2.1 Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must submit original work that has not been published elsewhere or is under review in another journal. All forms of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or data fabrication are considered unethical. JSM uses plagiarism detection software to screen all submissions.

2.2 Authorship and Acknowledgment

Authorship must be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All authors should approve the final version before submission. Contributions that do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately.

2.3 Data Integrity and Transparency

Authors must present their data truthfully and accurately. Manipulation, selective reporting, or suppression of data are prohibited. Data, methods, and materials should be made available upon reasonable request to ensure reproducibility.

2.4 Ethical Research Conduct

All research involving humans, animals, or sensitive data must comply with established ethical standards. For human studies, authors must confirm compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and institutional ethics approvals. Informed consent from participants must be obtained and documented.

2.5 Conflict of Interest

Authors must disclose all financial or personal relationships that could influence their research interpretation. A conflict of interest statement must be included in the manuscript.

2.6 Use of AI Tools

AI tools may be used for language polishing or editing. However, content generation, data interpretation, or conceptual contributions by AI tools are strictly prohibited. AI cannot be listed as a co-author. Authors remain fully responsible for the intellectual content.

2.7 Peer Review Cooperation

Authors must cooperate fully during the peer-review process and respond promptly to editorial or reviewer queries. Any required corrections should be made in good faith.

2.8 Corrections and Retractions

If authors discover an error in their published article, they must inform the editorial office immediately. Corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern will follow COPE's retraction and correction practices.

2.9 Data Availability and Reproducibility

Authors must ensure that the data supporting their research findings are accurate, accessible, and reproducible. JSM strongly encourages authors to deposit their data in recognized data repositories and to provide a data availability statement in their manuscript.

Authors should describe where the data can be found (with persistent identifiers, if applicable) and outline any conditions for access. If proprietary restrictions apply, the reason for restricted access must be clearly justified.

Manipulation of data or selective omission of findings to support a hypothesis is considered unethical and may result in rejection or retraction.

3.1 Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. They may not share or discuss contents with anyone without the editor's permission.

3.2 Objectivity

Reviews must be objective, evidence-based, and aimed at improving manuscript quality. Personal criticism is unacceptable.

3.3 Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts (personal, academic, or financial) that could bias their judgment and decline participation when appropriate.

3.4 Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify any relevant published work not cited by the authors. If plagiarism or data manipulation is suspected, reviewers should notify the editor confidentially.

3.5 Self-Citation and Ethical Conduct

In line with COPE principles, reviewers should avoid recommending citation of their own work. Any suggestion to cite a reviewer’s publication must be made solely on the basis of scholarly relevance and necessity, and not for personal or professional gain.

Where a reviewer believes that a self-citation is essential to ensure accuracy, completeness, or proper contextualization of the manuscript, they may suggest a maximum of one (1) such citation. The relevance of the citation must be clearly explained and objectively justified in the review comments.

Editors retain full discretion to assess the appropriateness of all citation suggestions and may disregard those that are excessive, insufficiently justified, or inconsistent with ethical peer-review standards.

1. Uphold Editorial Standards

Support the Editor-in-Chief in ensuring that all published content meets high scientific and ethical standards.

2. Promote Diversity and Inclusion

Encourage submissions from a wide range of disciplines, countries, and research perspectives, fostering global academic inclusivity.

3. Maintain Confidentiality

Protect all submitted material during the review process.

4. Advise on Ethical Cases

Participate in resolving ethical disputes, retractions, and authorship disagreements when requested by the Editor-in-Chief.

5. Avoid Conflicts of Interest

Decline to handle submissions in which they have any financial, personal, or professional interest.

5.1 Publication Decisions

Editors are responsible for deciding which manuscripts to publish based on academic merit, originality, and relevance, without regard to race, gender, or institutional affiliation.

5.2 Fairness and Objectivity

Editors must ensure a fair and unbiased peer-review process and have no conflicts of interest concerning manuscripts under review.

5.3 Confidentiality

Editors must keep all details about submitted manuscripts confidential, sharing information only with reviewers, editorial board members, or the publisher as needed.

5.4 Dealing with Misconduct

Editors must act promptly when ethical concerns or misconduct are reported. Actions follow COPE flowcharts for suspected ethical violations.

5.5 Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern

Editors follow COPE guidelines for issuing corrections or retractions. Retractions occur in cases of confirmed plagiarism, falsified data, or major errors; corrections are issued for minor issues.

6.1 Ethical Oversight

The publisher, Luminous Insights, supports JSM in maintaining ethical publishing practices and ensures editorial independence.

6.2 Integrity and Transparency

The publisher collaborates with editors to detect and prevent misconduct such as plagiarism, falsified data, or duplicate publication.

6.3 Archiving and Access

The publisher ensures permanent availability and preservation of all published content through secure digital archiving systems.

6.4 Handling Misconduct and Complaints

In cases of ethical misconduct or dispute, the publisher cooperates with the editorial board following COPE's Guidelines for Handling Complaints and Misconduct. Complaints may be submitted through official contact channels on the journal's website.

6.5 Advertising and Sponsorship

The publisher ensures that advertisements or sponsorships do not influence editorial decisions or published content integrity.

1. Appeals of Editorial Decisions

Authors who believe their manuscript was unfairly rejected may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, providing detailed reasons. The appeal will be independently reviewed by a senior editor or advisory board member.

2. Complaints about Editorial Conduct

Any complaint regarding the conduct of editors, reviewers, or the peer review process should be directed to the publisher at info@luminousinsights.net.

3. Resolution Procedure

The complaint will be acknowledged within five working days and investigated in accordance with COPE's Guidelines for Handling Complaints.

4. Outcome

The decision will be communicated in writing, and if appropriate, corrective or disciplinary actions will be taken.