Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
(based on Elsevier recommendations and COPE‘s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)
Ethical guidelines for journal publicationJoWUA is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Especially, JoWUA is following the Code of Conduct as defined by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).
These ethics include the editor following certain rules on relations with readers, authors, and reviewers as well as procedures for handling complaints.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. They should encourage debate and academic integrity and also protect individual data. They also have a duty to act if any misconduct is suspected and to ensure the integrity of the academic record. The editors must not use unpublished information in the editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. They should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Ai Standards: To maintain academic integrity and promote transparency, the Journal of Wireless Mobile Networks, Ubiquitous Computing, and Dependable Applications has adopted clear guidelines regarding the use of Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard, Claude, etc.). These policies are intended to ensure the responsible and ethical use of AI technologies throughout all phases of the scholarly publishing process, including manuscript preparation, peer review, and editorial decision-making.
Authors: may use AI tools for permitted purposes such as language editing, grammar correction, formatting assistance, and drafting cover letters or summaries, provided they verify and take responsibility for the content. Any AI usage must be transparently disclosed in the manuscript, ideally in the Acknowledgments section. A suggested statement is: “AI tools such as ChatGPT were used for language refinement. Final content is the authors’ responsibility.” However, it is strictly prohibited to use AI for generating research data, results, or references; to draft full sections of the paper without human verification; to list AI as a co-author; or to paraphrase content solely to bypass plagiarism checks. Authors remain fully accountable for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of their work, including AI-assisted content.
Reviewers: may use AI tools only to polish language or summarize text for personal understanding. They must not use AI to write or generate review reports, upload confidential manuscripts to public AI platforms, or share any part of the review or manuscript with third-party services. Maintaining confidentiality is critical; hence, the use of AI tools that store data externally is strictly forbidden. If a reviewer uses AI for permissible purposes, the editorial office must be informed privately.
Editors:may employ AI tools to support grammar correction, formatting decisions, reviewer selection, and administrative tasks. However, all final editorial decisions must be made by human editors, not AI. Any AI use must not compromise author confidentiality or manuscript privacy. Editors are responsible for monitoring and addressing any misuse of AI by authors or reviewers. When AI is used internally in editorial workflows, such usage should be disclosed transparently in the journal’s policy where relevant.