Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics and Informatics
Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics and Informatics(abbrev. AFMI) treats original research in the theory and applications of Fuzzy Sciences bases on Mathematics and Information Sciences. Since plagiarism is globally recognized as a serious academic offence, please read and adhere to the guidelines for ethics in submission and publication. This general statement will be supplemented by instructions to authors (as well as in communications to editors and peer reviewers) relevant for the journal.
For the policies on the research and publication ethics not stated in this instructions, international standards for editores and authors(https://publicationethics.org/node/11184) can be applied.
1. Ethical Code of Authors
a. The editor(s) believe that there are fundamental principles underlying scholarly or professional publishing.
b. The submitted paper should be the authors' own original work, which has not been previously published elsewhere.
c. The paper should not be submitted to more than one journal for consideration (ensuring it is not under redundant simultaneous peer review)
d. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
e. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
f. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
g. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
2. Ethical Code of Editors
a. An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without prejudice of the authors.
b. The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
c. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3. Ethical Code of Reviewers
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Since peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method, the reviewers should have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing, as follows.
a. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
b. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
c. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
d. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Enacted : August 1, 2014
Revised : September 1, 2017