Publication Ethics
I. Publication and Editorial Policies
1. Research Integrity, Originality, and Plagiarism
NSJ considers only manuscripts that are original and are not simultaneously under consideration for publication elsewhere. Authors must disclose any substantially related publications, manuscripts, conference papers, preprints, datasets, or reports that overlap with the submitted work.
Submitted manuscripts may undergo similarity screening using Turnitin or another appropriate similarity-detection system. Similarity reports are evaluated in context; no single similarity percentage automatically constitutes plagiarism or determines the editorial decision. Suspected plagiarism, inappropriate text recycling, redundant publication, or other forms of publication misconduct are handled in accordance with the journal’s procedures and relevant COPE guidance.
The journal seeks to align its editorial and publication practices with the core practices and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
2. Authorship and Contributorship
Authorship is limited to individuals who have made substantial intellectual contributions to the work and who satisfy all applicable authorship criteria.
· Contributed substantially to the conception or design of the work; or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.
· Drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content.
· Approved the final version to be published.
· Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work and to ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Prohibited Authorship Practices
Ghost, guest, and gift authorship are prohibited. Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately with their permission.
Author Contributions
Authors should provide an Author Contributions statement. NSJ encourages the use of the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework where appropriate.
Changes in Authorship
Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be accompanied by a clear explanation and written agreement from all affected authors. The journal may require institutional clarification before approving an authorship change.
Corresponding Author and ORCID
One author must be designated as the corresponding author to handle official correspondence, submission and revision uploads, and proof approval. Authors are strongly encouraged to provide ORCID iDs.
3. Research Ethics, Human Participants, and Animal Welfare
Research involving human participants, identifiable human data, human biological materials, vertebrate animals, or other regulated research subjects must comply with applicable institutional, national, and international ethical standards.
· For human-participant research, authors must provide the name of the approving institutional review board (IRB) or ethics committee and the approval/reference number where applicable.
· Informed consent must be obtained where required and described in the manuscript. Where identifiable information or images are published, appropriate consent for publication must also be obtained.
· Animal research must state the relevant institutional approval and confirm compliance with applicable animal-welfare requirements and institutional or national standards.
· Clinical trials must be prospectively registered in an appropriate public registry when required by applicable standards or the journal’s policy, and the registration identifier must be provided.
· Authors must describe any ethics-related exemptions or waivers and identify the body that granted the exemption or waiver.
4. Conflicts of Interest and Competing Interests
Authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial board members must disclose relevant financial and non-financial relationships or activities that could reasonably be perceived as influencing, or appearing to influence, their work or editorial judgment.
Editors and reviewers should recuse themselves when a conflict could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, impartiality. Relevant disclosures are published with the article where appropriate.
Where no competing interests exist, authors should state: “The authors declare no competing interests.”
5. Copyright, Licensing, and Open Access
Open Access
Napata Scientific Journal (NSJ) provides immediate open access to its published content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. of the broad dissemination and exchange of scholarly knowledge.
Licensing
Articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). this permits anyone to copy, redistribute, remix, transform, and build upon the material in any medium or format, provided appropriate credit is given to the original author(s) and the source.
Copyright Ownership
Authors retain copyright ownership of their work while granting NSJ the right of first publication under the CC BY 4.0 license. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal’s published version of the work (e.g., post it t an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
6. Article Processing Charges and Fee Transparency
NSJ is supported by Napata College and does not charge authors article processing charges (APCs), submission fees, publication fees, mandatory page charges, or mandatory colour charges. Published articles are freely accessible to readers.
7. Funding Disclosure
Authors must disclose all sources of financial support received for the research and/or preparation of the manuscript. Funding agencies, grant numbers, and relevant award information should be fully identified. Authors should also state, where applicable, the role of the funder in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, and the decision to submit.
8. Research and Publication Misconduct
NSJ investigates credible concerns relating to research or publication misconduct. Examples include, but are not limited to:
· plagiarism and inappropriate text recycling
· fabrication or falsification of data
· inappropriate image manipulation
· duplicate or redundant publication
· citation manipulation
· peer-review manipulation
· authorship misconduct
· undeclared conflicts of interest
· other practices that materially undermine the integrity of the scholarly record
Investigations may involve the authors, reviewers, editors, institutions, or other relevant parties as appropriate. The journal may request original data, documents, ethics approvals, or institutional findings where necessary.
9. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern
Corrections (Erratum/Corrigendum)
A correction may be issued when a published error affects the accuracy or clarity of the article but does not invalidate its principal findings or conclusions.
Retractions
An article may be retracted when it is substantially unreliable, seriously misleading, plagiarized, redundantly published, or affected by serious research or publication misconduct. Retraction notices will be clearly linked to the original article and will explain the reason for the action.
Expressions of Concern
An Expression of Concern may be published when credible concerns exist about the integrity or reliability of a published article but an investigation is incomplete, inconclusive, or otherwise does not yet justify a correction or retraction.
10. Digital Archiving and Long-Term Preservation
NSJ maintains digital preservation arrangements intended to support long-term access to the scholarly record. These arrangements include the PKP Preservation Network (PKP PN) and LOCKSS/CLOCKSS preservation systems, as applicable to the journal’s active participation and technical configuration. The journal will update its website when preservation arrangements change.
11. Data Availability and Sharing
Authors are encouraged, and may be required where appropriate to the article type or funder, to deposit underlying research data in recognized repositories such as Zenodo, Figshare, or Dryad. Articles should include a Data Availability Statement describing whether and how supporting data can be accessed.
Where data cannot be shared because of privacy, ethical, legal, contractual, or other restrictions, the statement should explain the limitation and, where possible, describe a controlled-access route.
12. Artificial Intelligence and AI-Assisted Technologies
Authors must disclose the use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies in the preparation or conduct of the work. AI systems must not be listed as authors or co-authors.
· Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and appropriate attribution of all submitted material.
· Use of AI for writing assistance should be disclosed in the Acknowledgments or another designated section.
· AI used for data collection, analysis, coding, image generation, or other research activities should be described in the Methods or other appropriate section.
· Authors must verify AI-generated content and references and remain responsible for any errors, fabricated citations, or unattributed material.
13. Editorial Independence
Editorial decisions are made independently of the publisher and journal owner and are based on scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological soundness, and ethical integrity. The publisher shall not improperly interfere with editorial decisions, peer-review outcomes, or the selection of material for publication.
II. Peer Review Policy
1. Peer Review Model
NSJ uses a double-anonymized (double-blind) peer-review process for manuscripts that undergo external review. To the extent practicable, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process.
2. Peer Review Workflow
1. Initial Screening The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor reviews the manuscript for scope, completeness, formatting, similarity concerns, research integrity, and ethical compliance.
2. Reviewer Assignment Manuscripts considered suitable for external review are normally assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
3. Revision and Re-evaluation When revision is requested, authors receive reviewer reports and should provide a point-by-point response together with a revised manuscript.
4. Final Decision The Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor makes the final editorial decision after considering reviewer reports, methodological quality, originality, relevance, and ethical considerations. Reviewer recommendations inform the decision but do not determine it automatically.
3. Review Timeline
Initial Editorial Assessment: normally 1–2 weeks.
External Peer Review: normally approximately 3–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the need for additional review.
Revision and Final Decision: varies according to the extent of revision and the author response.
Publication: accepted articles are scheduled according to the journal’s three-issue annual publication schedule and production workflow.
4. Reviewer Responsibilities and Conduct
· Maintain confidentiality of manuscripts and review materials.
· Provide objective, constructive, evidence-based comments.
· Declare relevant competing interests and decline review where impartiality may be compromised.
· Identify important relevant literature where appropriate.
· Report suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, image manipulation, or other ethical concerns to the editor.
· Do not use or disclose unpublished information obtained through peer review.
· Do not upload confidential manuscripts or peer-review materials to generative AI systems unless confidentiality is assured and such use is permitted by the journal.
5. Complaints and Appeals
Authors may appeal an editorial decision or submit a complaint regarding the editorial or peer-review process by contacting the Editorial Office. Appeals should explain the specific grounds for reconsideration and should identify factual or procedural issues relevant to the decision.
Appeals and complaints are handled in accordance with the journal’s procedures and relevant COPE guidance. Where appropriate, a matter may be referred to an independent complaints or appeal committee or to an external institutional body.
6. Post-Publication Discussion
Readers may submit substantive comments, questions, or concerns about published articles to the Editorial Office. Where appropriate, the journal may publish correspondence or issue corrections, Expressions of Concern, or retractions to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.
III. International Standards and Best-Practice Frameworks
NSJ seeks to align its editorial and publication practices with internationally recognized standards and recommendations, including:
· Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
· International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), where applicable to biomedical and medical content.
· World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), where applicable.
· Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
· Relevant Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board (CSAB) criteria and transparency expectations.
Alignment with these frameworks does not by itself constitute indexing, acceptance, endorsement, or certification by any external organization. NSJ will represent any indexing or membership status separately and accurately on its website.
