Anti-corruption Studies and Research (ACSR) adheres to the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing. By upholding these guidelines, the journal aims to maintain the trustworthiness, credibility, and value of the academic work it disseminates.

• Diligence: 01

  Researchers should approach their studies methodically, providing detailed accounts of their objectives, methods, and analyses. This includes clear consideration of any potential risks or benefits, ensuring all processes are transparent and responsible.

• Trustworthiness: 02

  Data must be handled, analyzed, and reported with integrity. Researchers should remain within their area of expertise and avoid presenting information that cannot be substantiated, thus maintaining the reliability of their findings.

• Objectivity: 03

  Scientific conclusions must be drawn based on verifiable evidence and logical reasoning. Personal biases should be minimized to allow data and rigorous analysis to guide the outcomes.

• Impartiality: 04

  Scholarly work should be conducted without personal or external bias. Researchers and authors should not allow personal beliefs or external pressures to affect the integrity of their studies.

• Resistance: 05

  Academic inquiry must stand firm against undue influence from sponsors or special interest groups. Researchers have a duty to pursue knowledge in a manner free from conflicts of interest.

• Openness: 06

  The spirit of open science is upheld through sharing methodologies, findings, and insights with fellow researchers and the public. This fosters dialogue, replication of results, and further advances in the field.

• Transparency: 07

  Comprehensive documentation of data collection, analysis, and storage methods ensures that research outcomes can be critically examined and verified. Transparent practices facilitate peer review and reproducibility.

• Accountability: 08

  Researchers are accountable for the societal and environmental implications of their work, including the welfare of participants and cultural or ecological assets.

• Consistency: 09

  Proper citation and acknowledgment respect intellectual contributions from previous works. Upholding these practices protects against plagiarism and recognizes the scholarly efforts of others.

• Care: 10

  Senior researchers and educators should mentor early-career scholars, instilling values of ethical responsibility and integrity in all aspects of research.

• Bravery: 11

  Scientists must be prepared to confront and address unethical behavior or dubious perspectives, safeguarding the integrity of research even under challenging circumstances.

• Obligation to Publish: 01

  Authors are encouraged to report their findings honestly and comprehensively, ensuring that the resulting publications contribute meaningfully to the field of anti-corruption research.

• Credibility and Transparency: 02

  Research results—positive or negative—should be shared to maintain a balanced and truthful depiction of scientific progress. Suppression or selective reporting undermines public trust in research.

• Correct Quotation: 03

  Accurate citations are essential for acknowledging the work of other researchers, providing context to current studies, and ensuring accountability for data verification and the evolution of ideas.

• Criteria for Authorship: 04

  Authorship is granted to individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, or execution of the research, as well as to its writing. All co-authors share responsibility for the published content.

• Responsibility of Authors: 05

  Authors must verify that the information and data presented in a manuscript are accurate. They should ensure that any co-authors are aware of and endorse the final manuscript.

• Co-Authorship: 06

  Each co-author’s role and contribution must be transparent. Discipline-specific conventions may govern co-author listings, but the underlying requirement is that each contributor has played a significant intellectual part in the research.

• Acknowledgment of Contributions: 07

  Contributions that do not justify authorship—such as technical support or general guidance—should be recognized in an acknowledgments section, ensuring fairness and transparency.

• Disclosure of Support: 08

  All forms of support, including funding, grants, and institutional resources, must be disclosed to clarify potential influences on the research process.

• Conflict of Interest: 09

  Any potential conflicts of interest, whether financial, professional, or personal, should be declared at an early stage to maintain credibility and trust in the reported findings.

• Multiple Publications: 10

  Submitting the same research to multiple journals without justification is generally discouraged. Exceptions require meaningful extensions, distinct research angles, or different target audiences.

• Media and Society Engagement: 11

  When presenting their work to the media or broader public, researchers must avoid sensationalism or oversimplification. Clear, accurate communication fosters genuine understanding and responsible policy recommendations.

• Reviewer Expertise: 01

  Manuscripts are assigned only to reviewers with relevant expertise to ensure competent and informed evaluation.

• Conflict of Interest: 02

  Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts that could bias their assessment. If such conflicts exist, they should not proceed with the review.

• Review Standards: 03

  Reviews should be thorough, fair, and constructive. Feedback should address methodology, data interpretation, relevance, originality, and clarity.

• Confidentiality: 04

  Reviewers must treat the content of submitted manuscripts as confidential, refraining from sharing or using the information for personal gain.

• Data and Concept Usage: 05

  Reviewers may not employ any data or ideas from the manuscripts they evaluate without explicit written consent from the authors.

• Definition: 01

  Misconduct includes any breach of ethical principles or good research practices, undermining the validity and reliability of scientific findings.

• Flagrant Misconduct: 02

  Serious violations—fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism—are strictly prohibited. Any author or reviewer found engaging in these activities is subject to disciplinary measures.

• Other Improper Behaviors: 03

  Less overt but still unethical actions, such as inaccurate data reporting, inadequate citations, or breaches of reviewer confidentiality, also compromise scientific integrity.

• Ghost-writing and Guest Authorship: 01

  These practices are strictly disallowed. Every significant contribution must be accurately reflected in the authorship or acknowledged appropriately.

• Corrections: 02

  Authors have a responsibility to correct errors in their published work promptly. Depending on the severity, the journal may issue corrections, clarifications, or retractions.

• Alteration of Author Names:: 03

  The journal accepts post-publication name changes (e.g., due to marriage or legal reasons) based on formal requests from the affected author(s).

• Retractions:: 04

  Retractions may occur when serious errors, unethical practices, or other violations significantly undermine the study’s findings. Clear guidelines will guide this process to preserve scholarly rigor.

• Data Accuracy: 01

  Researchers are expected to accurately gather, organize, and report data, avoiding fabrication, falsification, or unwarranted manipulation.

• Reporting Standards: 02

  All relevant methodological details should be made clear, allowing peers to replicate or build upon the research.

• Data Access and Retention: 03

  Where appropriate, authors should be prepared to grant access to their datasets and retain raw data for a reasonable period post-publication to enable verification.

• Error Correction: 04

  Authors must promptly rectify any significant mistakes discovered in their published work to maintain the academic record’s reliability.

• Human Subjects: 01

  In research involving human participants, obtaining informed consent and ensuring confidentiality are paramount. The safety and well-being of participants must be protected at all times.

• Animal Research: 02

  Researchers must follow established ethical guidelines, minimizing pain and distress, and exploring alternatives to animal testing wherever possible.

• Environmental Consideration: 03

  Scholars should evaluate and mitigate any potential environmental impact of their research, adhering to relevant environmental regulations.

• Mechanism for Conflict Resolution: 01

  A clear process is in place to address ethical disputes or allegations of misconduct. This includes an impartial assessment of the claim and a formal response procedure.

• Fair Hearing and Appeal: 02

  All parties involved in a dispute have the right to be heard and to appeal decisions, ensuring that due process is upheld.

• Resolution Procedures: 03

  The steps for conflict resolution are documented and transparent, detailing how allegations are investigated and how outcomes are determined.

• Fair Play: 01

  Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their academic merit without discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, or political beliefs.

• Confidentiality: 02

  Editors and the editorial staff keep all details about a submitted manuscript confidential, sharing information only with those directly involved in the evaluation process.

• Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: 03

  Unpublished materials in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the author’s explicit consent. Editors and reviewers must also disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

• Regular Reviews: 01

  The journal’s ethical guidelines are reviewed periodically to incorporate evolving standards in research integrity and to address emerging ethical dilemmas.

• Monitoring Compliance: 02

  Mechanisms such as audits and feedback channels ensure adherence to ethical standards. Authors, reviewers, and editors are encouraged to report any concerns promptly.

• Training and Awareness: 03

  Ongoing education programs for all participants—authors, reviewers, editors—are integral to fostering an environment of integrity and ethical responsibility.

As a standard policy, Anti-corruption Studies and Research rejects ghost-writing, where an unnamed individual makes a substantial contribution to the research or writing, as well as guest authorship, where an individual is listed as an author without having contributed significantly. Contributors who do not fulfill the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in a separate section.

• Author(s) Declaration:

  Each corresponding author must confirm that all listed authors meet the journal’s authorship requirements and that no ghost-writers were involved in preparing the manuscript.

• Declaration of License Grant:

  Authors are expected to grant the journal a license to publish their work, thereby agreeing to all ethical and legal guidelines.