Publication Ethics

01Foundational Principles

LOCUS Journal of Academic Literature Review (JALR) is committed to the integrity, independence, fairness, and transparency of scholarly publishing. The journal considers manuscripts on the basis of originality, methodological soundness, academic relevance, ethical compliance, and alignment with its Focus and Scope. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, religion, gender, political opinions, or ability to pay publication charges.

This statement applies to authors, editors, peer reviewers, and editorial production personnel. The journal follows internationally recognized principles of publication ethics, including relevant guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

02Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must submit original work that has not been published previously and is not under consideration by another journal. Proper attribution is required for quoted, paraphrased, adapted, or reused material, including figures, tables, datasets, and methods. Data, analyses, citations, and findings must be represented accurately; fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and deceptive reporting are prohibited.

Authors must provide accurate affiliations, funding information, acknowledgments, conflicts-of-interest disclosures, and applicable research ethics approvals. Where human participants, personal data, animals, or other regulated research are involved, authors must describe appropriate ethical review, consent, permissions, and safeguards, where applicable.

Authors should retain underlying research records and provide reasonable clarification or supporting materials when an editor investigates a credible concern, subject to legal, ethical, privacy, and confidentiality restrictions. Authors must promptly notify the journal if they discover a significant error in a submitted or published article.

03Authorship and Contributions

All listed authors must have made meaningful scholarly contributions, reviewed and approved the final submitted version, and agreed to be accountable for their contributions and the integrity of the work. Individuals who assisted but do not satisfy authorship requirements should be acknowledged with their permission.

The corresponding author is responsible for accurate author information and communication with the journal. Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission require an explanation and written agreement from all affected authors; changes after acceptance receive heightened scrutiny. Guest, gift, ghost, and fictitious authorship are prohibited.

04Editorial Duties and Independence

The Editor-in-Chief and assigned editors are responsible for ensuring a fair, confidential, and evidence-based evaluation of manuscripts. Editors select appropriately qualified reviewers, manage conflicts of interest, consider review reports critically, and make editorial decisions on scholarly grounds. Reviewer recommendations inform but do not replace editorial judgment.

Editors must not use unpublished material for personal benefit or disclose confidential submissions except as necessary for legitimate editorial handling or investigation. If an editor has a relevant conflict of interest, the manuscript must be assigned to another qualified and independent editor. Editorial decisions are independent of advertising, sponsorship, ownership interests, and article processing charges.

05Peer Reviewer Responsibilities

Peer reviewers must accept assignments only when they have relevant expertise, sufficient time, and no conflict that compromises their impartiality. Reviews must be confidential, objective, respectful, timely, and substantively supported. Reviewers should assess originality, research design, methodology, evidence, interpretation, references, and ethical considerations where relevant.

Reviewers must not circulate manuscript files, appropriate unpublished findings, contact authors without editorial authorization, manipulate citations, or delegate their review to an unauthorized person. Suspected misconduct should be reported privately to the editor with supporting details. LOCUS applies the double-anonymous review approach described in its Peer Review Process policy.

06Artificial Intelligence and Editorial Confidentiality

Authors remain fully accountable for manuscript accuracy, originality, citation integrity, and any content produced with assistance from artificial intelligence tools. Material use of generative AI in research, analysis, images, or manuscript preparation must be disclosed in the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s AI policy. AI tools cannot be listed as authors.

Peer reviewers must not use generative AI to evaluate manuscripts or draft their review reports and must not upload confidential submissions, unpublished data, or review correspondence to external AI systems. Editors and editorial personnel must protect confidential manuscript information and must not substitute automated outputs for independent editorial judgment.

07Research Integrity and Prohibited Practices

The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, fabricated or falsified findings, image or data manipulation, redundant or simultaneous submissions, undisclosed text recycling, citation manipulation, peer review manipulation, fabricated identities, purchased authorship, or submissions produced by paper mills. Screening tools may assist editorial assessment, but similarity percentages alone do not establish plagiarism; context, attribution, and substance must be examined.

Allegations must be evaluated proportionately and without presuming guilt. When appropriate, editors may request explanations and supporting evidence, consult independent experts, or contact relevant institutions in accordance with confidentiality and due-process considerations.

08Conflicts of Interest and Funding

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their work, including financial ties, professional collaborations, personal relationships, institutional connections, or other competing interests. Disclosure does not necessarily disqualify a manuscript, but enables appropriate editorial management.

Authors must identify relevant funding sources and describe the funder’s role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, writing, or publication decisions, or state when there was no such role.

09Handling Allegations and Editorial Concerns

Credible concerns may be reported to the journal through its official contact channel. The editor documents the concern, assesses its specificity and available evidence, and determines whether clarification, an expert assessment, an institutional inquiry, or an editorial action is warranted. Individuals involved in a complaint are offered a fair opportunity to respond where appropriate.

Possible outcomes include no further action, requests for correction or clarification, rejection of a submitted manuscript, notification to an institution or relevant authority, publication of an expression of concern, or retraction of a published article. The journal protects confidential information where possible but cannot promise anonymity in all circumstances.

10Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

When a published article contains an important error that does not invalidate its principal conclusions, the journal may issue a linked correction. An expression of concern may be issued when substantial questions about reliability remain unresolved but available evidence does not yet support a final decision. Retraction may be appropriate when findings are unreliable, the publication process was seriously compromised, or major ethical violations invalidate the scholarly record.

Notices must clearly identify and link to the affected article, explain the reason for the action in an appropriately transparent manner, and remain publicly accessible. Retracted articles should remain identifiable as retracted rather than silently disappearing. The purpose of these measures is to correct the scholarly record, not to punish authors.

11Complaints, Appeals, and Fair Treatment

Authors may submit a substantiated appeal concerning an editorial decision or procedural irregularity through the official journal contact channel. Appeals should identify the manuscript and provide specific reasons or evidence. Where practicable, the appeal will be assessed by a qualified editor not responsible for the disputed decision. Reconsideration does not guarantee acceptance.

Complaints involving editor conduct or potential conflicts of interest should be referred to an appropriate independent member of the editorial leadership or publisher. All parties are expected to communicate professionally, and editorial records are retained to support accountability.

12Publishing Transparency and Accountability

The journal publicly maintains information about its Focus and Scope, peer review process, editorial team, publication schedule, author guidelines, publication charges, copyright and licensing, open access arrangements, and relevant contact details. Fees, if applicable, are disclosed separately and never determine editorial outcomes.

LOCUS does not promise acceptance, offer paid fast-track peer review, or manufacture review records. Manuscript submission, revision, acceptance, and publication dates must correspond to actual events in the editorial system. The journal may update these policies as standards develop; revisions will be reflected on its website.