1) Core principles
- Integrity: claims must match evidence; uncertainty must be labeled.
- Traceability: sources must be identifiable so readers can verify key statements.
- Fair process: editorial decisions are based on the work, not the author’s identity or politics.
- Accountability: errors are corrected; serious misconduct is acted on.
These principles align with widely used publication-ethics standards such as COPE core practices and publisher ethics policies.
2) Authorship and contributions
Authorship must reflect real work. “Gift authorship” (adding names for prestige or access) and “ghost authorship” (hiding a real writer or sponsor) are unacceptable. Every listed author must be able to explain: what they contributed and why they take responsibility for the paper’s integrity.
If the submission includes contributions from institutions, research assistants, translators, or datasets assembled by others, acknowledge them clearly. If you cannot disclose a material contribution, don’t submit the manuscript.
3) Conflicts of interest and funding disclosure
Conflicts of interest are not automatically disqualifying. Hiding them is. Authors must disclose financial and non-financial relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the work (funding, employment, consultancy, political roles, institutional mandates, access arrangements, or personal relationships tied to the topic).
Funding statements must distinguish between direct project funding and general institutional support. If a funder influenced the study design, data access, analysis, or publication decision, that must be stated.
4) Originality, plagiarism, and redundant publication
Submissions must be original and not under review elsewhere. Plagiarism includes verbatim copying, close paraphrase without attribution, and “patchwork” rewriting that still mirrors another author’s structure and argument. Redundant publication (recycling the same findings as “new” across multiple outlets) is also misconduct.
Limited reuse of methods text can be acceptable only when it is transparently disclosed and properly cited. If you are unsure, assume it needs disclosure and citation.
5) Data, documents, and verification
Security and defence topics often involve selective quoting, unverifiable claims, and political narratives. We require:
- Document precision: cite primary documents directly when you used them (laws, strategies, treaties, official reports).
- Dataset clarity: name datasets, provide version/date, and explain selection and coding rules.
- Quote discipline: quotes must be accurate and not misleadingly clipped.
- Limits stated: if evidence is incomplete or access constrained, say so clearly.
If you cannot provide enough detail for readers to understand what you used and how you derived your claims, the paper is not ready.
6) Human subjects, safety, and sensitive material
If research involves interviews, fieldwork, or identifiable individuals, authors must demonstrate responsible handling: consent where appropriate, protection of identities when needed, and risk awareness for participants. For sensitive security contexts, authors must avoid doxxing, incitement, or publishing details that could credibly increase harm to individuals.
Claims about people and organizations must be evidence-based and framed responsibly. This is not a platform for defamation disguised as analysis.
7) Editorial handling of misconduct allegations
When we receive an allegation (plagiarism, data fabrication, image/document manipulation, undisclosed conflicts), the editorial office follows structured best-practice steps: initial assessment, evidence collection, author contact, and-when needed-escalation to institutions or publishers. Outcomes may include correction, expression of concern, retraction, or rejection depending on severity and evidence.
We do not treat “this is politically sensitive” as a reason to ignore integrity problems. If the evidence fails, the paper fails.
8) Corrections and retractions
Honest error happens. The fix is speed and transparency. If a published item contains a material error (wrong citation, incorrect data, misattributed quote, flawed figure), we publish a correction. If the integrity of the work is compromised (fabrication, major plagiarism, manipulation, or undisclosed conflicts that invalidate the record), retraction is possible.
One reference PDF (recommended)
If you want a compact, widely recognized baseline for reviewer and publication ethics, use COPE’s guidance: COPE - Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.