Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Part A: Publication and authorship

1. All papers are subject to a rigorous peer-review process by some international experts in a particular paper field.
2. The review process is a blind peer review.
3. Factors to be considered are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, legibility, and language.
4. Possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance by revision, or approval.
5. If it is sent for delivery and it is sent back, it will not be sent for delivery.
6. Rejected articles will not be reviewed.
7. Acceptance of papers approved by legal requirements will be subject to good name, copyright permission and plagiarism.
8. No research can be published in more than one publication.

Part B: Author's responsibility

1. Authors must certify that their manuscript is their original work.
2. Authors must announce the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
3. Authors must agree the manuscript is not currently approved for approval elsewhere.
4. Authors must be completed in a peer review process.
5. The author tries to retract or correct errors.
6. All Authors who agree to the paper must make a significant contribution to the research.
7. The author must certify that all data in this paper are real and genuine.
8. Editorial on conflicts of interest.
9. Authors should discuss all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
10. Authors must report any errors they find in the published paper to the Editor.

Part C: Responsibilities

1. Reviewers must keep all information about the paper confidential and treat it as privileged information.
2. Reviews must be done objectively, without personal criticism from the author
3. Reviewers must express their views clearly with supporting arguments
4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
5. The reviewer should also request that the Chief Editor note any substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript under consideration and other published papers of which he has personal knowledge.
6. Reviewers may not review manuscripts that have conflicts of interest as a result of competition, collaboration, or other relationships or connections with the authors, companies, or institutions to which the papers are linked.

Part D: Editorial responsibilities

1. Editors have full responsibility and authority to reject/accept articles.
2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when trying to improve the publication.
4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
5. Editors should publish average pages or make corrections when needed.
6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.
7. Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to the publication's scope.
8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
10. Editors must examine all research materials that comply with internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
11. Editors accept only if they are reasonably certain.
12. Editors should ask if they dispute, whether to issue a published or unpublished Paper, and do all that is necessary to obtain a resolution to the problem.
13. Editors must not reject papers based on suspicion, they must have consent denied.
14. Editors must not assume there is a conflict of interest between staff, authors, agree, and board members.

Retraction

Papers published in the Jurnal Math-UMB.EDU will be published for retrieval in publication if:

1. They have clear evidence of reliable results, either the result of contradictory (error. Data deviation) or honest error (calculation error or experimental error).
2. These findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-reference, permission or justification (i.e. cases of over-publication).
3. That is plagiarism.
4. This is unethical research.

The revocation relationship follows the Committee's Revocation Guidelines on Publication Ethics (COPE) which can be accessed at  https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf .