C
Corelytics: Insights into Business and Accounting Systems Abnus Publisher
COPE Best Practice Guidelines

Publication
Ethics

Abnus Publisher upholds the highest standards of publication ethics across all four journals — grounded in COPE Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

COPE Compliant Research Integrity Open Science All Journals
Ethics Status
COPE
100
score
Full Compliance
All COPE guidelines
implemented across
4 journals
Editorial Independence
Double-Blind Peer Review
Open Access — CC BY 4.0
Zero Tolerance for Misconduct
Data Sharing Encouraged
Annual Policy Review
COPE
Framework
3
Stakeholder Groups
Zero
Misconduct Tolerance
4
Journals Covered
Editorial Standards

Editorial Policies

Our editorial policies uphold integrity, fairness, and transparency at every stage of the publication process.

01
Publication Decisions
Editors are responsible for deciding which submitted articles should be published. Decisions are guided by the editorial board's discretion and bounded by legal requirements, including those concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editors may consult with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Editorial Discretion
02
Complaints & Appeals
The journal maintains a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, editorial staff, editorial board, or publisher. All complaint cases are processed according to COPE guidelines — covering editorial processes, citation manipulation, unfair peer review, and more.
COPE Guidelines Apply
03
Post-Publication
The journal permits the publication of debate posts either on its website, by letter to the editor, or on a moderated external site, ensuring ongoing scholarly conversation and correction of the scientific record after publication.
Scientific Record Integrity
04
Fair Play
Editors evaluate manuscripts at all times solely for their intellectual content — without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy of the authors.
Non-Discriminatory Review
05
Confidentiality
Editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the respective authors, reviewers, prospective reviewers, other editorial advisors, and publishers, as appropriate.
Strict Information Control
06
Disclosure & Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished material disclosed in submitted manuscripts may not be used in an editor's own research without the explicit written consent of the author. All financial and substantive conflicts of interest must be disclosed by all parties involved.
Full Transparency Required
Policy Note — Alleged Research Infringement
COPE Procedure

Research infringement means falsification, fabrication, manipulation of citations, or plagiarism in producing, conducting, or reviewing research and in writing articles. When authors are found to be involved in research violations or other serious irregularities involving published articles, the Editor has a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.

In cases of suspected violations, the Editors and Editorial Board will use COPE best practices to resolve complaints fairly. Submissions found to contain such errors will be rejected; published papers may be subject to retraction, which will be linked to the original article.

Institutions are expected to conduct proper investigations into suspected scientific misconduct. Appropriate actions — corrections, retractions with replacements, or full retractions — ensure the integrity of the scientific record is preserved.

Open Science

Data Sharing Policy

Abnus Publisher is committed to a more open research landscape — facilitating faster and more effective research discovery by enabling reproducibility and verification of data, methodologies, and reporting standards.

We encourage authors to share their research data upon publication. Sharing research outputs increases transparency, enables replication of findings, and maximizes the impact of published work. Authors are encouraged to deposit data in recognized repositories and provide a data availability statement in their manuscript.

Shareable Research Outputs
Raw & Processed Data
Software & Algorithms
Protocols & Methods
Statistical Outputs
Materials & Instruments
Reporting Standards
Recommended
Deposit in Public Repository
Authors are encouraged to deposit research data in publicly accessible, recognized repositories such as Zenodo, Figshare, or institutional repositories before or at the time of publication.
Required
Data Availability Statement
All manuscripts must include a data availability statement clarifying whether data supporting the findings are publicly available, available on request, or restricted due to ethical or legal considerations.
Responsibilities

Duties of All Parties

Ethical publication depends on every stakeholder fulfilling their responsibilities with integrity and transparency.

Editorial Integrity & Decision-Making
01
Publication Decisions
Editors decide manuscript publication based on intellectual merit, following journal policies and applicable legal requirements. They may consult with other editors or reviewers when making these decisions.
02
Fair Play
Manuscripts are evaluated solely on intellectual content without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy of the authors.
03
Confidentiality
Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents and shared only with authorized reviewers and editorial staff. No information may be disclosed to any unauthorized party.
04
Disclosure & Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in submissions may not be used in the editor's own research without the explicit written consent of the author. All conflicts of interest must be declared.
Objective, Timely & Constructive Review
01
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Reviewers provide constructive feedback to assist editors in making decisions and to help authors improve the quality of their manuscripts through detailed, evidence-based commentary.
02
Appropriateness & Promptness
Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate a manuscript or are unable to complete a review within the agreed timeframe must notify the editor and withdraw from the review process promptly.
03
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are confidential and must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. Reviewers must not retain copies of manuscripts.
04
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews must be conducted objectively, with clearly expressed views supported by arguments. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate and unprofessional.
05
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers must identify relevant uncited published work and notify editors of any substantial similarities between the manuscript and other published papers that may indicate plagiarism.
06
Disclosure & Conflicts of Interest
Confidential information must not be used for personal gain. Reviewers must not evaluate manuscripts where they have competitive, collaborative, or other conflicts of interest with the authors or institutions.
Accuracy, Originality & Transparency
01
Reporting Standards
Authors must present an accurate account of the work performed with sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate it. Inaccurate or fraudulent statements constitute unethical behavior.
02
Originality & Plagiarism
Authors must ensure they have written an entirely original work, with proper citation whenever using the work or words of others. Plagiarism in all its forms is unethical and unacceptable.
03
Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications
Authors may not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously, or publish essentially the same research in different outlets without disclosure and consent from all involved editors.
04
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of all works that influenced the research must be given. Authors must cite publications relevant to the reported work and avoid excessive self-citation.
05
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship must be limited to those who made a significant contribution to the conception, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All co-authors must approve the final version and its submission.
06
Disclosure & Conflicts of Interest
Authors must disclose any financial or substantive conflicts of interest that might have influenced the results or interpretation, and all sources of financial support for the research project.
07
Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they are obligated to promptly notify the editor and cooperate in issuing a correction, retraction, or erratum as appropriate.
Special Cases

Ethical Oversight

Additional requirements for research involving special ethical considerations.

Research Involving Hazards
If research work involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If required, authors must provide legal and ethical permissions from the appropriate legal associations or organizations.
Mandatory Disclosure Ethics Approval Required
Confidential Data & Business Practices
If the research involves confidential data and business or marketing practices, the author must clearly justify in the manuscript whether the data or information will be securely protected or disclosed. Transparency about data handling obligations is required to maintain the trust and integrity of the publication process.
Data Justification Transparency Required
COPE & Best Practice Compliant
All policies are reviewed annually against COPE best-practice standards. Abnus Publisher is committed to continuous improvement of its publication ethics framework across all journals.
View COPE Guidelines →