1. Determining the name of the journal, the scope of science, the timeline, and the accreditation.
2. Determining the membership of the editorial board.
3. Defining the relationship between publishers, editors, peer review, and other parties in the contract.
4. Appreciating the confidentiality of the contributing researchers, author, editor, and peer review.
5. Applying the norms and regulations regarding intellectual property rights, especially on copyrights.
6. Conducting policy reviews on the journals and presenting them to the authors, editorial board, peer reviewers, and readers.
7. Making behavior code guidelines for editors and peer reviewers.
8. Publishing journals on a regular basis.
9. Ensuring the availability of resources for sustainable journal publishing.
10. Establishing cooperation and marketing networks.
11. Preparing for licensing and other legal aspects.

Editor Code Ethics

1. Improving the quality of publications.
2. Ensuring the process maintains the quality of published papers.
3. Leading the freedom in delivering opinions.
4. Maintaining the integrity of the author's academic track record.
5. Conveying corrections, clarifications, withdrawals, and apologies if necessary.
6. Owning the responsibility for styling and formatting the paper, while the contents and any statements in the paper are the responsibility of the authors.
7. Assessing policies and attitudes of the published journal from the author and peer reviewers to increase responsibility and minimize errors.
8. Having an open-minded personality in accepting new opinions or views of others that differ from their own.
9. Prohibiting the defense of personal opinions, those of the author, or third parties, which may lead to false decisions.
10. Encouraging authors to make improvements to their papers until they are worthy of publication.

Peer Review Code Ethics

1. Receiving the task from the editors to review papers and submit reviews to determine their feasibility for publication.
2. Reviewing papers in a timely manner, adhering to the style guide based on scientific principles (data collection methods, legality of the author, conclusions, etc.).
3. Reviewing papers that have been corrected in accordance with established standards.
4. Encouraging authors to improve their papers by providing feedback, suggestions, and recommendations.
5. Maintaining author privacy by safeguarding the results of corrections, suggestions, and recommendations received by the author.
6. Reviewers must not review papers involving themselves directly or indirectly.
7. Following the guidelines for peer review in assessing papers and completing evaluation forms provided by the editors.
8. Reviewing papers substantively, focusing on content rather than grammar, punctuation, or typographical errors.
9. Ensuring principles of truth, novelty, and originality, prioritizing the paper's benefit for the development of science, technology, and innovation, and understanding its impact on scientific writing development.
10. Prohibiting the defense of personal opinions, those of the author, or third parties that may lead to non-objective decision-making.
11. Upholding objectivity and freedom from influences.
12. Ensuring confidentiality of findings in the paper until it is published.
13. Having a broad understanding of the expertise to provide appropriate and accurate paper reviews.
14. Refusing to review if the research is outside their field of expertise, instead recommending another expert.
15. Maintaining an open-minded attitude towards new opinions or views that differ from personal beliefs.
16. Refusing to review if unable to meet the editor's deadline, notifying the editor as soon as possible.
17. Presenting review results honestly and objectively, supported by clear arguments. Possible recommendations include:
    • Accepted without repair
    • Accepted with minor repairs (not requiring further peer review)
    • Accepted with major repairs (requiring resubmission for re-review)
    • Rejected and recommended for other publication
    • Rejected and not recommended for publication due to significant scientific flaws.
18. Giving rejection as a last resort regarding paper feasibility or indicating severe violations of the code of ethics related to the author.
19. Reviewed papers may not be used for personal or third-party interests without permission from the author for any content used.

Author/Article Writer Code Ethics

1. Authors are collectively responsible for the work and content of the article, including methods, analysis, calculations, and details.
2. Authors must respond to comments made by peer reviewers in a professional and timely manner.
3. Authors should inform the editor if they retract their paper.
4. Authors must describe limitations in their study.
5. Authors respect publishers' requests not to publish findings through interviews or other media before publication.
6. Authors must inform the editor about papers that are part of phased research, multidisciplinary studies, or different perspectives.
7. Authors must state that submitted papers are original, unpublished, and not under consideration elsewhere.
8. Authors should notify the editor or publisher immediately of any errors in the paper.
9. Use of materials from copyrighted publications requires written permission and acknowledgment.
10. Authors must appropriately cite and quote the work of others in their papers.
11. When presenting new discoveries or improvements, authors should acknowledge previous researchers/writers/founders.
12. Authors are prohibited from including publications in their bibliography that they have not read.
13. Authors must prepare proof of meeting research ethics requirements if requested.
14. Authors should adequately respond to comments or feedback after the paper is published.