Publication Ethics

Journal of Social Cognition and Communication is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics, editorial integrity, and responsible scholarly publishing. The journal expects authors, editors, reviewers, and editorial staff to act in accordance with internationally recognized principles of academic integrity, fairness, transparency, confidentiality, and professional accountability.

The journal’s editorial and ethical practices are informed by widely recognized standards in scholarly publishing, including the principles promoted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the publication ethics expectations commonly required in major journal evaluation systems and international indexing environments.

1. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must ensure that submitted manuscripts are original, accurate, and have not been previously published elsewhere in substantially the same form. Submissions must not be under consideration by another journal at the same time. Authors are responsible for presenting their research truthfully and clearly, without fabrication, falsification, manipulation of data, misleading interpretation, or inappropriate omission of relevant findings.

All authors listed on a manuscript should have made a substantial scholarly contribution to the work and should approve the final version before submission. Individuals who do not meet authorship criteria should not be listed as authors. All sources, data, quotations, and borrowed ideas must be appropriately cited and acknowledged.

Authors should disclose any financial, institutional, personal, or professional relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research, interpretation, or publication of the manuscript. Authors may also be asked to provide underlying data, documentation, ethics approvals, consent confirmations, or other supporting materials when required for editorial assessment.

2. Originality, Plagiarism, and Redundant Publication

The journal does not accept plagiarism, self-plagiarism, data plagiarism, image plagiarism, falsified citation practices, or any form of misappropriation of another person’s intellectual work. Manuscripts found to contain substantial overlap with published or submitted works, whether by the same or different authors, may be rejected, returned for clarification, or referred for further ethical review.

Redundant, duplicate, or salami-style publication is not acceptable. Authors must clearly indicate when a submission is derived from a thesis, conference paper, preprint, project report, or earlier working version, and such prior dissemination must not compromise the originality or integrity of the submission.

3. Data Integrity and Research Reliability

Authors are expected to retain research data and relevant supporting materials for a reasonable period after publication and to provide them when editorial questions arise. Data, images, tables, and supplementary materials must accurately reflect the underlying research and must not be inappropriately altered, selectively manipulated, or presented in a misleading manner.

Where research involves human participants, personal data, sensitive communities, or potentially vulnerable groups, authors must ensure that the study was conducted in accordance with applicable ethical requirements, including informed consent, privacy protection, and institutional or legal approvals where necessary.

4. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

If authors use artificial intelligence tools or automated systems in the preparation of a manuscript, such use should be disclosed in an appropriate and transparent manner. AI tools cannot be listed as authors, because authorship carries responsibilities for accuracy, integrity, originality, and accountability that can only be assumed by human authors.

Authors remain fully responsible for all content submitted to the journal, including text, data interpretation, references, images, and claims generated or assisted by AI-based systems.

5. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations that contribute to editorial decision-making and scholarly improvement. Reviewers should assess submissions on academic merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance, and clarity, without discrimination or personal bias.

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, use, or exploit unpublished materials for personal, professional, or competitive advantage. Reviewers should decline review invitations when they lack relevant expertise, cannot provide a timely report, or have a conflict of interest with the authors, institutions, or subject matter.

6. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors are responsible for ensuring a fair, impartial, and academically grounded editorial process. Editorial decisions should be based on scholarly merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and the strength of the manuscript, rather than on the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, political position, religious belief, or other non-scholarly considerations.

Editors must preserve reviewer confidentiality where applicable, manage conflicts of interest responsibly, and refrain from using unpublished material disclosed in submitted manuscripts for their own research or advantage. The editorial process should remain independent from commercial influence, institutional pressure, and inappropriate external interference.

7. Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest may arise from financial relationships, institutional affiliations, collaborative ties, personal relationships, academic competition, ideological commitments, or other circumstances that could affect impartial judgment. Authors, reviewers, and editors are all expected to disclose relevant conflicts promptly and fully.

When a conflict is identified, the journal may take appropriate steps, including reviewer replacement, editorial reassignment, additional review, disclosure in publication, request for clarification, or other measures necessary to protect the integrity of the evaluation and publication process.

8. Complaints, Concerns, and Investigations

Allegations of misconduct, unethical behavior, authorship disputes, plagiarism, data irregularities, peer review manipulation, citation manipulation, or undisclosed conflicts of interest will be assessed seriously and handled in a fair, confidential, and evidence-based manner. The journal may request explanations, documentation, institutional clarification, or independent advice where necessary.

During an investigation, the journal may pause editorial processing, suspend publication, or add a formal notice to protect the scholarly record. Decisions will be guided by the seriousness of the concern, the available evidence, and accepted principles of publication ethics.

9. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

When a published article contains a significant error, misleading statement, ethical problem, or unreliable finding, the journal may issue a correction, editorial clarification, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate notice. Such actions are intended to preserve the integrity, transparency, and reliability of the scholarly record.

The journal distinguishes between honest error and misconduct, but both may require formal post-publication action when the published record is materially affected. Retractions and related notices should remain linked to the original publication and should state the basis for the action as clearly as appropriate.

10. Appeals and Editorial Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal if they believe that a rejection or major editorial decision involved a significant factual misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or demonstrable evaluative error. Appeals must be evidence-based, professionally presented, and focused on the substance of the editorial process rather than disagreement alone.

The journal reserves the right to determine whether an appeal merits reconsideration, additional review, or closure. Repeated, abusive, or unsupported complaints may be declined.