Ethical Considerations and Plagiarism Policy

The Review of Applied Science and Technology (RAST) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and academic integrity. We adhere to the principles and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and enforce strict policies to ensure the ethical conduct of all parties involved in the publication process—authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.

This section outlines the journal’s policies on ethical conduct, authorship, conflict of interest, human and animal rights, plagiarism, and correction protocols.

1. Ethical Guidelines for Authors

Authors submitting manuscripts to RAST must comply with the following ethical standards:

a. Originality and Plagiarism

All submitted work must be original and must not have been published previously or be under consideration by another journal. Plagiarism in any form—including direct copying, paraphrasing without attribution, and self-plagiarism—is strictly prohibited.

Manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection tools such as Turnitin and iThenticate. Any manuscript found to contain more than 15% unreferenced similarity will be subject to editorial scrutiny, returned for revision, or rejected outright depending on the severity.

b. Authorship and Contributions

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to:

Study design or conception
Data collection, analysis, or interpretation
Drafting or revising the manuscript critically

All listed authors must have reviewed and approved the final manuscript. Any changes to the author list (additions, deletions, or reordering) must be requested in writing before the manuscript is accepted.

Guest authorship, ghostwriting, or honorary authorship is considered unethical and may lead to manuscript rejection or post-publication retraction.

c. Conflict of Interest

Authors must disclose all potential conflicts of interest that may influence the results or interpretation of their research. This includes financial relationships, consultancy roles, institutional affiliations, or patent holdings.

Conflicts must be disclosed in both the cover letter and within the manuscript.

d. Data Accuracy and Availability

Authors must ensure the accuracy of data presented and be willing to provide raw data for editorial review if requested. Research datasets should be made available upon reasonable request unless restricted by confidentiality or proprietary concerns.

e. Ethics Approval for Human and Animal Research

Research involving human participants or animals must adhere to ethical standards set by institutional review boards or ethics committees.

Authors must confirm:

Informed consent was obtained from participants
Confidentiality and anonymity were protected
An ethics approval ID or reference number is provided if applicable

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

All manuscripts submitted to RAST are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers are expected to:

Provide objective, unbiased, and constructive feedback
Maintain confidentiality of all materials under review
Declare any conflicts of interest (academic, financial, institutional)
Report any suspicion of misconduct, plagiarism, or duplicate publication
Refrain from using unpublished material for personal advantage

Reviewer comments are used to assist editorial decision-making and to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

3. Editorial Responsibilities

The editorial board is responsible for ensuring ethical publishing standards are upheld throughout the publication process. Editorial duties include:

Making publication decisions based solely on scientific merit
Ensuring a transparent and timely review process
Preventing conflicts of interest from influencing decisions
Investigating reported misconduct and responding accordingly
Issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when necessary

Editors are guided by COPE’s Code of Conduct and are empowered to act decisively in cases of ethical violations.

4. Plagiarism Policy

RAST enforces a strict anti-plagiarism policy. Plagiarism includes:

Verbatim copying without quotation and citation
Close paraphrasing without attribution
Self-plagiarism or duplicate submission of one’s previous work
Falsifying authorship or misrepresenting data sources

Detection:

All submissions are screened through reliable plagiarism detection tools upon receipt and prior to acceptance.

Consequences:

Minor overlap: Manuscript returned to authors for correction
Moderate similarity: Immediate rejection with explanation
Severe plagiarism: Permanent ban from submission and notification to the author’s institution

The editorial board reserves the right to take legal or academic action in extreme cases.

5. Correction, Retraction, and Erratum Policy

RAST recognizes that errors, misinterpretations, or misconduct may occasionally be discovered post-publication. In such cases, the journal follows a transparent correction policy.

a. Corrections (Errata)

Issued when minor errors (e.g., typographical or figure labeling mistakes) are identified that do not affect the study's conclusions.

b. Retractions

Published if:

Findings are proven fraudulent or fabricated
Plagiarism is identified post-publication
Ethical approval was not obtained for human/animal studies
Major errors invalidate the conclusions

Retraction notices are publicly posted and linked to the original article with a clear explanation.

c. Expressions of Concern

Posted when potential ethical issues are raised but an investigation is pending.

6. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe their manuscript was unfairly rejected, or who wish to dispute a review or editorial decision, may submit a formal appeal to:

ethics@americanscholarly.us

All appeals will be reviewed by a senior editorial committee, and responses will be communicated within 15 business days.

Complaints regarding editorial misconduct or procedural unfairness will be investigated following COPE guidelines.

7. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Authors must disclose any use of generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Copilot) in manuscript drafting or analysis. While AI tools can assist with language polishing or summarization, authors remain fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of the content.

AI tools must not be listed as co-authors.

8. Ethical Publishing Environment

The Review of Applied Science and Technology fosters an ethical publishing ecosystem by:

Promoting research integrity training for editors and reviewers
Maintaining transparency in editorial processes
Ensuring inclusivity in editorial board representation
Encouraging ethical authorship practices and data sharing
Collaborating with academic institutions and ethics committees when necessary