Scientific publications in peer-reviewed journals are vital for sharing research findings and advancing knowledge. They serve as records of merit and precedence, impacting researchers' careers and funding. Upholding scientific integrity is crucial to prevent harm. In academic publishing, editors, authors, and reviewers are responsible for maintaining high ethical standards. Here we outline the responsibilities of those, who are directly concerned with the publication process.

Responsibilities of Author(s)
We adhere to the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) definition of authorship. All individuals listed as authors must fulfil the specified authorship criteria, and anyone meeting these criteria must be acknowledged as an author. Contributors who fall short of meeting the authorship criteria should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section.

Ethical Statement (Authors' Declaration)
It is mandatory to submit a statement by the first author or corresponding co-author that "The manuscript is the original work of author(s) that has not been submitted for publication to any other journals. In addition, the author/s declares that they have no conflict of interest".

The Chief Editor / Editorial board assumes no responsibility for the statements, opinion or facts expressed in the journal, which vests entirely with the author(s) thereof. It is understood that the author (s) have obtained a prior approval of their Department, Faculty or Institute where such approval is necessary.

In addition, author(s) must ensure the following ethical guidelines:

• Honest Data Interpretation and Image Use: Conducting honest data interpretation, avoiding manipulation, and using only original, unprocessed images. Any necessary adjustments must be disclosed in figure legends.
• Concise and Accurate Research Presentation: Presenting a concise and accurate report of their research and an objective discussion of its significance.
• Data and Methodological Transparency: Providing sufficient data and methodological details for critical evaluation and replication by others. Encouraged to share unique materials and software with a material transfer agreement.
• Community Data Sharing: Making primary datasets available through community data-sharing practices
• Placing Results in Context and Avoiding Plagiarism: Placing their results in context, citing relevant work, and avoiding plagiarism
• Related Submissions and Cross-Referencing: Informing the editor of related submissions and providing cross-referencing for under-consideration or in-press manuscripts.
• Editorial Communication and Content Changes: Avoiding redundant publication, ensuring full disclosure of any overlap with other papers.
• Funding Declaration: Informing the editor of any financial stakes and sources of funding.
• Identification of Hazards: Identifying and discussing any potential health or environmental hazards associated with the reported work.
• Reviewer Suggestion and Professionalism: Avoid suggesting reviewers with potential positive bias due to personal or professional relationships, such as recent collaborators or former students/supervisors. Additionally, they are expected to maintain professionalism in all communication, refraining from personal criticism, insults, or defamatory statements. Critical discussion of other people's work is acceptable.

Responsibilities of Reviewers include:

• Confidentiality: Consulting the editor before involving additional parties, keeping the review process and manuscript details confidential and not sharing any content of submitted, unpublished articles.
• Use of Information: Not using information gained in confidence for personal research.
• Qualification: Informing the editor promptly if unqualified to review.
• Conflict of Interest: Disclosing conflicts of interest promptly.
• Timeliness: Reviewing manuscripts promptly and informing the editor if more time is needed.
• Objective Evaluation: Evaluating the work objectively, providing judgements with supportive explanations.
• Professional Communication: Keeping comments to the author professional, focusing on the manuscript content.
• Similarity Check: Informing the editor of any similarity between the submitted manuscript and published work.
• Ethical Concerns: Alerting the editor to potential ethical problems.

Responsibilities of Editors:
Editors, responsible for the final decision on manuscript acceptance or rejection, must ensure:

• Scientific Merits: Base decisions on the scientific merits, irrespective of personal circumstances of authors.
• Fair and Timely Evaluation: Ensure a fair and timely evaluation process for submitted manuscripts.
• Confidentiality: Handle submitted manuscripts confidentially.
• Conflict of Interest: Disclose conflicts of interest promptly and involve another editor for handling if needed.
• Reviewer Selection: Carefully select reviewers, independently verifying author-suggested reviewers' details., use caution with author-suggested reviewers to avoid bias and keep reviewer names and details confidential.
• Appeals Consideration: Give fair and careful consideration to appeals against editorial decisions.
• Data Protection: Comply with data protection regulations.
• Handling Unethical Behavior: Follow up on indications or allegations of questionable research practice.