal’s policy for identifying, declaring, and managing conflicts of interest at every stage of publication.

• Authors, reviewers, and editors must declare any personal, financial, or institutional relationships that may influence their work.
• Editors will avoid assigning manuscripts to reviewers with conflicts of interest.
• All declarations are published with the article where appropriate.
  1. Declaration Format

To ensure full transparency, all contributors must provide a clear statement regarding potential conflicts of interest at the time of submission, review, or editorial decision. These declarations should specify any personal, professional, or financial relationships that could be perceived to influence the research or its evaluation. If no conflicts exist, this must also be explicitly stated. The following templates should be used:

• For Authors:
  “The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.”
  or
  “The authors declare the following potential conflicts of interest: [Provide details, e.g., funding source, consultancy, patent ownership, or affiliations].”
• For Reviewers:
  “I declare that I have no conflict of interest with the authors, their institutions, or the content of the manuscript.”
  or
  “I declare a potential conflict of interest related to [describe relationship], and therefore decline this review.”
• For Editors:
  “The handling editor declares no conflict of interest regarding the evaluation and decision-making process for this manuscript.”
  or
  “The handling editor has recused themselves due to a potential conflict related to [describe relationship].”

All declarations will be recorded by the editorial office and, where relevant, published alongside the article to maintain transparency and ethical integrity.

9. Misconduct and Investigations

The Journal of ICET is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity and ethical publishing. Any form of scientific or publication misconduct, such as plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate submission, or inappropriate authorship practices, undermines the credibility of the scholarly record and will not be tolerated. Allegations of misconduct will be handled promptly, confidentially, and in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. All parties involved will be given a fair opportunity to respond, and outcomes will be determined based on clear evidence and due process.

Depending on the severity and nature of the violation, the journal may take corrective or disciplinary actions as outlined below.

1. Correction - For minor honest errors.
2. Retraction - For proven plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification.
3. Expression of Concern - When investigations are ongoing.
4. Institutional Notification - In cases of serious or repeated misconduct.
   1. Reporting Misconduct

Suspected cases of research or publication misconduct may be reported by authors, reviewers, editors, or readers to the Journal of ICET editorial office. Reports should include sufficient detail and supporting evidence (e.g., citation overlap, data inconsistencies, or ethical concerns) to allow for a fair and thorough assessment. All reports will be treated confidentially and investigated according to COPE’s Flowcharts for Handling Misconduct. During the investigation, the journal will maintain transparency while ensuring that no party is unfairly accused or penalized. If misconduct is confirmed, appropriate corrective actions, ranging from correction or retraction to institutional notification, will be implemented in accordance with the journal’s ethical policies.

1. 2. Appeals and Resolution

The Journal of ICET recognizes the importance of due process and fairness in resolving cases of alleged misconduct. Authors or other involved parties have the right to appeal editorial or ethical decisions if they believe that the findings were based on incomplete information or procedural error. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of receiving the decision, clearly stating the grounds for reconsideration and providing any supporting evidence. The appeal will be reviewed by an independent editorial ethics committee or an external advisor not previously involved in the case. The final decision, once reviewed and verified, will be communicated in writing and will be considered binding. The journal is committed to ensuring that all resolutions are transparent, impartial, and consistent with COPE’s best-practice recommendations.

All decisions will be documented, transparent, and proportionate to the severity of the issue.

10. Record keeping and Transparency

The Journal of ICET upholds transparency and accountability as essential components of research integrity. To ensure ethical consistency and institutional trust, the journal maintains secure and confidential records of all editorial communications, review reports, plagiarism checks, and ethical investigations. These records support the reproducibility of editorial decisions and allow for independent verification when necessary. While individual cases remain confidential, the journal may periodically publish anonymized statistics and summaries of ethical actions, such as corrections, retractions, or misconduct findings, to promote openness and reinforce the integrity of the publication process.

• The journal will maintain confidential records of all similarity reports, correspondence, and ethical investigations.
• Ethical statistics (e.g., retractions per year) may be published annually for transparency.

11.  Policy Review and Updates

The Journal of ICET is firmly committed to upholding the principles of integrity, transparency, and fairness in all aspects of scholarly publishing. Compliance with the ethical standards outlined in this policy is mandatory for all participants, authors, reviewers, editors, and staff. Any breach of these guidelines will be addressed in accordance with international best practices and COPE’s recommended procedures.

The Editorial Board reserves the right to take appropriate actions in response to ethical violations, which may include rejection of manuscripts, retraction of published articles, restriction of future submissions, or notification of relevant institutions and funding agencies. The journal will handle all cases with confidentiality, impartiality, and due process.

This policy is reviewed annually to reflect emerging ethical challenges, advances in publication technology, and updates to standard practices. All contributors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with these principles and to uphold the highest ethical standards in their research and publication practices.

These policies will be reviewed annually by the Editorial Board to ensure alignment with evolving best practices, COPE guidance, and emerging technologies such as AI-assisted research and publication tools.