Journal of Applied Research on Science and Technology (JARST)’s Publication Ethics is based on the guidelines and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE : https://publicationethics.org/). To keep publishing ethical standards, the publisher works closely with journal editors, authors and peer-reviewers. Journal of Applied Research on Science and Technology (JARST) assigns ethics responsibility of each publishing partners as follows:

Editors responsibilities

1. The editors should consider the quality of the submitted manuscript based on the novelty, clarification, and the detail in agreement with the aim and scope for publication in JARST.

2. The editor holds a position to make final decisions on peer-reviewed articles submitted for publication.

3. The editors must select reviewers who have relevant expertise and do not have any conflicts of interest with the authors of the manuscript.

4. The editor should evaluate manuscripts based on their academic merit and free of any commercial or self-interests.

5. The editors must not disclose the identity of the reviewers to the authors and vice versa.

6. The editor should not distribute any information regarding submitted manuscripts before publication.

7. The editors can withdraw or retracted the published articles from the journal when the manuscripts with duplicate submissions, data falsification or articles have plagiarism of the other works.

Authors responsibilitie

1. The authors should ensure that the manuscript must be original, free from any kind of plagiarism content and has not been published elsewhere.

2. Authors can submit the manuscript to other journals only after the manuscript has been declined by JARST.

3. Any conflict of interest must be clearly declared.

4. All authors are accountable for any scientific mistakes and arguments as well as plagiarism.

5. It is the duty of the corresponding author to respond to all the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. If authors do not agree with any comments of a reviewer, the authors should provide an explanation.

6. Only those who have made any substantial contribution to the submitted work should be listed as authors.

Reviewers responsibilities

1. Reviewers should decline the review request if the manuscript’s research area is not within their expertise.

2. The reviewer provides a detailed, constructive, and unbiased evaluation within a period of assigned time on the scientific content of the work.

3. Reviewers should give comments and opinions based solely on their expertise and without any conflicts of interest.

4. The reviewer promptly reports the editor about any conflict of interest and declines to review the manuscript.

5. Reviewers must not disclose information or results from any manuscript prior to its publication.

6. Reviewers should inform the editor if they suspect that a manuscript contains duplicated works of other published articles.

Declaration of Generative AI Use in Authorship

Authors are required to declare the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools during the manuscript preparation. This declaration applies only to the writing stage and does not cover the use of AI tools for data analysis, statistical computation, or other elements of the research process.

Permitted use of AI tools is limited to:

          Improving language clarity, readability, or style; and

          Enhancing visual presentation of figures, diagrams, or schemes without altering the scientific meaning, data integrity, or originality.

All AI-generated or AI-assisted outputs must be thoroughly reviewed, verified, and edited by the authors.

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of all content submitted.

AI tools cannot be listed or credited as authors or co-authors. Authorship implies intellectual contribution, accountability, and the capacity for public responsibility—roles that only humans can fulfill.

Generative AI in Figures, Images, and Artwork

JARST allows the limited use of AI-assisted tools to refine or improve the visual quality of figures, diagrams, or graphical schemes, provided that:

1. The scientific content, data, and interpretation are entirely conceived and created by the authors.

2. AI tools are used only for visual enhancement (e.g., color adjustment, background refinement, layout balance, or text labeling).

3. Authors clearly declare the use of AI tools (e.g., “Some figures were enhanced using AI-assisted design tools for visual clarity under author supervision”).

4. Full human oversight and verification are maintained throughout.

5. The use of AI to create wholly synthetic or fabricated images or data remains strictly prohibited.

Use of AI for cover artwork or promotional materials may be considered only with prior editorial approval.

Use of AI by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers are essential to the integrity of scholarly publishing. Their expert evaluations and constructive feedback guide editorial decisions and ensure that published research remains valid, rigorous, and trustworthy. Reviewers are selected for their specialized expertise in the subject matter and research methodologies relevant to the manuscripts they evaluate—expertise that is both invaluable and irreplaceable.

Reviewers are fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and integrity of their reports. The peer review process relies on mutual trust among authors, reviewers, and editors. While generative AI technologies have advanced rapidly, they still present significant limitations, such as the potential to produce outdated, biased, or inaccurate information. Moreover, manuscripts often contain confidential or proprietary materials that must not be shared with or processed through external systems.

If any aspect of a reviewer’s evaluation or analysis of a manuscript involves the use of AI tools, the reviewer must clearly and transparently declare such use within their peer review report.

To preserve confidentiality and ethical standards, reviewers must not use AI tools to analyze, summarize, or draft peer review reports. If a reviewer chooses to use AI tools for minor, non-confidential purposes (e.g., language correction, grammar editing), this must be done with caution and under strict human oversight.

If any aspect of a reviewer’s assessment involves the use of AI tools, the reviewer must clearly and transparently disclose such use in their peer review report. Reviewers remain solely accountable for the content and conclusions of their evaluations.

Editorial Use of AI

JARST may occasionally employ AI tools to assist in generating supplementary content or materials, such as article summaries. All AI-assisted outputs are carefully reviewed, edited, and verified by the author and/or editor to ensure full compliance with the journal’s editorial and quality standards.

Any use of AI beyond supplementary content creation will be explicitly disclosed on an article-by-article basis.

Supplementary content may include, but is not limited to, key points, editorial summaries, glossaries, plain language summaries, and social media materials.

Policy Review

This policy will be periodically reviewed and updated in alignment with technological developments, publication ethics, and Scopus/COPE standards on the responsible use of AI in scholarly publishing.