Azman University International Journal
of Management and Social Sciences

1. Authorship & Contributorship

Authorship is limited to those who have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the reported work. AUIJMSS follows the widely used authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), adapted for the social sciences: (i) substantial contribution to the conception, design, or data collection/analysis/interpretation of the work; (ii) drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content; (iii) final approval of the version to be published; and (iv) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

All persons meeting these criteria should be listed as authors; those who contributed in a lesser capacity (e.g. general supervision, funding acquisition alone, technical support) should instead be named in the Acknowledgements. Gift, guest, and ghost authorship are not permitted. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the author list, order, and affiliations are agreed by all co-authors before submission and confirming that all named authors have seen and approved the final manuscript. Any change to authorship after submission (addition, removal, or reordering) must be requested in writing to the editor by the corresponding author, with the written consent of every author, including any author being removed.

2. Originality, Plagiarism & Duplicate Submission

Submitted manuscripts must be the authors' own original work, must not have been published previously in any language or medium, and must not be under consideration by another journal or outlet at the same time. Text, data, figures, or ideas taken from other sources must be properly cited and, where directly quoted, clearly identified as such.

All manuscripts are screened for textual similarity before being sent for review. Where a submission is found to contain substantial unattributed overlap with existing published work — including the authors' own prior publications (self-plagiarism) — the editor may reject the manuscript outright or return it to the authors for revision and proper attribution, depending on the extent and nature of the overlap. Plagiarism or duplicate publication discovered after publication is treated as misconduct under section 8 and may result in a correction or retraction under section 9.

3. Data Integrity

Fabrication (reporting data or results that were not actually obtained), falsification (manipulating data, images, or results so that the research is not accurately represented), and selective or misleading reporting of results are treated as serious research misconduct. Authors should be prepared to provide the raw data underlying their manuscript for editorial review on request, and to retain such data for a reasonable period following publication. Images and figures must not be manipulated in a way that alters the interpretation of the underlying data.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose, in the manuscript, any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could be perceived to influence the work reported — for example funding sources, paid consultancies, or affiliations with organisations that have a stake in the outcome. Where there is no conflict, authors should state this explicitly. Editors and reviewers must likewise declare any conflict of interest relating to a manuscript they are handling or reviewing (including personal, professional, or institutional relationships with the authors) and must recuse themselves from the editorial or review process where a genuine conflict exists.

5. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors evaluate manuscripts solely on their intellectual and scholarly merit — originality, clarity, rigour, and relevance to the journal's aims and scope — without regard to the authors' race, gender, religion, nationality, citizenship, sexual orientation, political belief, or institutional affiliation. Submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents; editors do not disclose information about a manuscript under review to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and editorial staff, and do not use unpublished material from a submitted manuscript in their own research without the express written consent of the authors. Editors are responsible for the overall quality and integrity of the journal and will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of research where misconduct has occurred.

6. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer review at AUIJMSS is conducted on a double-blind basis (see the Peer Review Policy for the full process). Reviewers are expected to: evaluate manuscripts objectively, on scholarly merit alone; keep the manuscript and all information relating to it strictly confidential during and after the review; decline to review where they have a conflict of interest or lack the expertise to assess the work fairly; provide comments that are constructive, specific, and timely; and alert the handling editor promptly to any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other ethical concern encountered while reviewing.

7. Research Involving Human or Animal Subjects

Where a submitted study involves human participants, their data, or animal subjects, authors must confirm that the research was conducted in accordance with relevant institutional and national ethical guidelines, that appropriate ethics/institutional review board approval was obtained where required, and that informed consent was obtained from participants (or their legal guardians) where applicable. This information should be stated in the manuscript's methodology section.

8. Handling Allegations of Misconduct

Concerns about possible research or publication misconduct — whether raised by a reader, reviewer, editor, or third party, and whether about a submitted or an already-published article — are taken seriously and investigated. The general process is:

1. The concern is submitted in writing to the editor-in-chief, with as much supporting detail as possible.
2. The editor-in-chief carries out a preliminary assessment to determine whether there is a case to answer.
3. Where warranted, the corresponding author (and other relevant parties) is given the opportunity to respond in writing before any decision is made.
4. The editor-in-chief, in consultation with members of the editorial board as needed, determines an outcome. Depending on the finding, this may range from no further action, to a request for correction, to rejection or retraction, in line with COPE's guidance and flowcharts.
5. Where appropriate, the authors' institution(s) may be notified of a substantiated finding of misconduct.

Throughout this process the journal aims to act fairly, proportionately, and without unnecessary delay, while protecting the confidentiality of the individuals involved as far as is consistent with a proper investigation.

9. Corrections, Expressions of Concern & Retraction

AUIJMSS distinguishes between three outcomes, consistent with COPE's retraction guidelines:

• Correction (erratum/corrigendum): issued where a small but scientifically significant error affects the published record (e.g. a data or figure error, or an author/affiliation error), but the overall findings and conclusions of the article remain valid and reliable.
• Expression of concern: issued where credible evidence of a problem with an article has emerged (for example a misconduct investigation is ongoing) but the matter cannot yet be resolved conclusively.
• Retraction: issued where the article's findings are shown to be unreliable, whether because of honest error, research or publication misconduct (data fabrication/falsification, plagiarism), or because the work has been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification, or where it reports unethical research.

A correction, expression of concern, or retraction is published as a clearly labelled notice, is linked bidirectionally to the original article, and states the reason for the action. The original article is retained online (marked accordingly) rather than removed from the record, except in extremely rare cases involving legal or safety concerns.

10. Complaints & Appeals

Authors, reviewers, readers, or any other party may raise a complaint about an editorial decision, an ethical concern, or the conduct of the review process by writing to auijmss@gmail.com, marked for the attention of the Editor-in-Chief. Complaints are acknowledged, reviewed, and, where they concern an editorial decision, handled by an editor who was not directly involved in the original decision wherever practicable. The journal aims to provide a substantive response within 30 days. Unresolved complaints of a serious nature may, where appropriate, be referred to COPE for guidance.