1. Reporting Standard:
   Authors of original research reports should provide a detailed description of the work undertaken, as well as an impartial explanation of its purpose. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
2. Data Access and Retention:
   Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should, in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
3. Originality and Plagiarism: The writers should ensure that they have published wholly original works and that this has been appropriately referenced or quoted if the writers have used the work and words of other people. 
4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication:
   An author should not usually publish manuscripts in more than one journal or primary publication, which describe essentially the same study. 
5. Acknowledgment of Sources:
   Good appreciation of others' efforts must always be granted. Authors may reference publications that have informed the essence of the recorded study.
6. Authorship of the Paper:
   Authorship may be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the implementation, design, implementation, or analysis of the published research. Both those who have contributed substantially should be classified as co-authors. Where some have taken part in any of the practical aspects of the research study, they should be remembered or identified as collaborators. The referring Author should ensure that all applicable co-authors and no unauthorized co-authors are included in the paper and that the final version of the report has been examined and accepted by all co-authors and has committed to its publication.
   Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
   Both writers shall report any financial or other potential conflicts of interest in their manuscript that may be considered to affect the effects or understanding of their document. They should reveal all sources of financial funding for the initiative.
7. Fundamental errors in published works:
   When an author notices a substantial mistake or inaccuracy in his / her published article, the Author must immediately contact the Editor or Publisher of the journal and comply with the Editor to withdraw or amend the document.
8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects:
   If materials, processes, or devices that have any unexpected dangers implicit in their use are included in the writing, the Author must describe them in the document.

Duties of Editors

1. Fair Play:
   An editor reviews manuscripts at any time for their academic content independent of the writers' ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, religious affiliation, ethnic heritage, citizenship, or political ideology.
2. Confidentiality:
   If applicable, the Editor and any editorial staff shall not reveal any details about a manuscript sent to anybody other than the actual author, readers, prospective readers, other editorial advisors, and the Publisher.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest:
   Unpublished information contained in a submitted manuscript shall not be used in the analysis by a publisher without the Author's express written permission.
4. Publication Decisions:
   The editor board journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be directed by the findings of the editorial board of the publication and governed by specific legal provisions that are then in place for libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. In making this decision, the editors can consult with other editors or reviewers.
5. Review of Manuscripts:
   The Editor must ensure that the Editor initially evaluates each manuscript for originality. The Editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. In the material for authors, editors should clarify their peer review procedures and also suggest which sections of the publication are peer-reviewed. For papers submitted for publication, the Author should use qualified peer reviews by choosing individuals with ample experience and excluding others with conflicts of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions:
   Peer evaluation helps the Publisher in making editorial decisions, and can also support the Author in developing the paper by editorial contact with the Author.
2. Promptness:
   Any appointed referee who feels unqualified to review the study published in a manuscript or who suspects it would be challenging to check it immediately should alert the Publisher and excuse himself from the review process.
3. Standards of Objectivity:
   Reviews can be impartial. The Author's critique is unacceptable. Referees should explicitly express their opinions and reasons to justify it.
4. Confidentiality:
   
   Any documents submitted for review shall be considered as private. Except as allowed by the Publisher, they are not to be viewed or shared with anyone.
   Disclosure and Conflict of Interest:
   Privileged information or suggestions gained by peer examination shall be held secret and shall not be used for personal gain. Reviewers do not accept publications in which they have conflicts of interest arising out of financial, contractual, or other partnerships or associations with any of the publishers, businesses, or organizations related to the documents.
5. Acknowledgment of Sources:
   
   Reviewers may classify specific published work that the authors have not quoted. The required quotation should follow every assertion that an inference, derivation, or point has been stated before. 
   A reviewer may also draw the attention of the Publisher to any apparent resemblance or connection between the manuscript under scrutiny and any other published paper to which they are responsible.