Policy on Research Ethics, Scientific Integrity, and Procedures for Handling Violations

The African Journal of Applied Sciences and Humanities (AJASH) is committed to upholding the highest standards of research ethics and scientific integrity. This policy defines ethical principles, good research practices, and standardized procedures for dealing with violations. It aligns with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and the requirements of major international indexing databases, including Scopus.

1. General Principles

  • Honesty and Integrity: Conduct and report research honestly, without fabrication or falsification.
  • Transparency: Full disclosure of contributions, funding, and conflicts of interest.
  • Fairness and Objectivity: Peer review and decisions based solely on scholarly merit.
  • Accountability: Each party is responsible for fulfilling their ethical roles.
  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are treated confidentially.
  • Privacy: Personal data must be protected, and informed consent obtained.
  • Compliance: Screened for plagiarism via iThenticate (similarity < 20%).

2. Ethical Conduct Guidelines

For Authors

  • - Authorship must reflect actual contributions.
  • - Plagiarism, data fabrication, or double submission is prohibited.
  • - Conflicts of interest must be declared.
  • - All data presented must be accurate and verifiable.

For Reviewers

  • - Maintain confidentiality and objectivity in reviews.
  • - Decline review requests when a conflict of interest exists.
  • - Provide constructive and unbiased scientific assessments.

For Editors

  • - Make unbiased editorial decisions.
  • - Investigate ethical issues transparently and independently.
  • - Refrain from using their position for personal advantage.

3. Definitions of Misconduct

Plagiarism: Use of others' work without proper attribution.
Double Submission: Concurrent submission of the same manuscript.
Data Fabrication: Falsifying or inventing scientific data.
Editorial Bias: Unethical manipulation of the peer review process.

4. Investigation and Handling of Violations

4.1 Reporting & Investigation

Any individual may report suspected misconduct. A formal committee is formed to investigate in accordance with COPE guidelines.

4.2 Committee Formation

  • - Accused Author/Reviewer: Formed by Editor-in-Chief.
  • - Accused Editor: Formed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

4.3 Responsibilities

Gather evidence, interview involved parties, review plagiarism detection reports, and ensure impartiality.

4.4 Procedures & Follow-up

A report is prepared and submitted to the appropriate authority, including recommendations for possible sanctions.

4.5 Possible Sanctions

For Authors:
  • - Rejection of the manuscript and temporary ban.
  • - Notification of the institution in serious cases.
For Reviewers:
  • - Permanent removal for breach of confidentiality.
  • - Disqualification for unethical behavior.
For Editors:
  • - Formal warnings, or removal from position if misconduct is proven.
For Published Articles:
  • - Retraction and public statement.
  • - Notification of indexing bodies.

5. Appeals and Review

  • - Must be submitted within 30 days of notification.
  • - Send via the official email with documents.
  • - An independent committee provides a final, binding decision.

6. Transparency

  • - Policies and sanctions are publicly available.
  • - Retraction notices explain the reasons and processes followed.

7. Education & Prevention

  • - The university conducts training on scientific ethics.
  • - Guidelines are permanently available for consultation.

8. Implementation & Review

  • - Submission indicates agreement to these rules.
  • - Subject to regular review to align with global standards.