Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement supports the combined efforts by authors, members of the editorial board and the scientific committee, and reviewers to produce a responsible scientific publication. This statement is based on ethical principles that generally follow the lines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

AUTHORS’ RESPONSIBILITIES:

Manuscripts submitted for publication must be based on original, unpublished research. They must include the data obtained and used, as well as an objective discussion of the results. They must supply enough information to allow any specialist to reproduce the research and confirm or refute the interpretations defended in the manuscript.

Authors must be aware of and refrain from engaging in scientific misconduct, breaching publishing ethics.

We accept manuscripts on the belief that the same has not been submitted or will not be submitted to other journals while the review process is going on. Concrete action is taken against the authors who make a simultaneous submission during the period of peer review.

Authors should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation.
All authors must ensure that the data and results reported in the manuscript are original and have not been copied, fabricated, falsified or manipulated.
Plagiarism in all forms, multiple or redundant publication, as well as invention or manipulation of data constitute serious ethical failings and are considered scientific fraud.
Authors are required to submit an original written article. If other's work is necessary to justify you idea, quote according to the instructions on the citation of work.
Authors should provide appropriate authorship attribution and acknowledgement. Authors must refrain from deliberately misrepresenting a scientist’s relationship with published work. All authors must have significantly contributed to the research.
Authors must indicate the journal when they have a direct or indirect conflict of interest with editors or members of the Editorial board or International scientific committee.
No significant part of the article must have been previously published either as an article or as a chapter, or be under consideration for publication elsewhere.
If authors discover a serious mistake in their manuscript, they must report this to the person responsible for the journal as soon as possible, in order to modify, withdraw, or retract the manuscript, or to publish a correction or erratum notice.
If the Editorial Board detects any potential error, the authors must have to demonstrate and justify that the manuscript is free from error with proper arguements.
Authors are obliged, for all materials submitted, to participate in a peer review process and to follow publication conventions.
Authors are strongly advised to ensure the correct author group, and the order of authors at submission. Changes of authorship by adding or deleting authors, and/or changes in Corresponding Author, and/or changes in the sequence of authors are not accepted after acceptance of a manuscript.
We condemn the unethical practice of ‘Ghost,’ ‘guest,’ or ‘gift’ authorship (or anything that does not have any proper contribution to an article) and take appropriate steps against such practices.

1.1. STEPS AGAINST MISCONDUCT

We may take any one or all of the following steps against unethical practices:

The published content is retracted via notification.
Modified content is published with justification for modification.
The author is blacklisted and barred from future submission.
Notification along with pieces of evidence of misconduct is communicated to an author’s institution, superior, and/or any concerned authority.

1.2. AUTHORSHIP

All published materials—research articles, conference proceedings- must contain appropriate attribution of authorship. Authors should avoid disclosing their identity. The name of the author(s) must not appear on any page of the manuscript (this information must not be completed in the word template in the time of submission). Author information will be included in the Title Page and the electronic platform: all authors must be listed in the online platform at the time of submission, including their full name, their affiliation, ORCID ID, postal address and electronic address. When this information is incomplete, the submission will be desk-rejected. Since we follow the online medium, it is the sole responsibility of the corresponding author—who initiates the submission process online, to ensure the integrity of publication ethics by complying with the following:

The corresponding author should ensure:

That the submitted manuscript is genuine research work produced by the author/s,
That all the other authors are made aware of the submission,
That permission is taken from other authors for publication,
That the contribution of the author(s) is appropriately acknowledged,
That the contribution of other persons or parties, who/which add value to the work in any way is sufficiently acknowledged,
That the Conflicts of Interests document is signed properly and sent to us in time.

EDITORS’ RESPONSIBILITIES:

The Editorial Board will be impartial when handling submitted manuscripts proposed for publication and must respect the intellectual independence of the authors, who must be given the right of reply if they receive a negative review.

Members of the Editorial Board are obliged to maintain confidentiality about the submitted manuscripts and its contents until they have been accepted for publication. Only then, their title and authorship may be communicated.
Furthermore, no member of the Editorial Board may use data, lines of reasoning or interpretations in unpublished works for their own research, except with the author’s own written consent.
All manuscripts will be processed based on intellectual content without regard for age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, country of origin, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.1. PUBLICATION DECISION

All contributions will be initially assessed by the journal’s Editorial Board. The Editorial Board is solely and independently responsible for selecting, processing, and deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal meet the editorial goals and could thus be published. Each paper considered suitable is sent to two independent peer reviewers who are experts in their field and able to assess the specific qualities of the work.

The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding whether or not the article is accepted or rejected. The decision to publish a paper will always be measured in accordance to its importance to researchers, practitioners, and potential readers. Editors should make unbiased decisions independent from commercial considerations.
Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should withdraw from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential problems concerning articles under consideration. The responsibility of the final decision regarding publication will be attributed to an editor who does not have any conflicts of interest.

2.2. PEER REVIEW

Each article submitted is the responsibility of one member of the Editorial Board or of the international scientific committee, who undertakes to have it evaluated by two reviewers who are experts in the field and who evaluate it anonymously.
Reviewed articles are treated confidentially by editorial board members, members of the international scientific committee, and reviewers.
The Editorial Board will assess and acknowledge the input of all those involved in the review of the manuscript submitted to the journal. It will also encourage academic authorities to acknowledge peer review activities as part of the scientific process, and should decline reviewers who submit reports that are of poor quality, improper, disrespectful or that are delivered after the agreed deadline.

2.3. IDENTIFYING AND PREVENTING MISCONDUCT

In no case shall a journal and members of the Editorial Board and international scientific committee encourage misconduct of any kind or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

Members of the Editorial Board and international scientific committee shall try to prevent misconduct by informing authors and reviewers about the ethical conduct required of them.
Members of the Editorial Board, scientific committee, and reviewers are asked to be aware of all types of misconduct in order to identify papers where research misconduct of any kind has or seems to have occurred and deal with the allegations accordingly.
In case of misconduct, the journal editor is responsible for resolving the issue. He or she can work in conjunction with the other co-editor, members of the Editorial Board and scientific committee, peer reviewers, and experts in the field.
The issue will be documented accordingly. All factual questions should be documented: who, what, when, where, why. All relevant documents should be kept, in particular the article(s) concerned.
The journal editor shall contact the author or publication involved, either the author submitting or another publication or author. The author is thus given the opportunity to respond to or comment on the complaint, allegation, or dispute.
In the event that misconduct has or seems to have occurred, or in the case of needed corrections, the Editorial Board deals with the different cases by following the appropriate COPE recommendations.
Great care will be taken to distinguish cases of honest human error from deliberate intent to cheat.

The editorial board will consider retracting a publication in case of misconduct, issuing an expression of concern in case of inconclusive proof of misconduct; or issuing a request for the correction of a misleading segment.

REVIEWERS’ RESPONSIBILITIES:

All reviewers must know and keep in mind the Editorial policy and Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. The journal requires potential reviewers to have scientific expertise or significant work experience in a relevant field. They must have recently conducted research and/or work and have recognized expertise by their peers. Potential reviewers should provide personal and professional information that is accurate and that gives a fair representation of their expertise.

Reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the research article.
All reviewers must likewise withdraw if they know they are unqualified to evaluate a manuscript, if they feel their evaluation of the material will not be objective, or if they understand themselves to be in a conflict of interest.
Reviewed articles are treated confidentially by reviewers and members of the Editorial Board and international scientific committee.
Reviewers should point out relevant published work which has not yet been cited in the reviewed material. If necessary, the editor may issue a correction request to this effect.
Reviewers are asked to identify papers where research misconduct has or seems to have occurred and inform the Editorial Board, which will deal with each case accordingly.

3.1. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Members of the Editorial Board and reviewers shall withdraw in any case of conflict of interest with an author or authors, or with the content of a manuscript to be evaluated. The journal shall avoid all conflict of interest between authors, reviewers, and members of the Editorial Board and scientific committee. The editors and reviewers should withdraw from making decisions if:

There is a direct-reporting relationship between an author and a reviewer.
There is recent, significant professional collaboration between reviewers and authors.
An editor or reviewer is a collaborator on the project that is being submitted.
The editor or reviewer has a financial interest in a company or competing company with a financial interest in the submission.
The editor or reviewer believes that he or she cannot be objective, whether due to personal reasons or a financial interest

DUTIES OF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF:

The Editor-in-Chief undertakes to have independent editorial decision making:

Editors are responsible for all the processes that the manuscripts submitted to The Creative Launcher will go through. Within this framework, ignoring the economic or political interests, the decision-makers are the editors.
Editor-in-Chief bears all the responsibility to take precautions against academic abuse, fraud and plagiarism.
In cases of alleged or proven academic misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the Editor-in-Chief, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The Editor-in-Chief, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of paper(s) where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
The Editor-in-Chief and the editors do not discriminate on the basis of age, colour, religion, creed, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or career status, or sexual orientation in its publishing programs, services and activities.
The Editor-in-Chief is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive
The journal has guidelines for retracting or correcting articles when needed.
Editor-in-Chief and editors always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

PUBLISHER’S RESPONSIVITIES:

As a publisher, Perception Publishing is committed to upholding scholarly publication ethics in every possible manner. We want all concerned with the publication of the journal—editors, reviewers and website managers, to strictly follow international norms. We try to adhere to the norms and guidelines formulated by various scholarly societies to achieve international standards by maintaining quality in publication and by updating our publication system. We expect and encourage all the concerned parties associated with the journal to follow the norms as mentioned in our website. This publication ethics and malpractice statement has been written in accordance with COPE general guidelines http://publicationethics.org/.

5.1 RETRACTION POLICY

The retraction policy of The Creative Launcher is established by the publisher to ensure the integrity of the academic record and to address concerns related to errors, ethical breaches, or other issues compromising the validity or reliability of published content. This policy outlines the criteria and process for retracting published articles.

Grounds for Retraction: An article may be considered for retraction under the following circumstances:

Scientific Misconduct: Evidence of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in the research process or publication.
Errors: Discovery of significant errors that invalidate the study’s findings, conclusions, or methodology.
Redundant Publication: Instances where the article has been published elsewhere without appropriate cross-referencing or permissions.
Ethical Violations: Breaches of ethical standards, such as unauthorized use of data, failure to secure ethical approvals, or other misconduct.
Author Disputes: Proven disputes between authors regarding authorship, contributions, or data use that significantly impact the validity of the work.
Legal Concerns: Evidence of legal violations, such as defamation, copyright infringement, or breaches of confidentiality.