Publishing Ethics

The Journal of Natural Science Review (JNSR), published by Kabul University, is committed to maintaining academic integrity, editorial independence, transparency, and responsible scholarly publishing. This policy defines the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, peer reviewers, and the publisher and establishes the procedures for addressing suspected misconduct, resolving complaints, correcting published work, and protecting the integrity of the scholarly record.

This policy applies to all manuscripts submitted to JNSR, including original research articles, review articles, and papers published in regular or special issues. All parties involved in the publication process are expected to comply with these requirements.

1. Editorial Responsibilities and Independence

1.1 Editorial decisions

The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the relevant editors and reviewers where appropriate, is responsible for making publication decisions. Decisions are based on the manuscript’s originality, scientific merit, methodological quality, accuracy, clarity, relevance to the journal’s scope, and compliance with publication ethics.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by an author's nationality, ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, institutional affiliation, political views, personal relationships, or financial considerations. The journal does not guarantee acceptance on the basis of an author's academic position, reputation, or institutional affiliation.

1.2 Initial screening and peer review

All submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine whether they fall within the journal's scope, meet basic scholarly and technical requirements, and comply with publication ethics. Manuscripts may be returned for technical corrections or declined before external review if they do not meet these requirements.

Manuscripts considered suitable for review are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other during the review process. Authors must remove identifying information from the review manuscript, and reviewers must maintain confidentiality concerning the manuscripts assigned to them.

The journal normally seeks evaluations from at least two independent reviewers. Editors assess the reviewers' reports, the authors' responses, and the quality of any revisions before making a final decision. The possible decisions include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, and rejection. Acceptance is not guaranteed by the completion of peer review or by favorable recommendations from reviewers.

1.3 Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, correspondence, and editorial deliberations. Manuscript information may be shared only with individuals who require it for legitimate editorial purposes, such as assigned reviewers, relevant editors, and authorized journal personnel.

Information obtained through editorial work must not be used for personal, professional, or commercial advantage. Confidential information may be disclosed when required by applicable law or when necessary for a properly conducted investigation, with disclosure limited to what is reasonably necessary.

1.4 Fair treatment and conflicts of interest

Editors must evaluate submissions impartially and disclose any personal, professional, financial, or institutional relationship that could compromise their independence. An editor with a relevant conflict of interest must not manage the affected manuscript or participate in its publication decision. The manuscript should be assigned to an independent editor.

Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly assessment rather than personal preference, pressure from authors or institutions, or commercial considerations.

2. Authors' Responsibilities

2.1 Originality and accurate reporting

Authors must ensure that submitted manuscripts represent their own original work and report research accurately. Data, methods, results, images, tables, and conclusions must not be fabricated, falsified, manipulated deceptively, or presented in a misleading manner.

Authors must ensure that all sources, ideas, methods, and materials obtained from other works are properly acknowledged. Any material reproduced from another source must be used with the necessary permission and attribution.

2.2 Authorship and contributorship

Authorship must be limited to individuals who have made substantial intellectual or practical contributions to the research, such as its conception or design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or preparation of the manuscript. All listed authors must participate meaningfully in the work, review and approve the final manuscript, and accept responsibility for their contributions.

The corresponding author is responsible for confirming that all eligible contributors are included, that no individual who does not qualify for authorship is listed as an author, and that all co-authors approve the submission.

Individuals who provided assistance but do not meet the authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately, with their consent where necessary.

Changes to the author list, author order, or corresponding author after submission require a written explanation and the agreement of all affected authors. The editor may request supporting documentation before approving a change.

2.3 Exclusive submission and redundant publication

A manuscript submitted to JNSR must not be under consideration by another journal at the same time. Authors must disclose any related manuscripts, previous publications, conference papers, preprints, or other publicly available versions that overlap substantially with the submitted work.

The publication of substantially the same findings in multiple journals without a legitimate and transparently disclosed justification is prohibited. Reusing previously published text, data, figures, or other material without proper acknowledgment may constitute plagiarism, copyright infringement, redundant publication, or more than one of these violations.

Authors must inform the editor if a related publication or overlapping submission is identified during the editorial process.

2.4 Data availability and research transparency

Authors must maintain accurate research records and retain relevant raw data, analysis files, and supporting materials for a reasonable period after publication, subject to applicable laws, institutional requirements, participant confidentiality, and legitimate restrictions on data sharing.

Authors must provide relevant supporting data or documentation when reasonably requested for verification of the research. Where data cannot be made publicly available because of privacy, confidentiality, legal, or contractual restrictions, authors should explain the restriction and, where possible, describe the conditions under which the data can be accessed.

2.5 Ethical approval and participant protection

Research involving human participants, identifiable personal information, or animals must comply with applicable ethical and legal requirements. Authors must identify the relevant ethics committee or approving authority and provide the approval number or other supporting information when applicable.

For research involving human participants, authors must obtain informed consent where required. Participants must be informed about the purpose of the research, their involvement, the intended use of their information, and relevant risks. Authors must protect participant privacy and confidentiality and must not disclose identifiable information without appropriate authorization.

For research involving animals, authors must describe the measures taken to minimize pain, distress, and unnecessary harm and identify the relevant ethical approval or regulatory authorization where required.

If formal ethical approval was not required or was unavailable, authors must explain the circumstances accurately. The editor may request supporting documentation or decline a manuscript when compliance with applicable ethical requirements cannot be established.

2.6 Conflicts of interest and funding

Authors must disclose financial, professional, institutional, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research, its interpretation, or its publication. These may include employment, consultancy, financial interests, patents, commercial relationships, or close personal and professional relationships.

All sources of financial support, grants, equipment, institutional assistance, and other material support must be acknowledged. Authors must accurately describe the role of funders in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, and the decision to submit the work for publication.

Where no competing interests or external funding exist, the manuscript should include an appropriate declaration stating this.

2.7 Reporting standards and citations

Authors must describe their research methods and results in sufficient detail to allow qualified readers to assess the validity of the findings. Appropriate reporting guidelines should be followed when relevant to the study design, including systematic-review and meta-analysis reporting requirements where applicable.

References must be accurate, relevant, and complete. Authors must not invent references, misrepresent cited sources, omit important contradictory findings deliberately, or add citations solely to manipulate citation counts.

2.8 Use of artificial intelligence

Authors must comply with the journal's separate Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence. Authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and proper attribution of all content submitted for publication, including material prepared with the assistance of AI tools.

3. Peer Reviewers' Responsibilities

3.1 Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat all assigned manuscripts and associated materials as confidential. They must not distribute manuscripts, disclose their contents, or discuss them with unauthorized individuals without the editor's permission.

Reviewers must not use unpublished data, ideas, methods, or findings obtained through peer review for their own research, professional advantage, or other purposes.

3.2 Objectivity and constructive assessment

Reviews must be objective, evidence-based, and relevant to the manuscript's scientific quality. Reviewers should assess the originality, methodology, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and relevance of the work. Comments must be clear, professional, and supported by reasoned arguments.

Personal criticism, discriminatory language, unsupported accusations, and comments unrelated to the scholarly merits of the manuscript are unacceptable.

3.3 Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must inform the editor of any financial, personal, institutional, or professional relationship that could affect their impartiality. They must decline the assignment when a conflict of interest could compromise the review.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly about a manuscript under review unless the editor has authorized such communication.

3.4 Timeliness and originality concerns

Reviewers should complete their assessments within the agreed timeframe. If they cannot do so, they should notify the editor promptly.

Reviewers should alert the editor to relevant published research that the authors have overlooked and report any substantial similarity, suspected plagiarism, questionable data, inappropriate image manipulation, or other potential ethical concerns. Reviewers should explain the basis of their concerns and provide supporting information where possible.

3.5 Use of artificial intelligence

Reviewers must comply with the journal's AI policy and must not upload confidential manuscripts or identifying information into unauthorized AI systems. They must not delegate the scientific assessment of a manuscript to an AI system or present machine-generated assessments as their own independent scholarly judgment.

4. Publisher's Responsibilities

Kabul University, as the publisher of JNSR, supports the editorial team in maintaining editorial independence and the integrity of the publication process.

The publisher is responsible for supporting the preservation and accessibility of published content, maintaining appropriate publishing infrastructure, and cooperating with the editorial team in addressing substantiated concerns about research or publication misconduct.

The publisher must not interfere with individual editorial decisions for personal, political, institutional, or commercial reasons. Advertising, sponsorship, revenue, and other financial considerations must not determine whether a manuscript is accepted, rejected, corrected, or retracted.

Where serious misconduct is suspected, the publisher may assist the Editor-in-Chief in obtaining institutional information, preserving relevant records, and communicating with the authors' institutions or other appropriate authorities when necessary.

5. Plagiarism and Similarity Screening

JNSR considers plagiarism a serious violation of academic integrity. Plagiarism occurs when a person presents another individual's words, ideas, data, results, images, or other intellectual work as their own without adequate acknowledgment.

Plagiarism may include:

• Copying text or ideas without appropriate citation.
• Reproducing another person's work in whole or in part without acknowledgment.
• Paraphrasing a source while retaining its wording or sentence structure without adequate attribution.
• Using figures, tables, images, datasets, or other materials without proper attribution or required permission.
• Submitting another person's work under one's own name.
• Misrepresenting sources or providing fabricated or inaccurate references.
• Reusing substantial portions of one's previously published work without appropriate disclosure and acknowledgment.

JNSR screens submitted manuscripts using Similarity Check powered by iThenticate. A similarity index exceeding 20% triggers a request for the authors to revise and improve the manuscript before further consideration. The similarity percentage is a screening indicator, not an automatic determination of plagiarism. Editors assess the location, nature, source, and context of the matched material, including legitimate quotations, references, standard terminology, and methodological descriptions.

Authors may be asked to provide explanations, revise the manuscript, correct citations, obtain permissions, or supply supporting documentation. Substantial plagiarism, deliberate concealment, or an inability to establish the originality of a manuscript may result in rejection.

If a concern arises after publication, the journal will assess the evidence and follow the investigation procedures described in Section 7. Depending on the findings, the journal may publish a correction, an expression of concern, or a retraction notice.

6. Copyright, Permissions, and Responsible Use of Published Material

Authors must ensure that they have the legal right to submit and publish all material included in their manuscripts. Permission must be obtained where required for the reproduction or adaptation of copyrighted figures, tables, images, questionnaires, or other protected content.

Proper citation alone does not replace permission when permission is legally required. Authors must provide evidence of permission when requested by the editor.

JNSR is an open-access journal. Published articles are made freely available online under the journal's stated Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) licence. Authors retain copyright in their work while granting JNSR the rights necessary for first publication and distribution under the applicable publication terms.

Users of published material must comply with the applicable licence, including attribution requirements and restrictions on commercial reuse. Any use outside the permissions granted by the licence requires authorization from the relevant rights holder.

The journal may decline a manuscript or take appropriate post-publication action if it contains material used unlawfully, infringes copyright, violates privacy, or creates a substantiated legal concern.

7. Handling Allegations of Research or Publication Misconduct

JNSR investigates credible allegations of misconduct in a fair, confidential, impartial, and documented manner. Potential misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

• Plagiarism or unauthorized reuse of published material.
• Fabrication or falsification of data, results, images, or research records.
• Inappropriate image manipulation or selective presentation of results.
• Duplicate or redundant publication and simultaneous submission.
• Improper attribution, guest authorship, ghost authorship, or undisclosed authorship changes.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest that materially affect the research or editorial process.
• Research conducted without required ethical approval or informed consent.
• Copyright infringement, unauthorized use of data, or breaches of participant confidentiality.
• Manipulation of peer review or attempts to improperly influence editorial decisions.
• Other conduct that materially undermines the reliability, legality, or integrity of the published research.

7.1 Submission of a concern

Authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, institutions, and other individuals may report suspected misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief. Reports should identify the article or manuscript concerned, describe the suspected problem, and provide supporting evidence where available.

The journal will assess whether the allegation is sufficiently specific and credible to warrant further examination. Anonymous reports may be considered when they contain verifiable evidence.

7.2 Preliminary assessment

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately appointed independent editor will conduct an initial assessment. This may include examining the manuscript, similarity reports, original data, publication records, correspondence, ethics documentation, image files, or other relevant evidence.

If the allegation concerns the Editor-in-Chief or another editor who would ordinarily handle the case, the matter must be assigned to an independent editor without a conflict of interest.

7.3 Formal investigation and right to respond

Where the preliminary assessment identifies a credible concern, the journal will notify the relevant author or authors and provide a reasonable opportunity to respond. The journal may request original data, research records, ethical approval documents, permission letters, explanations of overlapping publications, or other evidence necessary to assess the matter.

The journal will consider the available evidence impartially and may consult independent subject experts, reviewers, institutional research-integrity officers, ethics committees, or other relevant authorities. The investigation must distinguish deliberate misconduct from honest error, inadequate reporting, or misunderstandings that can be resolved through clarification or correction.

All parties must be treated fairly. The journal will maintain records of the allegation, evidence, correspondence, responses, and decision.

7.4 Communication with institutions and other authorities

Where the evidence indicates possible serious misconduct, the journal may contact the relevant author's institution, research organization, funder, ethics committee, or other appropriate authority. Such communication may be necessary when the journal cannot independently establish the facts or when institutional investigation is required.

The journal will share only information reasonably necessary for the investigation, subject to applicable legal and confidentiality requirements.

7.5 Outcomes

After reviewing the evidence and any responses, the journal may decide to:

• Close the case when the allegation is unsupported.
• Request clarification, correction, or additional documentation.
• Require manuscript revisions before further consideration.
• Reject the manuscript before publication.
• Publish a correction or clarification for a published article.
• Publish an expression of concern while a significant issue remains unresolved.
• Retract a published article when the findings meet the criteria in Section 8.
• Notify an appropriate institution or authority when further investigation is warranted.

The Editor-in-Chief or authorized independent editor will communicate the decision and its reasons to the relevant parties, as appropriate. The journal will not treat an allegation alone as proof of misconduct.

8. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

JNSR is committed to preserving the accuracy and reliability of the scholarly record. Published articles will not be removed or altered merely because their findings are disputed, unpopular, or inconvenient. Post-publication action must be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the problem and based on a documented assessment.

8.1 Corrections

A correction may be published when a limited error in a published article requires amendment but does not invalidate the main findings or conclusions. Examples may include material errors in author information, data presentation, figures, tables, or text that can be corrected without undermining the overall reliability of the article.

The correction notice will identify the affected article, describe the error, and explain the amendment. The journal will link the notice to the original article and update the online record where appropriate.

If an error materially affects the results or conclusions but can be resolved transparently without retracting the article, the journal will assess the appropriate corrective action based on the evidence.

8.2 Expressions of concern

An expression of concern may be published when the journal has credible evidence of a potentially serious problem but cannot yet reach a final conclusion. This may occur when an investigation is incomplete, essential evidence is unavailable, or an institutional inquiry is delayed.

The notice will identify the article and explain, to the extent possible, the nature of the concern without presenting unverified allegations as established facts. The journal will review the expression of concern when additional evidence becomes available and may replace it with a correction, a retraction, or another appropriate notice.

8.3 Grounds for retraction

JNSR may retract a published article when a documented assessment establishes that the article's reliability, ethical validity, or lawful publication is seriously compromised. Grounds for retraction include:

• Clear evidence that the main findings or conclusions are unreliable because of serious errors, fabricated or falsified data, or other substantial methodological or analytical problems.
• Substantial plagiarism or unauthorized reproduction of intellectual work.
• Duplicate or redundant publication that materially misrepresents the originality or publication history of the work.
• Serious research-ethics violations, including the absence of required approval or consent where this invalidates the ethical basis of the research.
• Deliberate or serious manipulation of images, data, results, or other research evidence.
• Material copyright infringement or unauthorized use that cannot be resolved through a limited correction or other adequate remedy.
• Undisclosed competing interests or other serious undisclosed circumstances that fundamentally compromise the reported findings or the integrity of the publication process.
• Other substantiated circumstances that make the article fundamentally unreliable or render its continued publication misleading.

Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record. It is not, by itself, a determination of legal liability or a substitute for an institutional investigation into individual misconduct.

8.4 Retraction procedure

Before retracting an article, the journal will assess the available evidence, notify the relevant authors of the concerns, and provide a reasonable opportunity to respond. The journal may consult independent experts or relevant institutions when necessary.

A retraction may proceed when the evidence sufficiently establishes the grounds for retraction, even if an author does not respond or disagrees with the decision. The journal will document the reasons for the decision.

The retraction notice will:

• Clearly identify the retracted article and provide its bibliographic information and DOI, where available.
• State the reason for retraction and distinguish established findings from unresolved matters.
• Identify the party or body issuing the retraction, where appropriate.
• Be linked to the original article and remain freely accessible.
• Be published promptly after the decision has been finalized.

The original article will normally remain accessible to preserve the scholarly record but will be clearly marked as retracted in the article title or publication record and accompanied by the retraction notice. The journal will update relevant metadata and publication records where technically possible.

8.5 Withdrawal before publication

A manuscript may be withdrawn before publication when there is a legitimate reason, subject to the journal's editorial procedures. If withdrawal is requested because of suspected misconduct, duplicate submission, authorship disputes, or another unresolved ethical concern, the journal may investigate the matter before closing the submission.

Withdrawal of a manuscript does not automatically end an investigation into suspected misconduct.

9. Complaints and Appeals

JNSR provides a mechanism for authors and other affected parties to raise concerns about editorial decisions, peer review, publication procedures, or compliance with this policy.

9.1 Complaints

Complaints should be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief and should clearly explain the issue, identify the relevant manuscript or article where applicable, and provide supporting information.

The journal will acknowledge and assess complaints, seek clarification when necessary, and respond after reviewing the relevant records. Complaints will be handled confidentially and impartially. The individual whose conduct is the subject of a complaint must not be the sole decision-maker in resolving that complaint.

Where a complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, the complainant may contact the publisher or the appropriate university authority for independent consideration.

9.2 Appeals against editorial decisions

An author may appeal a rejection or other editorial decision by submitting a reasoned explanation identifying a substantive error in the evaluation, a material misunderstanding of the manuscript, an overlooked piece of evidence, or a possible conflict of interest or procedural irregularity.

An appeal must address the grounds for the original decision rather than merely express disagreement with the outcome. The journal may consult an independent editor or additional expert who was not involved in the original decision.

The appeal will be assessed independently and may result in confirmation of the original decision, reconsideration, or a new editorial assessment. An appeal does not guarantee acceptance or automatically restart peer review. The journal's decision following the appeal will normally be final.

10. Conflicts of Interest and Funding Disclosure

All participants in the publication process must disclose relationships or circumstances that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality.

Authors must disclose relevant competing interests and research funding at submission. Reviewers must disclose conflicts before accepting a review assignment. Editors must disclose conflicts and transfer responsibility for affected manuscripts to an independent editor.

The journal will assess the nature and potential effect of a disclosed conflict and determine whether reassignment, additional disclosure, independent review, or another measure is necessary. The existence of a conflict does not automatically establish misconduct; failure to disclose a material conflict may, however, require further investigation.

Funding statements and competing-interest declarations must be included in the manuscript or in the relevant submission fields, as required by the journal.

11. Research Involving Humans and Animals

JNSR expects all research involving humans or animals to comply with applicable legal requirements, institutional standards, and recognized principles of responsible research.

For human-participant research, authors must describe the relevant ethics approval, informed-consent procedures, and measures taken to protect privacy and confidentiality. Where consent was waived by an authorized ethics committee, authors must state this accurately and provide supporting information when requested.

For animal research, authors must identify the relevant approving committee or regulatory authority where applicable and describe procedures used to minimize pain, distress, and unnecessary harm.

The journal may request ethics approval letters, consent documentation, study protocols, or other evidence. Manuscripts may be rejected, or published articles may be subject to post-publication action, if required ethical safeguards were not observed or if the reported research cannot be adequately verified.

12. Policy Implementation, Review, and Contact

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team are responsible for implementing this policy throughout the submission, review, publication, and post-publication processes. The journal may consult independent experts, relevant institutions, or the publisher when necessary to investigate ethical concerns or determine appropriate action.

Decisions concerning misconduct, corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions must be based on the available evidence, documented reasoning, and the procedures described in this policy. Similar cases should be handled consistently, while allowing for differences in the seriousness and circumstances of individual cases.

This policy will be reviewed periodically and updated when necessary to address changes in the journal's publishing practices, research-ethics requirements, and applicable legal obligations.

For questions, complaints, appeals, or reports of suspected research or publication misconduct, please contact the Editor-in-Chief through the journal's official contact information.

Last updated: February, 2026