A
Editorial Integrity and Governance
Publication Ethics
iPeak Publishing expects authors, reviewers, editors, and staff to act honestly, fairly, and transparently. Editorial teams assess credible concerns without prejudging their outcome and protect confidential information while an enquiry is under way.
Where the reliability or provenance of work is questioned, the publisher may request evidence, consult relevant experts or institutions, and amend the scholarly record when the available evidence warrants action.
Editorial Independence
Editors decide what to review and publish on the basis of scope, scholarly merit, methodological soundness, relevance, and the integrity of the work. Owners, administrators, sponsors, advertisers, and service providers may not direct individual editorial decisions.
Editors must be able to reject inappropriate influence and refer interference to the publisher’s ethics contact. Revenue considerations do not determine acceptance.
Commercial Services and Editorial Separation
Language editing, training, consultancy, or other paid services offered by IPEAK ACADEMY LTD or associated providers are managed separately from journal and book editorial decisions. Editorial staff do not receive incentives tied to an author’s purchase of a service.
Authors are free to use any qualified provider or none. Use of a service does not guarantee review, acceptance, favourable treatment, or publication.
Conflicts of Interest
Authors, reviewers, editors, and staff must disclose financial, professional, personal, or intellectual interests that could reasonably be perceived to affect their work or judgment. A conflict does not automatically disqualify participation, but it must be managed openly and proportionately.
Editors should recuse themselves when impartial handling is not possible. Another suitably independent editor will oversee the manuscript or concern, and relevant disclosures may be published with the work.
Ethical Oversight
Research involving people, identifiable personal data, animals, or sensitive environments should follow applicable law and recognised disciplinary standards. Authors may be asked for approval details, consent information, permits, or a reasoned explanation when formal approval was not required.
Editors may seek specialist advice and may decline work when ethical safeguards are inadequate, even if scientific or technical review is otherwise favourable.
B
Manuscript and Editorial Processes
Peer Review
Each journal states its review model and workflow on its official website. Editors select reviewers for relevant expertise and seek independent assessments; reviewer identities and manuscript information are handled according to the journal’s declared model.
Reviews should be constructive, evidence-based, timely, and free from personal criticism. Editors consider reviewer advice but remain responsible for the final decision and may obtain additional review where reports conflict or are insufficient.
Authorship and Contributorship
Authorship is reserved for people who made substantial scholarly contributions, participated in drafting or critical revision, approved the version for publication, and accept accountability for the work. Contributors who do not meet all authorship criteria should be acknowledged with their permission.
The corresponding author confirms that the author list is complete and agreed. Undisclosed ghost, guest, or gift authorship is not acceptable; contributor-role statements may be required.
Author Changes
Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors must explain the reason and include written agreement from all affected authors. Before acceptance, the editor evaluates the request and may pause processing while consent is verified.
After acceptance or publication, changes are exceptional and may require a formal correction. Disputes that cannot be resolved through documented author agreement may be referred to the authors’ institutions.
Research Data and Reproducibility
Authors should retain the data, code, protocols, and materials needed to support reported results, subject to legal, ethical, privacy, and commercial constraints. Articles should explain where supporting material can be accessed or why access is restricted.
Editors may request underlying material during review or after publication. Unreasonable refusal or material inconsistencies may delay a decision or trigger an integrity enquiry.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
Artificial-intelligence tools cannot be credited as authors because they cannot approve a manuscript, disclose conflicts, or accept responsibility. Human authors remain accountable for the accuracy, originality, citations, permissions, confidentiality, and integrity of all submitted content.
Material use of generative AI in research, analysis, writing, translation, or image production should be disclosed in accordance with the relevant journal’s instructions, with the tool and purpose identified. AI-generated or AI-modified images, data, and citations must not be fabricated, misrepresented, or used deceptively. Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential manuscripts to publicly accessible AI systems.
Research Misconduct
Credible allegations of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, manipulation, or other serious misconduct are assessed confidentially and without retaliation against good-faith reporters. The publisher may request source files, similarity evidence, images, data, or explanations from the parties concerned.
Institutions or other responsible bodies may be asked to investigate matters beyond the publisher’s authority. Editorial action is based on the reliability of the scholarly record and may proceed independently of employment or disciplinary outcomes.
C
Complaints and the Scholarly Record
Complaints and Appeals
Complaints and appeals should be sent to ethics@ipeakpublishing.com. They must identify the publication or manuscript, explain the basis of the request, and provide supporting evidence; an appeal should identify a material error in process or assessment rather than simply disagreeing with the outcome.
The publisher assesses submissions impartially. Where practicable, a person not responsible for the disputed decision reviews an appeal. Submitting an appeal does not guarantee that an editorial decision will be reversed, and records are handled confidentially and proportionately.
Corrections
A correction is issued when an otherwise reliable publication contains an error that affects interpretation, attribution, metadata, or part of the record. Minor typographical errors that do not affect meaning may be corrected without a formal notice where platform practice permits.
Formal correction notices identify the original work, explain what changed, and remain linked to the publication. The corrected article should indicate the date and nature of the amendment.
Retractions
Retraction is considered when findings are unreliable, the work is seriously unethical, publication is unauthorised, or substantial redundant publication or plagiarism invalidates the record. Retraction is not used merely to punish authors.
The notice states the reason and who is retracting the work, while avoiding defamatory or unnecessary personal information. The original remains identifiable and linked to the notice unless legal or safety concerns require restricted access.
Expressions of Concern
An expression of concern may be published when serious doubts exist but evidence is inconclusive, an institutional enquiry is delayed, or a definitive outcome cannot yet be reached. It alerts readers without presuming misconduct.
The notice is linked to the work and reviewed when further information becomes available. It may later be replaced or supplemented by a correction, retraction, or notice that resolves the concern.
Post-publication Discussion
Readers may submit evidence-based comments or concerns about published work to the journal or publisher. Submissions should address the scholarly content or publication process and avoid abusive, discriminatory, defamatory, or irrelevant material.
Editors may invite authors to respond and may publish discussion where the journal supports it. Substantive issues are handled through the correction, concern, or retraction process rather than silently altering the record.
Duplicate and Redundant Publication
Submissions must not substantially duplicate work already published or under consideration elsewhere unless the relationship is transparent and editorially justified. Authors should cite and provide related manuscripts, preprints, conference versions, translations, or datasets when relevant.
Permissible secondary publication requires clear agreement, accurate cross-reference, and respect for copyright and licence terms. Undisclosed overlap may lead to rejection or a notice after publication.
D
Access, Rights, and Publishing Operations
Open Access
Journal portfolio pages identify the access model used by each title. Open-access articles are available to read without subscription barriers, subject to the licence displayed on the article and journal website.
Access status, reuse rights, and any exceptions should be clear before submission and again at publication. Open access does not remove the need for proper attribution or compliance with third-party rights.
Copyright and Licensing
Each publication states who holds copyright and the licence or publishing terms that govern sharing and reuse. Authors must have permission for third-party material not covered by the publication licence.
No licence should be inferred where none is displayed. Readers and authors are responsible for observing attribution, non-commercial, adaptation, or other conditions attached to the applicable licence.
Author Fees and Revenue Transparency
Any submission, processing, publication, or other author fee must be disclosed on the relevant journal website before submission. IJGR and JNRD currently state that they charge no submission or publication fees; authors should check the official journal pages for current terms.
JACODESMATH currently states that it charges no article processing, submission, or publication fees on its official Article Processing Charges page. Fees, waivers, payment status, sponsorship, and other revenue considerations never influence peer review or acceptance decisions. Book publishing and book sales are managed separately from journal editorial decisions.
Advertising and Direct Marketing
Advertising and sponsorship decisions are separate from editorial evaluation. Advertisements must be identifiable, lawful, and appropriate to the audience; acceptance does not imply endorsement by the publisher or editors.
Direct marketing should be accurate, targeted, proportionate, and easy to opt out of. Contact lists must not be sold or used in misleading solicitations, and journal claims must not misrepresent indexing, metrics, acceptance prospects, or editorial relationships.
Digital Preservation
iPeak Publishing maintains publication files, metadata, and records needed to support continued access and accurate identification. Platform backups and operational copies support recovery but are not presented as a substitute for an independent preservation programme.
No formal third-party long-term digital-preservation arrangement is identified in the information currently available. If such an arrangement is established, the participating service, content scope, and continuity provisions will be stated publicly.
Privacy and Data Protection
Personal data used for submissions, peer review, publication, correspondence, and business administration is limited to legitimate purposes and handled with appropriate access controls. Relevant information may be shared with editors, reviewers, service providers, institutions, or authorities where necessary and lawful.
Records are retained only as long as required for publishing operations, legal obligations, dispute handling, and scholarly-record integrity. Individuals may direct privacy enquiries to the publisher, subject to rights and exemptions under applicable law.