Ethics & Malpractice

The management of the Ite Ngabdi adheres to a specific code of conduct that complies with best practice guidelines, as published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The ethics and malpractice standards and responsibilities for the editor, associate editors, reviewers, and authors are presented below.

Editors’ Responsibilities

  • Editors have a responsibility to accept/reject manuscripts submitted to the Journal, based on the policies established by the Journal’s Editorial Board.
  • Editors should ensure the manuscript’s originality, quality of research, and relevance to the Journal’s scope.
  • Editors should evaluate manuscripts based on their intellectual content without regard to authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
  • Editors should investigate all allegations or suspicions of research, publication, or other academic misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, and unethical publishing behavior) raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors.
  • Editors should keep all information about a submitted manuscript confidential from anyone not involved in the review or publication process.
  • Editors should not allow any conflict of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members. Individuals must recuse themselves in situations where there is a conflict of interest.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities

  • Reviewers should notify the editor if they feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or know that its prompt review will be impossible.
  • Reviewers should keep all information regarding a manuscript under review confidential and not use any information or ideas for personal advantage.
  • Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.
  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Reviewers may identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited.
  • Reviewers are responsible for notifying the editor if any substantial similarity or overlap exists between the manuscript under consideration and any other published article of which they have personal knowledge.
  • Reviewers should not review manuscripts for which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the articles.

Authors’ Responsibilities

  • Authors must submit only entirely original works and appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others.
  • Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere, or even submitted and under review in another journal.
  • Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed, an objective discussion, and sufficient detail to ensure the study can be replicated.
  • Authors must ensure that all data in the paper is genuine and authentic and can provide the raw data for review if requested.
  • If a study includes human subjects, authors must include a statement verifying that an Institutional Review Board reviewed the research and that the protection of research participants was secured. The narratives of submitted and published manuscripts must align with and reflect the approved human subject protocols (i.e., level of confidentiality, etc.).
  • Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported project or study, and/or have contributed substantive content to the final manuscript. Individuals who have participated in a lesser capacity should be listed as contributors.
  • Authors must disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest in their manuscript.
  • Authors must promptly report any errors or inaccuracies they discover in their papers to the journal editor(s).
  • Authors must participate in the peer review and follow reviewers’ comments to improve manuscripts. If reviewers’ comments are inappropriate, authors should present a justification or other presentation that describes why the reviewers’ comments are not or cannot be addressed.
  • Authors are strongly encouraged to participate in the peer review as reviewers. Serving as a reviewer for Ite Ngabdi while one has a separate manuscript under review does not constitute a conflict of interest.