Ethics and Malpractice Statement

This peer-reviewed journal is a platform for a number of interdisciplinary statistical practitioners. This will host and nurture a number of high quality works. Relentless passion of a number of outstanding researcher will make this possible. As a building block of this network, all the concerned parties: authors, reviewers and editors need to agree upon some ethical standards. As a network, this journal recognizes and commits to the responsibility of all these parties and take them seriously.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of this journal is mostly based on the guidelines and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Corresponding details based on this journal’s standards are outlined below:

Responsibilities of the Authors

By submitting a manuscript, authors warrant that the submitted content is their original work. They also warrant that this is not concurrently submitted to other journals for publication and this work is not an already published article. Same authors publishing essentially same research designs, analyses and conclusions constitute redundant publication. Such behaviour is considered unethical and may result in rejection or retraction if discovered.

The authors are solely responsible for the accuracy, reliability, validity of the information reported in the manuscript. The data under consideration should be reported meticulously. Moreover, authors are not using other's ideas and/or words without properly referencing or quoting mentioning appropriate sources. Adequate information about data and citation should be included in the manuscript to allow others to be able to replicate the research. Even if data may not be possible to disseminate publicly, authors may be requested to submit data for editorial review process with appropriate permissions. If inaccurate data, fallacious results, misinterpretations and fabricated statements are knowingly presented in the manuscript, such work may result in rejection or retraction if discovered.

All the people who made significant contributions should be listed as authors. The names should be ordered according to their contribution in the work. It is a duty of the corresponding author to make sure that only the people with significant contributions are added in the manuscript as authors who have viewed and approved the final version of the article for publication. If one of the authors find a fundamental error or inaccuracy in the final manuscript, the author is obliged to report it to the editors as soon as possible. If the work of a person is not significant to become an author of the manuscript, they should still list them in the acknowledgement section. All the potential conflicts and all the funding sources that supported the work should be disclosed. If there were no conflict of interest present, authors should declare that too. Authors should also report if any commercial software were used or any commercial hardware or computing service was utilized to perform the analyses. If human subjects are involved with the work, the authors are responsible for making all research procedures to be compliant with the institutional guidelines and approved by an appropriate ethics review committee. In this case, informed consent should be signed in each case and research investigators should abide by privacy acts properly.

Responsibilities of the Reviewers

The reviewer’s duty is to help the editor in deciding whether a manuscript is suitable for publication as well as suggesting improvements of that manuscript. The job of reviewing should be done without any prejudice or discrimination. The reviewer should be objectively review the content of the manuscript, providing sufficiently detailed constructive suggestions, clear arguments and justifications about reviewer’s view on the content and refrain themselves from personally criticizing the authors of that manuscript. This should be the case even if the manuscript is not deemed as a publishable work according to the reviewer’s standard or view.

The reviewers should not allow plagiarism or redundant publication and report these acts to the editor citing the published papers, if they are aware of them. Copying or paraphrasing parts of others’ work without attrition, claiming others’ work to be author’s own are some examples of plagiarism. In exceptional cases, publication of same work in a second journal may be permitted (e.g., translation). In that case all parties involved, e.g., authors, editors of both journals should agree to this and the previous publication needs to be cited.

The reviewer must not use the unpublished information for his own personal advantage or research without written consent from the authors. The reviewer must not disclose or share such privileged information to others, unless authorized by editors.

If there is a conflict of interest, reviewers should decline reviewing the manuscript. Some possible examples of conflict of interests are: results being competitive of reviewer’s own research, author being a collaborator or colleague in the same institute or company, etc. In case a reviewer feels unqualified to review a particular manuscript, the reviewer should decline the offer to review the manuscript. A reviewer can decline the invitation to review a manuscript at their discretion. However, if a reviewer accepts to review a manuscript, it would be expected that the review would be completed within the stated period of time.

Responsibilities of the Editors

Clear expectations about article submission are expressed on the Journal’s webpage. If there is a non-reviewed portion in the journal, it will be identified and stated clearly. Eventually, editor-in-chief will take the final decision about publication of a reviewed manuscript. Combination of importance, rigor and validity of the work should influence the decisions of the editors.

The editor must not use the unpublished information for his own research without explicit and written permission from the authors. If evidence is presented to the editor about any publication or research ethics or government law were compromised during the work, editor may request clarification from the authors. If the explanation provided by the authors are not satisfactory, such work may result in rejection or retraction.

Editors will not hold any prejudice against the author as a person of a particular belief, gender, sexual orientation, color, ethnicity, or political affiliation while evaluating the manuscript under question. All submissions materials are considered as confidential. The appropriate information will only be disclosed to corresponding authors, potential reviewers, editors.

The editorial committee will ensure that the reviewers will be of sufficient qualification to review the article. The editor will also make sure adherence to the blind review process as closely as possible.