Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Journal of Intelligent Instrumental Analysis (JIIA)

1. General Principles

The Journal of Intelligent Instrumental Analysis (JIIA) is committed to maintaining high standards of scientific integrity, transparency, fairness, and ethical conduct throughout the publication process.

The journal considers the reliability of scientific evidence, the accuracy of reporting, the originality of scholarly contributions, and the responsible communication of research to be fundamental principles of scientific publishing.

These principles apply to all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, reviewers, editors, and other individuals participating in the evaluation and publication of manuscripts.

JIIA is committed to addressing concerns regarding publication ethics fairly, consistently, and with appropriate regard for the available evidence. Its editorial practices are informed by internationally recognized principles of publication ethics, including guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Originality, Plagiarism, and Duplicate Publication

Manuscripts submitted to JIIA must represent original scholarly work and must not have been published previously or be under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that the work of others is appropriately acknowledged and cited. Plagiarism, including the unattributed use of text, ideas, data, images, or other intellectual contributions, is unacceptable.

The journal also considers the following practices inconsistent with responsible scholarly publishing:

  • Submitting substantially the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously.

  • Republishing previously published findings without appropriate disclosure and justification.

  • Presenting previously published data or material as new.

  • Dividing a single research investigation into multiple publications in a misleading or unjustified manner.

  • Reusing substantial portions of previously published text without appropriate attribution or disclosure.

Manuscripts may be screened for textual similarity or other indicators of possible publication misconduct. Similarity findings will be evaluated in context and will not, by themselves, constitute proof of plagiarism.

Authors must disclose related manuscripts, preprints, conference materials, or other previous dissemination of the work when relevant to the editorial assessment.

3. Research Integrity, Data Reliability, and Reproducibility

Authors are responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and reliability of all data, observations, calculations, analyses, and conclusions presented in their manuscripts.

Fabrication, falsification, selective manipulation, or misleading presentation of research findings is unacceptable.

Experimental and computational procedures must be described with sufficient detail to permit meaningful scientific assessment and, where reasonably possible, independent reproduction.

For analytical research, authors should provide appropriate evidence supporting the reliability and performance of the methods, instruments, measurement procedures, and analytical results reported.

Relevant validation parameters, quality-control procedures, uncertainty considerations, statistical analyses, and limitations should be reported according to the nature of the investigation.

Images, spectra, chromatograms, instrumental outputs, and other scientific records must accurately represent the underlying observations. Any legitimate processing or modification that could affect interpretation must be appropriately described.

Authors should retain relevant original data and research records and be prepared to provide supporting information when reasonably requested during editorial assessment or in connection with legitimate research-integrity concerns.

4. Statistical, Computational, and Artificial Intelligence Research

JIIA recognizes the growing role of statistical analysis, chemometrics, computational methods, artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning in analytical science.

Research involving these approaches must be reported transparently and supported by appropriate scientific validation.

Where applicable, authors should describe:

  • The origin, characteristics, quality, and limitations of datasets.

  • Data preprocessing, feature selection, and model-development procedures.

  • The separation of training, validation, and testing datasets.

  • Measures taken to prevent data leakage, overfitting, and misleading performance estimates.

  • Appropriate evaluation metrics, benchmark comparisons, and uncertainty considerations.

  • Model robustness, generalizability, and limitations.

  • Independent or external validation where feasible and scientifically appropriate.

Computational predictions must not be represented as experimentally measured results. Simulated, predicted, inferred, and experimentally observed data must be clearly distinguished.

The use of AI or computational methods does not eliminate the need for appropriate analytical or experimental validation when such validation is necessary to support the scientific claims.

Authors remain responsible for the reliability, interpretation, and reproducibility of all reported findings.

5. Authorship and Contributor Responsibilities

Authorship should reflect substantial intellectual or scientific contributions to the work.

All listed authors should have made qualifying contributions to the research or manuscript, participated appropriately in reviewing and approving the submitted version, and accepted responsibility for their contributions and for addressing questions concerning the integrity of the work.

Individuals who do not meet the criteria for authorship but have contributed to the research should be appropriately acknowledged, with their permission where required.

Guest, honorary, gift, and ghost authorship are unacceptable.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that:

  • All listed authors have approved the manuscript and agreed to its submission.

  • Author names, affiliations, and contact information are accurate.

  • The author order has been agreed upon by all authors.

  • Required declarations and disclosures have been provided.

  • Editorial correspondence is communicated appropriately to the coauthors.

Any proposed addition, removal, or rearrangement of authors after submission must be explained to the editor and supported by agreement from all affected authors.

Authorship changes after acceptance will be considered only where adequately justified and consistent with publication-ethics principles.

6. Competing Interests and Funding Transparency

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose financial, professional, personal, institutional, or other interests that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their judgment or the interpretation of research findings.

Authors must disclose relevant sources of funding and describe the role of funders in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decision, where applicable.

The absence of competing interests should also be declared.

A disclosed competing interest does not automatically invalidate a manuscript or disqualify an individual from participating in the publication process. The journal will assess the nature and significance of the interest and take appropriate measures to protect the integrity of editorial decisions.

7. Ethical Approval and Responsible Research Conduct

Research involving human participants, human-derived materials, identifiable personal information, or animals must comply with applicable ethical requirements, institutional policies, and relevant laws and regulations.

Authors must provide details of required ethical approvals, informed consent, or other authorizations where applicable.

If formal ethical approval was not required, authors should explain the basis for that determination when relevant.

Research involving biological, chemical, environmental, or other potentially hazardous materials must be conducted and reported in accordance with applicable safety and regulatory requirements.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that the collection, use, storage, and disclosure of research materials and information comply with relevant legal and ethical obligations.

8. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

JIIA recognizes that generative AI tools may assist with certain aspects of manuscript preparation. However, their use must not compromise scientific accuracy, originality, confidentiality, or accountability.

Authors remain fully responsible for the content of their manuscripts, including the accuracy of statements, references, data interpretation, and conclusions.

Generative AI tools must not be listed as authors because they cannot assume responsibility for the integrity of scholarly work.

Substantive use of generative AI in preparing or modifying manuscript content should be disclosed, including the nature and purpose of its use.

Routine assistance limited to spelling, grammar, basic language correction, or formatting does not ordinarily require disclosure.

AI tools must not be used to fabricate experimental results, create misleading scientific evidence, invent references, or conceal deficiencies in research methods or reporting.

When AI or machine learning forms part of the research methodology itself, its application must be described in the relevant methodological sections and supported by appropriate validation.

9. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer reviewers are expected to provide independent, objective, constructive, and scientifically informed evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers should assess the scientific quality, methodological rigor, analytical relevance, reliability of results, adequacy of validation, and significance of the work.

Reviewers must:

  • Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and associated materials.

  • Disclose potential competing interests before accepting an assignment.

  • Decline invitations when they cannot provide an impartial or timely assessment.

  • Provide respectful, evidence-based comments.

  • Avoid using unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage.

  • Inform the editor confidentially of suspected ethical violations or significant concerns regarding research integrity.

Reviewers must not disclose manuscript contents to others or involve additional individuals in the review without prior editorial authorization.

The recommendation of a reviewer is advisory. Final editorial decisions remain the responsibility of the journal's editors.

10. Responsibilities of Editors and Editorial Independence

Editors are responsible for managing the evaluation of submitted manuscripts fairly, consistently, and independently.

Editorial decisions should be based on scientific merit, relevance to the journal's scope, methodological reliability, ethical compliance, and the contribution of the work to analytical science.

Decisions must not be influenced by an author's nationality, institutional affiliation, personal characteristics, or other considerations unrelated to the scientific and ethical assessment of the manuscript.

Editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and disclose or appropriately manage any competing interests that could affect their impartiality.

When an editor has a significant conflict of interest concerning a manuscript, editorial responsibility should be transferred to another suitably qualified and independent editor whenever possible.

Editors must not use unpublished research information obtained through editorial responsibilities for personal benefit.

Commercial, institutional, financial, or personal considerations must not improperly influence editorial decisions.

11. Peer-Review Process

JIIA operates a single-anonymized peer-review process in which reviewers may know the identities of authors, while reviewer identities are not ordinarily disclosed to authors.

Submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their relevance to the journal's scope, compliance with submission requirements, and suitability for external review.

Manuscripts considered suitable for peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are asked to assess the scientific and methodological quality of the work and to provide constructive recommendations for editorial consideration.

Depending on the review findings, manuscripts may be accepted, returned for minor or major revision, subjected to further review, or rejected.

The editor may request additional assessments where the available reviews are insufficient, contradictory, or raise unresolved scientific or ethical questions.

Acceptance for peer review does not guarantee publication.

The final decision is made by the responsible editor on the basis of the available scientific evidence, reviewer assessments, editorial judgment, and applicable journal policies.

12. Confidentiality of the Editorial Process

All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and unpublished research information must be handled confidentially.

Access to submission materials should be limited to individuals who require the information to perform authorized editorial or review responsibilities.

Reviewers and editors must not disclose or use confidential information for purposes unrelated to the evaluation of the manuscript.

Confidentiality may be subject to appropriate exceptions where disclosure is required by law or is reasonably necessary to investigate serious research-integrity concerns.

13. Handling Suspected Research or Publication Misconduct

JIIA takes allegations of research or publication misconduct seriously and seeks to address them through a fair, evidence-based process.

Potential concerns may include plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate image manipulation, duplicate publication, authorship disputes, undisclosed competing interests, or other conduct that compromises the integrity of the scholarly record.

When concerns arise, the journal may:

  • Conduct an initial assessment of the available information.

  • Request explanations or supporting documentation from the authors.

  • Seek additional expert assessment where appropriate.

  • Consult relevant institutions, publishers, or other responsible organizations when necessary.

  • Suspend editorial consideration while significant concerns are investigated.

  • Take appropriate editorial or post-publication action based on the findings.

Individuals involved in an allegation should be treated fairly and given an appropriate opportunity to respond.

The journal will avoid making unsupported public accusations and will seek to maintain confidentiality to the extent reasonably possible.

Editorial action will depend on the nature, seriousness, and evidentiary support of the concern.

14. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

JIIA recognizes its responsibility to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the published scholarly record.

When errors or integrity concerns are identified after publication, the journal will assess the circumstances and determine the appropriate response.

Corrections may be issued when errors require clarification or amendment but do not fundamentally invalidate the principal findings of the article.

Expressions of Concern may be published when serious questions about the reliability or integrity of an article remain unresolved and readers should be informed while further assessment is undertaken.

Retractions may be issued when there is sufficient evidence that the findings are unreliable, the publication involves serious ethical violations, or other circumstances substantially undermine the validity of the published work.

Retraction decisions will be based on the integrity of the scholarly record rather than solely on whether misconduct has been established.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices should clearly identify the affected article, explain the reason for the action, and remain publicly accessible.

Retracted articles should ordinarily remain identifiable as part of the scholarly record, with their retracted status clearly indicated.

15. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal concerning an editorial decision when they believe that a significant scientific, procedural, or factual error has affected the assessment of their manuscript.

Appeals should identify the specific grounds for reconsideration and provide supporting evidence where relevant.

An appeal does not automatically result in a new review or a change of editorial decision.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer-review procedures, or publication ethics will be considered fairly and, where possible, by an individual who was not directly responsible for the matter under review.

JIIA may seek additional independent advice when necessary to reach an informed and impartial resolution.

16. Responsibility for Published Content

Authors bear primary responsibility for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and interpretation of the scientific content of their published work.

Publication in JIIA does not imply that the journal or its editors independently verify every experimental observation, calculation, or scientific conclusion.

The journal nevertheless retains responsibility for applying reasonable editorial and publication-ethics procedures and for responding appropriately when credible concerns regarding published content arise.

17. Policy Review and Contact

JIIA may review and update its publication-ethics policies to reflect developments in scholarly publishing, research practices, and internationally recognized ethical guidance.

Questions, complaints, appeals, or concerns regarding publication ethics may be directed to:

Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Intelligent Instrumental Analysis (JIIA)
Email: chiefeditor@instralysis.com