1. Reporting Standards: 
   Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
2. Data Access and Retention: 
   Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and s, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
3. Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. If the authors have used and words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: 
   An auth generally publishes manuscripts describing the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
5. Acknowledgement of Sources: 
   Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publicinfluencedal in determining the nature of the reported work.
6. Authorship of the Paper: 
   Authorship should be limited contributed significantlynificant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project and should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-anchors are included in the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the article version of the document and have agreed to its submission for publication.
7. Fundamental errors in published works: 
   When an author discovers a signiftheirror inaccuracy, the author must the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Duties of Editors

1. evaluates: 
   An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their inthe authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2. Confidentiality: 
   The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 
   Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted script must not be the author's express written consent out tout express written consent.
4. Publication Decisions: 
   The editor board journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
5. the editor, for originality, initially evaluates each manuscript. The editor should organise and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain to their peers which journal parts author-reviewed indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. They used appropriate previewers for papers considered faction by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
   Peer rev,iew assists the editor in making an editorial decision, and the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
2. Promptness: 
   Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process
3. Standards of Objectivity: 
   Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
4. Confidentiality: 
   Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interestivileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not with advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts with conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
6. Acknowledgement of Sources: 
   Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been reported should be accompanied by the appropriate citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper they have personal knowledge of.