Publication Ethics | Journal of the Academy of Sciences of National Security

The Journal of the Academy of Sciences of National Security seeks to protect research integrity and public trust in the scholarly literature. Authors, reviewers and members of the editorial structures are required to act in good faith, responsibly, confidentially and with respect for academic independence.

Authors’ responsibilities

Originality. The manuscript must represent an original contribution, must not have been published previously and must not be under simultaneous consideration by another publication. Material drawn from the author’s own work or from other authors must be properly cited.
Source attribution. Ideas, data, wording, images and documents originating from other sources must be fully acknowledged. Plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, and citation manipulation are not accepted.
Authorship. Only persons who made a substantial intellectual contribution to the conception, execution and writing of the work and who accept responsibility for its content may be listed as authors. Contributions that do not justify authorship should be acknowledged.
Conflicts of interest and funding. Authors must disclose any financial, professional, institutional or personal interest that could influence the research or the interpretation of results. Funding sources and the funder’s role must be stated separately.
Data and documentation. Data must be presented faithfully, and methods must be described in sufficient detail to allow understanding and, where the nature of the research permits, verification of results. Authors must retain research documentation and provide it to the editorial office when a justified and lawful request is made.
Research involving human participants. Authors must comply with applicable law, informed-consent requirements, data-protection rules and ethical-approval requirements. Information that could identify individuals may be published only when indispensable and supported by an appropriate legal basis.
Sensitive or classified information. Classified information, protected operational data, state or service secrets, unlawfully obtained personal data, or information whose disclosure could endanger persons, operations or institutions must not be submitted or published. The author is responsible for obtaining the necessary clearances and approvals.
Correction of errors. An author who discovers a significant error after submission or publication must inform the editorial office without delay and cooperate in issuing a correction or, where necessary, a retraction.

Use of artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence tools may not be listed as authors because they cannot meet the criteria of responsibility, consent and accountability for the integrity of the work. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, citation and legality of submitted content.

The use of a generative AI tool to produce or substantially modify text, images, translations, code or analyses must be disclosed at submission and described in a methodological note or transparency statement. Tools used solely for spelling corrections or minor technical edits need not be disclosed when they do not alter the substance of the work.

Authors must not enter classified information, personal data, confidential manuscripts or materials for which they do not hold the necessary rights into public artificial intelligence systems.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

to accept a review only when they have the necessary expertise and can meet the agreed deadline;
to disclose any conflict of interest and decline the review when impartiality could be affected;
to treat the manuscript, data and editorial correspondence as confidential information;
to provide clear, reasoned and respectful comments focused on the scientific quality of the work;
to report suspicions of plagiarism, redundant publication, data manipulation or other misconduct;
not to use ideas or information from the manuscript for personal benefit before publication;
not to upload the manuscript or parts of it to public artificial intelligence tools without the explicit authorisation of the editorial office, as this would compromise review confidentiality.

Editors’ responsibilities

to evaluate submissions on the basis of scientific merit and fit with the journal’s scope;
to protect the identities of authors and reviewers within the double-anonymised review process;
to select competent reviewers who have no conflicts of interest;
to preserve the confidentiality of manuscripts and editorial documents;
not to allow institutional, personal, financial or political interests to influence decisions;
to apply the same criteria to articles authored by members of the Academy, Scientific Council or Editorial Board; in such cases, the manuscript is handled by an editor who has no conflict of interest.

Handling suspicions and misconduct

Reports of possible misconduct are examined confidentially and impartially. The person concerned is informed of the essential issues and given an opportunity to provide explanations and documentation. The editorial office may request clarification, primary data, evidence of ethical approvals or the opinion of the author’s affiliated institution.

Depending on the seriousness of the matter and the stage at which it is identified, measures may include suspension of the review, rejection of the manuscript, a request for correction, publication of an erratum, an expression of concern, retraction of the article, or notification of the competent institution. Measures are reasoned, proportionate and documented.

Corrections, retractions, appeals and complaints

Errors that do not affect the conclusions may be corrected through a published correction linked to the article. If the results or conclusions can no longer be considered reliable, the journal may retract the article while keeping the title, authors and retraction notice online so that the publication record remains transparent.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision through a reasoned request supported by scientific or procedural arguments. Where possible, the appeal is reviewed by a person who did not make the original decision. Complaints concerning editorial conduct should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief or to the leadership of the Academy, depending on the nature of the matter. Submitting an appeal does not guarantee that the decision will be changed.