Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Renaissance of Universal Mind · RUM PUBLISHING GROUP MCHJ

1. Publication ethics principles

Renaissance of Universal Mind and its publisher, RUM PUBLISHING GROUP MCHJ, require honest, transparent and accountable research. This statement applies to authors, editors, reviewers and the publisher, and to submitted and published work. Decisions must rest on scholarly merit, relevance and research integrity, without discrimination or commercial pressure.

2. Duties of authors

Authors must accurately describe methods, findings and limitations, cite consulted sources, obtain necessary permissions and approvals, and disclose related work, funding and competing interests. All authors must approve the submission and cooperate with justified requests for clarification, supporting data or correction.

3. Duties of editors

Editors assess scope, originality, methodology and ethical acceptability, select suitable independent reviewers and explain decisions. Editors must recuse themselves from conflicted submissions, including their own work, protect confidentiality and consider substantiated concerns even after publication.

4. Duties of reviewers

Reviewers accept assignments only within their expertise and disclose conflicts. Reviews must be reasoned, respectful and constructive; unpublished information must not be used for personal advantage. Suspected plagiarism, unreliable evidence or ethical problems must be reported privately to the handling editor.

5. Publisher responsibilities

The publisher must support editorial independence, maintain accurate public policies and ownership information, provide an accessible complaints route and assist justified corrections and integrity investigations. Advertising, optional services and financial relationships must remain separate from decisions to accept or reject manuscripts.

6. Authorship and contributorship

Authorship requires substantive scholarly contribution, drafting or critical intellectual revision, approval of the final version and accountability. Contributions must be described; assistance that does not meet authorship criteria belongs in acknowledgements with consent. Gift, guest and ghost authorship are prohibited.

7. Originality and plagiarism

All submitted manuscripts undergo mandatory editorial similarity screening through Milliy Antiplag (milliyantiplag.uz). Software matches are supporting evidence, not a verdict. Editors examine the sources, attribution, context and significance of overlap before deciding on revision, rejection or further investigation.

8. Self-plagiarism and text recycling

Authors must disclose relevant earlier work and identify reused text, methods, data and figures. Citation alone does not justify substantial verbatim repetition or presentation of previously published results as new. Limited necessary method descriptions are assessed in context.

9. Duplicate and redundant publication

Simultaneous submission of substantially the same manuscript to another journal is not permitted. Preprints, theses, conference versions, translations and overlapping datasets must be disclosed and linked. Editors assess whether the new submission adds a distinct contribution; undisclosed duplicate publication is unacceptable.

10. Data fabrication and falsification

Invented observations, manipulated measurements, selective omission that misrepresents findings and unsupported results are prohibited. Authors must explain data provenance and analysis and provide supporting material when reasonably requested, subject to legitimate confidentiality constraints.

11. Image manipulation

Image adjustments must not create, remove or conceal scientifically meaningful information. Cropping, composite panels and enhancements must be described where relevant; original files should be retained. Generative images must not be presented as genuine experimental observations.

12. Citation manipulation

References must be accurate, relevant and independently checked. Fabricated references, coercive requests for irrelevant citations, citation trading and excessive citation intended solely to inflate metrics are unacceptable. Authors may question editorial citation requests through the appeals process.

13. Conflicts of interest

Authors disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests at submission and update them when circumstances change. Editors and reviewers disclose conflicts before accepting an assignment and withdraw where impartiality is compromised. A disclosure is evaluated and managed; it is not automatically evidence of misconduct.

14. Funding disclosure

Identify funders and grant identifiers where applicable, and describe the sponsor’s role in design, analysis, writing and the decision to submit. If there was no specific funding, state this. A funder must not suppress unfavourable findings or control an independent editorial decision.

15. Research misconduct

Concerns about fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or manipulation require an evidence-based assessment and an opportunity for the affected authors to respond. Editors may pause review, seek independent advice or contact the relevant institution when an investigation exceeds editorial competence. Allegations must not be treated as proven facts.

16. Confidentiality

Unpublished manuscripts, review correspondence and identity information are confidential. Access must be limited to those involved in editorial assessment or authorised technical processing, including similarity screening. Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential material to unauthorised public AI services.

17. Complaints and appeals

Authors and readers may raise procedural or ethical concerns and appeal decisions with specific reasons and evidence. A person with a direct conflict must not determine the outcome of their own complaint. The editorial office communicates a reasoned outcome; complex investigations may require institutional involvement.

18. Corrections and errata

Errors affecting the interpretation, attribution or reproducibility of an article must be brought to the editorial office. Material corrections should identify the affected article and explain what changed. Minor typographical changes that do not affect meaning must not be used to disguise substantive changes.

19. Retractions

Retraction may be necessary when findings are unreliable, plagiarism or undisclosed duplicate publication is established, or serious ethical breaches invalidate the work. The notice must state the grounds and link to the article. Retraction corrects the record and must not be used merely as punishment or to settle a personal dispute.

20. Expressions of concern

An expression of concern may alert readers to a serious unresolved integrity question while reliable conclusions are not yet available. It must describe the uncertainty without presenting an allegation as established. Later findings should lead to an appropriate update, correction or retraction.

21. Human and animal research ethics

Where required, authors report the ethics committee, approval identifier and consent arrangements, or explain a justified exemption. Identifiable participant information needs appropriate consent and protection. Animal work must describe welfare safeguards; field and industrial studies must report relevant safety and environmental permissions.

22. Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies

AI tools cannot be authors. Human authors remain responsible for all text, code, images, facts and citations and must disclose substantive generative use. Fabricated sources or data and concealed plagiarism remain prohibited regardless of the tool used. A detector score alone cannot establish AI authorship or misconduct.

23. Post-publication discussion

Readers may submit specific, evidence-based comments about published work to the editorial office. Relevant criticism should be considered on its merits and authors may be invited to respond. Personal abuse, unsupported accusations and disclosure of confidential information are not acceptable forms of scholarly discussion.

24. Ethical complaints contact

Contact editor@rum-journal.com, with editor@rum-journal.com as an alternative. Include the article title or URL, the nature of the concern, relevant passages and sources, and any competing interest. Do not send sensitive participant data in an initial unprotected message; request a suitable transfer method.

25. COPE principles and transparency

The journal uses COPE guidance as a framework for handling integrity concerns and the COPE/DOAJ/OASPA/WAME transparency principles when presenting its policies. These references do not imply COPE membership, certification, Scopus coverage or acceptance. Operational claims, indexing and preservation arrangements must be stated accurately.

Guidance sources

Related policies and information

Editorial office: editor@rum-journal.com.