Ethical Guidelines

The publication of work in the International Journal of Social Dynamics (IJSD) reflects the quality and integrity of the authors and their affiliated institutions. The following guidelines, adapted from the standards for HEC-recognized journals, govern the ethical responsibilities of the Editor, the Authors, and the Reviewers.

THE EDITOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES
The Editor is responsible for upholding the professional and ethical standards of the journal across all stages of publication.

Core Duties and Best Practices
●    Quality and Integrity: Establish and maintain the journal’s quality by publishing sound papers and ensuring the integrity and credibility of all research contributions.
●    Ethical Oversight: Uphold the journal’s ethical standards and issue
corrigendum, clarification, and apologies where necessary.
●    Fair Play: Apply an impartial standard to all submitted articles, disregarding non-academic factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, religious belief, seniority, or institutional association of the author(s).
●    Process Management: Promptly respond to authors, assign a specific submission number for processing, and ensure the peer review is prompt, non-discriminatory, and highly confidential.
●    Policy Implementation: Implement the journal’s policies without institutional pressure and revise them periodically.
●    Encouragement: Promote new ideas, innovative findings, and the application of the journal's anti-plagiarism policy.

Formation of the Editorial Board 
The Editor must ensure the Board comprises prominent scholars capable of promoting the journal effectively.
●   The Board should include an Editorial Committee (for logistics) and an Advisory Committee (responsible for reviewing submitted articles). The Advisory Committee should have at least 50% representation of scholars from outside the journal's primary location/institution.
●   Board members should maintain journal quality by selecting credible work. The Editor is responsible for convening regular Editorial Board meetings (at least twice a year).
●  New Board members must be informed of ethical guidelines and their expected roles.

Confidentiality and Disclosure
●  The Editor must ensure the confidentiality of both the author(s) and reviewers during the double-blind peer review process.
●  Information regarding a paper should only be disclosed to the author(s), reviewer(s), and editorial board members.
●  The Editor must not use any unpublished information or data from a submitted manuscript for personal or professional gain without the author's permission.

Publication Decisions and Appeals
●    Merit-Based Decision: The Editor's decisions (acceptance or rejection) must be based purely on merit, academic standards, and professional demands. Personal bias must be avoided.
●    Justification: The Editor must communicate the reason(s) for rejection to the author(s), which may include failure to fit the journal's scope, insufficient content depth, or major technical errors.
●    Appeals: A proper mechanism must be established for appeals against rejection, objections to publications causing harm, or infringement of ethical boundaries.



ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR THE AUTHORS
Violation of these guidelines may lead to penalties, including the suspension of publishing privileges.
 
Reporting and Originality
●    Reporting Standards: The research report and data must contain adequate detail and references to allow others to reproduce the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unethical.
●    Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must submit entirely original work and provide due credit through proper citations to the works or words of others. Material quoted verbatim from any source (including the author's prior work) must be enclosed in quotation marks.
      -   Per HEC policy, a manuscript with a similarity index of more than 19% will generally be rejected or subject to conditional acceptance by the Editorial Board.
●    Declaration: Authors must declare that the manuscript is solely their original work and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Authorship and Redundancy
●   Authors must not submit manuscripts describing the same research to more than one journal simultaneously. Concurrent submission is unethical.
●    Authorship should only be credited to those who have made a noteworthy contribution (conceptualization, design, conducting, data analysis, and writing). The corresponding author must ensure all co-authors have seen and approved the final version and agreed to its submission order. Individuals who assisted in substantive aspects should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgement" section.

Participant Privacy and Disclosure
●    Authors must ensure participants' informed consent is obtained. Identifying information, images, or individual results should only be shared if they improve understanding of the study, and only with the explicit consent of the concerned party (or the family, in the case of a deceased participant).
●    All authors must disclose any potential or relevant competing interests (financial, personal, professional, etc.) that might be affected by the publication. All sources of financial support must be disclosed.



ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR THE REVIEWERS
Reviewers serve as the momentum arm of the publication process. Their professional service ensures the quality and credibility of the journal.

Suitability and Promptness
●    Reviewers must inform the Editor immediately if they lack the required subject expertise or have a conflict of interest.
●    Reviewers are ethically bound to act promptly and submit their report on time. Any delay must be immediately communicated to the Editor.

Standards of Objectivity and Confidentiality
●    Reviews must be objectively carried out based on high academic, scholarly, and scientific standards. Judgments must be meticulously established and avoid unsupported assertions or personal criticism of the author(s).
●    Decisions must be based purely on the quality of the research, uninfluenced by personal, financial, or intellectual bias. A reviewer must declare any conflicting interests (e.g., if the paper under review is the same as their presently conducted research).
●    The manuscript is a confidential document. Reviewers must not discuss its content or use any unpublished material for their own research without the Editor's approval.

Ethical and Originality Considerations
Reviewers have a duty to comment on ethical issues and suspected misconduct. They should inform the Editor if they suspect:
●    Plagiarism: The work is substantially similar to someone else's, providing citation for the source.
●    Fake Data: The results appear untrue, unrealistic, or manipulated.
●    Ethical Violations: There is an indication of violating ethical norms in the treatment of human subjects (e.g., children, disabled, elderly).
●    Originality: The paper does not add to existing knowledge or is a replica of earlier work.

Review Report
The final decision of the review should be clearly indicated as ‘Reject,’ ‘Accept without revision,’ or ‘Need Revision,’ and must be accompanied by a detailed justification.

Reviewers should write a brief summary of their final decision at the beginning of the report. The final decision to publish rests solely with the Editor.