The International Journal of Humanities, Arts, Commerce and Social Sciences (IJHACSS) is committed to promoting intellectual honesty, academic responsibility, transparency, and the highest standards of integrity in scholarly research and publication.

The credibility of academic knowledge depends upon the authenticity of evidence, accuracy of interpretation, originality of intellectual contributions, and ethical conduct of researchers. These principles are essential across all academic disciplines, including the humanities, arts, commerce, and social sciences.

IJHACSS recognizes that scholarly research takes diverse forms. A historical investigation may rely on archival documents; a sociological study may examine interviews and community experiences; an economic analysis may involve statistical datasets; and a philosophical paper may develop an original argument through conceptual reasoning.

Although these approaches differ, all require honesty in the collection, interpretation, presentation, and acknowledgment of scholarly materials.

The journal does not tolerate fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, deliberate manipulation of evidence, fraudulent authorship, or other serious violations of research and publication ethics.

At the same time, we recognize that responsible scholarship involves uncertainty, legitimate methodological differences, alternative interpretations, and occasional honest errors.

Our approach is therefore guided by two fundamental responsibilities: protecting the integrity of published scholarship and ensuring fair treatment of individuals involved in research integrity concerns.

IJHACSS seeks to maintain a scholarly environment in which originality is encouraged, evidence is represented accurately, and concerns about academic integrity are examined objectively.

Research misconduct refers to serious violations of accepted standards of honesty, accuracy, attribution, transparency, or ethical responsibility during the conduct, reporting, review, or publication of scholarly work.

The principal categories of research misconduct include fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism.

The journal also considers other forms of serious publication misconduct, including fraudulent peer-review practices, authorship manipulation, citation manipulation, and material concealment of relevant conflicts of interest.

These categories are not necessarily equivalent in severity and should be assessed according to the circumstances of each case.

This policy applies to:

• Manuscripts submitted for publication.
• Published articles and supplementary materials.
• Original research and review articles.
• Historical and archival investigations.
• Literary, philosophical, and theoretical scholarship.
• Arts-based and practice-based research.
• Qualitative and quantitative social research.
• Commerce, finance, economics, and management studies.
• Editorial and peer-review activities.
• Ethical declarations, citations, and supporting documentation.

Concerns may arise before publication, during peer review, after publication, or through communications from readers, institutions, research participants, or other stakeholders.

Fabrication involves inventing information, observations, sources, results, or research materials and presenting them as authentic.

It represents a serious violation of academic integrity because it creates scholarly claims unsupported by genuine evidence.

Examples of Fabrication

Social Science Research

Inventing survey responses, interview participants, questionnaire results, field observations, or demographic information that were never collected.

Psychology and Education

Creating fictional participant responses, test scores, classroom observations, or experimental outcomes and reporting them as actual findings.

Historical Research

Inventing archival documents, historical quotations, manuscript references, inscriptions, or source materials that do not exist.

Commerce and Economics

Fabricating financial figures, business surveys, market observations, economic datasets, or organizational records.

Anthropology and Ethnography

Creating fictional fieldnotes, community interactions, personal narratives, or cultural observations and presenting them as genuine fieldwork.

Arts and Cultural Research

Presenting invented interviews, performances, artistic documentation, or reconstructed artifacts as authentic historical or empirical evidence.

IJHACSS prohibits the fabrication of evidence in any form.

Authors must be able to explain the origin and authenticity of the materials supporting their research.

Falsification occurs when research data, source materials, methods, observations, or results are altered, selectively manipulated, or represented in a manner that materially misleads readers.

Examples include:

• Altering survey responses to support a preferred conclusion.
• Changing recorded interview statements.
• Manipulating statistical results.
• Modifying financial information to conceal contradictory evidence.
• Presenting altered historical documents as authentic.
• Misrepresenting the context of quotations.
• Changing dates, authorship details, or source descriptions.
• Altering photographs or documentary images to create misleading evidence.
• Selectively excluding important findings without an appropriate analytical justification.

Selective Reporting

Researchers may legitimately select evidence according to a clearly explained research design.

However, intentionally suppressing relevant contradictory findings or selectively manipulating information to create a materially false impression is unacceptable.

Interpretation and Falsification

The journal distinguishes between legitimate interpretation and deceptive manipulation.

A historian may reasonably interpret a historical event differently from another scholar. A sociologist may identify different themes within qualitative material.

Such differences do not constitute falsification when the underlying evidence is presented honestly and the analytical reasoning is transparent.

Plagiarism involves presenting another person's words, ideas, arguments, evidence, interpretations, data, or creative contributions as one's own without appropriate acknowledgment.

IJHACSS prohibits all serious forms of plagiarism, including:

• Direct textual plagiarism.
• Inappropriate paraphrasing.
• Mosaic or patchwork plagiarism.
• Plagiarism of ideas and theoretical arguments.
• Translation plagiarism.
• Misappropriation of unpublished research.
• Unauthorized appropriation of original artistic or cultural work.
• Substantial undisclosed reuse of previously published material.

Special Considerations for Humanities Research

Literary criticism, philosophy, history, and cultural studies often require extensive engagement with existing sources.

Properly attributed quotations, close textual analysis, and critical discussion of previous scholarship are legitimate academic practices.

The journal does not consider textual similarity alone sufficient evidence of plagiarism.

Editors must examine whether the borrowed content has been appropriately acknowledged and whether the manuscript makes an identifiable original contribution.

Further details are provided in the journal's separate Plagiarism Policy.

Historical and archival research depends upon the authenticity, provenance, and responsible interpretation of source materials.

IJHACSS expects authors to accurately identify historical documents and distinguish genuine evidence from interpretation, reconstruction, or speculation.

Unacceptable practices include:

• Inventing historical documents or archival references.
• Falsifying dates, authorship, or document origins.
• Creating fictional historical quotations.
• Altering documentary evidence without disclosure.
• Deliberately misrepresenting translations.
• Presenting modern reconstructions as authentic historical artifacts.
• Concealing material information about the provenance of evidence.
• Misappropriating another researcher's unpublished archival discoveries.

Historical Disagreement

Historical scholarship frequently involves incomplete or contradictory evidence.

Different interpretations of historical events do not constitute misconduct merely because they are disputed.

Authors should explain uncertainties and support their conclusions through identifiable sources and coherent historical reasoning.

Qualitative research depends upon the credibility of participant accounts, observations, interviews, fieldnotes, and analytical interpretations.

IJHACSS recognizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of such materials.

Examples of misconduct include:

• Inventing participants who did not exist.
• Fabricating interview transcripts.
• Attributing fictional statements to actual participants.
• Materially changing responses to support a predetermined interpretation.
• Falsely claiming that interviews or fieldwork occurred.
• Misrepresenting participant consent.
• Concealing serious departures from approved research procedures.
• Deliberately misrepresenting the social or cultural context of collected information.

Researcher Interpretation

Qualitative analysis necessarily involves interpretation.

Researchers may legitimately develop themes, categories, narratives, and conceptual explanations from their materials.

Different thematic interpretations do not automatically establish misconduct.

The relevant consideration is whether the analysis is conducted transparently and whether the conclusions are reasonably supported by the underlying evidence.

Research involving economic, financial, organizational, behavioural, or statistical data must meet appropriate standards of accuracy and transparency.

Unacceptable practices include:

• Fabricating numerical datasets.
• Manipulating business or financial records.
• Altering statistical results.
• Falsifying sample sizes.
• Misrepresenting participant recruitment.
• Reporting analyses that were not performed.
• Concealing material data exclusions.
• Presenting selectively modified graphs as authentic.
• Intentionally misreporting economic or statistical findings.

Statistical and Analytical Errors

An incorrect statistical calculation or methodological weakness does not automatically constitute intentional misconduct.

Where an error is discovered, authors should promptly inform the editorial office and cooperate in correcting the scholarly record.

However, deliberately manipulating analysis to mislead readers constitutes a serious integrity concern.

Arts and humanities research may involve paintings, photographs, performances, musical works, architectural designs, documentary recordings, archaeological objects, and other visual or creative materials.

Authors must accurately identify the origins and nature of such materials.

The following practices are unacceptable:

• Presenting another person's creative work as one's own.
• Fabricating documentary photographs.
• Falsely identifying reconstructed artifacts as originals.
• Deliberately altering visual evidence to misrepresent historical or cultural facts.
• Misrepresenting the creator, provenance, or date of an artwork.
• Using unpublished creative materials obtained through confidential review without authorization.

Creative Adaptation

Artistic reinterpretation, reconstruction, and experimentation are legitimate forms of scholarship.

Such activities do not constitute misconduct when their nature is clearly identified and applicable attribution, permissions, and ethical requirements are satisfied.

IJHACSS recognizes the increasing use of artificial intelligence in academic research, writing, translation, statistical analysis, and creative production.

The journal permits responsible AI assistance in accordance with its applicable editorial policies.

However, AI tools must not be used to fabricate evidence, conceal plagiarism, or misrepresent research activities.

Prohibited Practices

• Generating fictional interview transcripts and reporting them as real interviews.
• Producing fabricated survey data.
• Creating nonexistent historical references.
• Inventing scholarly citations or DOI records.
• Generating synthetic quotations attributed to real individuals.
• Producing fictional archival records as authentic evidence.
• Presenting AI-generated photographs as genuine documentary images.
• Using AI paraphrasing to conceal plagiarism.
• Submitting AI-generated analyses without appropriate verification or disclosure when required.

Synthetic Data and Simulated Materials

Synthetic datasets, simulations, and reconstructed materials may be used in legitimate research when they are clearly identified and methodologically justified.

Such materials must never be misrepresented as authentic observations or original historical evidence.

Author Responsibility

Generative AI systems cannot be listed as authors.

Human authors remain accountable for the accuracy, originality, transparency, and ethical integrity of submitted work.

Substantial AI assistance must be disclosed as required by the journal's Author Guidelines.

Authorship must accurately reflect meaningful scholarly contributions.

IJHACSS prohibits practices that misrepresent responsibility for academic work.

Examples include:

Gift or Honorary Authorship

Including individuals who have not made an appropriate scholarly contribution merely because of their academic position, institutional influence, or personal relationship.

Ghost Authorship

Omitting individuals who made qualifying authorship contributions without appropriate acknowledgment or justification.

Unauthorized Authorship Changes

Adding or removing authors without required agreement or editorial approval.

False Authorship Claims

Claiming credit for work that was principally undertaken by another individual without legitimate justification.

Misrepresentation of Contributions

Providing materially false statements about the research responsibilities of individual authors.

Authorship disputes should be examined fairly and may require clarification from the authors' institutions.

Editors are responsible for publication decisions but are not necessarily equipped to determine every disputed contribution independently.

IJHACSS does not permit simultaneous submission of substantially the same manuscript to multiple journals.

Authors must disclose relevant prior dissemination, including:

• Published journal articles.
• Conference proceedings.
• Working papers.
• Preprints.
• Theses and dissertations.
• Institutional reports.
• Translated versions.
• Previously published book chapters.

Prior dissemination does not automatically constitute misconduct.

A manuscript developed from a thesis, preprint, or conference presentation may be considered when prior versions are transparently disclosed and the submission satisfies the journal's originality and publication requirements.

Deliberately presenting substantially duplicated work as a completely new contribution without disclosure is unacceptable.

Unnecessary fragmentation of a single research project into overlapping publications may also raise publication ethics concerns.

Accurate citation is essential to the credibility of scholarly communication.

IJHACSS prohibits citation manipulation intended to artificially influence scholarly recognition or publication metrics.

Unacceptable practices include:

• Inventing references.
• Deliberately citing nonexistent publications.
• Inserting irrelevant citations solely to increase citation counts.
• Pressuring authors to cite particular journals or researchers without scholarly justification.
• Misrepresenting the findings of cited sources.
• Deliberately attributing arguments to incorrect authors.
• Citing retracted work as reliable evidence without appropriately acknowledging its status.

Reviewers and editors must not demand unnecessary citations to their own publications or the journal's articles.

Authors should verify bibliographic details and ensure that cited sources support the statements attributed to them.

Research integrity also depends upon the ethical conduct of reviewers and editors.

IJHACSS considers the manipulation of peer review a serious publication ethics violation.

Examples include:

• Submitting fraudulent reviewer identities.
• Creating false reviewer accounts.
• Impersonating academic experts.
• Attempting to influence reviewer recommendations through undisclosed relationships.
• Sharing confidential manuscripts without authorization.
• Misappropriating unpublished ideas obtained through peer review.
• Providing deliberately misleading review reports.
• Suppressing legitimate scholarly criticism for personal reasons.
• Using editorial authority to favor particular authors or institutions improperly.
• Offering favorable publication decisions in exchange for personal or financial benefits.

Editors and reviewers must disclose relevant conflicts of interest.

Manuscripts submitted by editorial team members should be managed independently by suitably qualified editors without inappropriate conflicts.

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose relevant relationships that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, research or editorial decisions.

Potential conflicts may include:

• Financial interests.
• Professional relationships.
• Institutional affiliations.
• Recent research collaborations.
• Personal relationships.
• Commercial sponsorship.
• Relevant political or organizational interests.
• Other circumstances affecting independent scholarly judgment.

The existence of a conflict does not necessarily establish misconduct.

However, deliberate concealment of a material conflict may constitute a serious breach of publication ethics.

Disclosures should be evaluated according to the nature of the relationship and its potential influence on the manuscript or editorial process.

Research involving human participants must comply with applicable institutional, ethical, and legal requirements.

IJHACSS considers serious violations of participant rights and research ethics to be matters of academic integrity.

Examples include:

• Conducting studies without required ethical approval.
• Fabricating approval certificates or consent records.
• Collecting sensitive personal information through unauthorized means.
• Coercing individuals to participate.
• Publishing confidential interview information in violation of applicable consent arrangements.
• Deliberately exposing participants to unjustified risks.
• Misrepresenting participant identities or experiences.
• Disclosing restricted cultural or community information without appropriate authorization.

Research involving children, students, employees, vulnerable individuals, or marginalized communities may require additional safeguards.

The journal's separate Protection of Research Participants and Privacy policies provide further guidance.

IJHACSS recognizes that research is a process of inquiry rather than a guarantee of infallibility.

Not every incorrect conclusion, methodological limitation, or disputed interpretation constitutes misconduct.

Honest Errors

Authors may discover mistakes involving calculations, references, transcription, translation, analysis, or interpretation.

When errors are identified, authors should report them promptly and cooperate in appropriate correction.

Methodological Limitations

A study may contain weaknesses in sampling, conceptual framing, analytical methods, or source selection.

Such limitations require scholarly evaluation and may justify revision or rejection, but they do not necessarily establish dishonesty.

Academic Disagreement

Scholars may disagree about historical interpretations, philosophical arguments, literary theories, economic policies, or social explanations.

Well-supported academic disagreement is a legitimate component of scholarly progress.

Unpopular Conclusions

A manuscript does not constitute misconduct simply because its findings challenge established institutions, dominant theories, cultural assumptions, religious beliefs, or political perspectives.

The journal distinguishes between questionable scholarly reasoning, unreliable findings, and deliberate or seriously irresponsible misrepresentation of evidence.

Where a publication is materially unreliable, corrective action may be necessary even if the underlying problem resulted from an honest error rather than misconduct.

IJHACSS encourages authors, reviewers, readers, research participants, and institutions to report credible concerns concerning submitted or published research.

Reports may involve:

• Fabricated research evidence.
• Manipulated data or documents.
• Plagiarism.
• Fraudulent authorship.
• Peer-review manipulation.
• Unethical treatment of participants.
• Misleading or fabricated references.
• Improper use of confidential material.
• Serious undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Information to Include in a Report

Individuals raising concerns should provide, where available:

1. The title of the manuscript or published article.
2. Author names or manuscript identification number.
3. A clear description of the concern.
4. Relevant passages, figures, data, or supporting evidence.
5. References or sources supporting the allegation.
6. Contact information for follow-up, if the person wishes to provide it.

Reports should be made responsibly and in good faith.

The journal may consider anonymous reports where sufficient verifiable information is provided.

IJHACSS aims to handle reports confidentially as far as reasonably possible, although absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed in every circumstance.

When a credible concern is received, the responsible editor should conduct an initial assessment.

The purpose of this assessment is to determine whether the concern warrants further examination.

Initial Assessment Procedure

Step 1: Receipt of Concern

The editorial office records the allegation and identifies the manuscript or publication involved.

Step 2: Preliminary Examination

An editor reviews the reported information and determines whether sufficient evidence exists to justify further investigation.

Step 3: Conflict-of-Interest Assessment

The journal considers whether the responsible editor or another participant has a conflict that requires independent handling.

Step 4: Collection of Relevant Documentation

Where appropriate, the journal may examine manuscript versions, cited sources, similarity reports, review records, public documents, or other relevant materials.

Step 5: Determination of Further Action

The journal decides whether clarification, additional expert advice, institutional investigation, or another response is necessary.

An allegation does not by itself establish misconduct.

The preliminary assessment should be conducted objectively and without unnecessary disclosure of confidential information.

Where serious concerns remain after preliminary assessment, the journal may initiate a more detailed editorial examination or request an investigation by an appropriate institution.

Author Notification

Where appropriate, the corresponding author and relevant co-authors should be informed of the substantive concerns and given a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The journal should communicate concerns in neutral, factual language rather than assume guilt.

Author Response

Authors may be requested to provide:

• Explanatory statements.
• Original or appropriately redacted supporting data.
• Relevant source records.
• Ethical approval documentation.
• Authorship information.
• Consent documentation where lawfully necessary and appropriate.
• Information about prior publication.
• Clarification of research methods.
• Other relevant evidence.

Confidential participant information should be shared only through appropriate and secure procedures.

Independent Expert Assessment

Where specialized knowledge is required, the journal may seek advice from independent academic or methodological experts.

Institutional Investigation

Research institutions are generally better positioned than journal editors to conduct comprehensive investigations into a researcher's conduct.

Where warranted, the journal may contact relevant institutions, funding bodies, or competent authorities and request an appropriate investigation.

Editorial Responsibility

The journal retains responsibility for deciding whether a submitted manuscript should be accepted or rejected and whether the published record requires correction, an Expression of Concern, or retraction.

Institutional disciplinary decisions and journal publication decisions are related but distinct responsibilities.

Where concerns arise before publication, IJHACSS may take action proportionate to the evidence and severity of the issue.

Possible actions include:

Clarification Request

Authors may be asked to explain discrepancies or supply additional documentation.

Technical or Scholarly Correction

Minor, correctable inaccuracies may be addressed through appropriate revision.

Temporary Suspension of Evaluation

The manuscript may be placed on hold while significant concerns are assessed.

Additional Review

An independent expert may be consulted where methodological or disciplinary expertise is needed.

Manuscript Rejection

The manuscript may be rejected when serious misconduct, unacceptable ethical violations, or fundamental unreliability is established.

Referral to an Institution

Where warranted, serious concerns may be referred to the authors' institution or another appropriate body.

The journal should distinguish between cases that can be resolved through ordinary editorial correction and matters requiring formal integrity investigation.

IJHACSS recognizes that responsible publication includes addressing serious errors or ethical problems discovered after an article has been published.

Corrective actions should protect readers, preserve transparency, and avoid unnecessary damage to the scholarly record.

22.1 Corrections

A correction may be issued when an article contains a significant error that can be remedied without invalidating its principal scholarly contribution.

Examples may include:

• Incorrect factual information.
• Material reference errors.
• An incorrectly labelled figure.
• An erroneous statistical value.
• A misleading but correctable description.
• An authorship or affiliation error requiring formal correction.

Corrections should identify the original publication and explain the relevant changes.

22.2 Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued when significant doubts exist about a published article but the available evidence is insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion.

This may occur when:

• An investigation is ongoing.
• Important information remains unavailable.
• Evidence concerning reliability is inconclusive.
• An institutional inquiry is expected to require substantial time.
• Serious concerns warrant alerting readers before the matter can be resolved.

An Expression of Concern does not constitute proof of wrongdoing.

Where possible, readers should be informed of the eventual resolution through a linked update or further notice.

22.3 Retractions

Retraction may be necessary when a published article is fundamentally unreliable or involves serious publication ethics violations.

Grounds may include:

• Substantiated fabrication or falsification.
• Serious plagiarism.
• Major errors invalidating central findings.
• Unacceptable duplicate publication.
• Serious unethical research practices.
• Materially fraudulent evidence.
• Other significant violations undermining the publication's integrity.

Retraction may be warranted because of honest error as well as misconduct.

The purpose of retraction is to protect and correct the scholarly record, not to impose punishment on authors.

When an article is retracted, the journal should publish a clear and identifiable retraction notice.

The notice should:

1. Identify the original article by title and bibliographic details.
2. Explain why the retraction was necessary.
3. Identify who is issuing the notice.
4. State the effective date of the retraction.
5. Provide a permanent link to the original publication, where possible.
6. Be clearly distinguishable from ordinary articles or commentary.
7. Be accessible to readers and appropriately reflected in article metadata and indexing arrangements.

The original article should ordinarily remain accessible as part of the scholarly record, prominently marked as retracted.

The notice and the article should be linked in both directions.

Retraction status should be made clear in the online article and its available publication formats, including the PDF where feasible.

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately independent editor retains responsibility for the final retraction decision.

Authors should ordinarily be informed and given an appropriate opportunity to respond before a final determination.

Author agreement is desirable but is not always necessary when clear evidence establishes the need to correct the published record.

Where serious misconduct has been established in one publication, the journal may examine whether related work by the same author or research group raises additional concerns.

However, misconduct involving one article does not automatically establish that other publications are unreliable.

Any further assessment must be based on specific evidence.

Where appropriate, IJHACSS may request assistance from the authors' institution or cooperate with other affected journals.

The journal should avoid issuing unsupported allegations concerning unrelated publications.

If substantial unresolved concerns affect other articles, appropriate editorial action may be considered in accordance with publication ethics guidance.

IJHACSS recognizes that allegations of research misconduct can seriously affect professional reputations, institutional relationships, and academic careers.

All concerns should therefore be handled with fairness, discretion, and respect for due process.

Confidentiality

Information concerning an ongoing examination should be disclosed only where reasonably necessary for appropriate investigation, editorial action, or legal compliance.

Presumption Against Premature Judgment

Individuals should not be publicly characterized as having committed misconduct solely because an allegation has been raised.

Opportunity to Respond

Affected authors should ordinarily be given a reasonable opportunity to explain the circumstances and provide supporting information.

Independent Assessment

Editors with relevant conflicts of interest must not control the evaluation of allegations involving those conflicts.

Protection of Research Participants

Investigations must avoid unnecessary disclosure of confidential interview material, identifiable participant information, or restricted community records.

Good-Faith Reporting

The journal encourages responsible reporting of genuine concerns and should not penalize individuals merely for raising substantiated or good-faith research integrity questions.

Knowingly fabricated allegations or deliberate harassment are themselves unacceptable.

Authors may request reconsideration of a misconduct-related editorial decision when they believe that a material factual error, procedural irregularity, or conflict of interest affected the outcome.

An appeal should contain:

• The manuscript title or article citation.
• The identification number, where applicable.
• The editorial decision being challenged.
• Specific reasons for reconsideration.
• Relevant documentary evidence.
• Any additional information supporting the appeal.

The journal may refer the appeal to an editor or independent specialist who was not directly involved in the original decision.

An appeal does not guarantee that a decision will be reversed.

The objective is to ensure a fair and evidence-based review of concerns.

IJHACSS believes that preventing misconduct is as important as investigating it.

Authors are encouraged to adopt responsible scholarly practices throughout the research process.

These include:

• Maintaining accurate research records.
• Preserving appropriate source documentation.
• Recording interviews and observations honestly.
• Using transparent data-analysis procedures.
• Verifying historical and archival references.
• Distinguishing evidence from interpretation.
• Properly acknowledging intellectual contributions.
• Disclosing relevant financial and professional interests.
• Obtaining required ethical approvals.
• Protecting participant confidentiality.
• Verifying AI-assisted research content.
• Correcting identified errors promptly.
• Avoiding simultaneous submission and improper redundant publication.

Research institutions and academic supervisors also play important roles in promoting research integrity through education, mentoring, and responsible research governance.

The journal encourages constructive scholarly criticism, transparent reporting of limitations, and appropriate correction of mistakes.

Authors

Authors are responsible for conducting and reporting their research honestly.

They must ensure that submitted manuscripts accurately represent the research undertaken and that all relevant sources are properly acknowledged.

Authors must cooperate with legitimate requests concerning the integrity of their work.

Reviewers

Reviewers should identify credible concerns and report them confidentially to the handling editor.

They must not use unpublished manuscript material for personal gain or make unsupported public allegations.

Editors

Editors should assess research integrity concerns objectively, maintain appropriate confidentiality, consider relevant evidence, and take proportionate editorial action.

They must not allow personal interests, academic rivalries, or financial considerations to influence integrity decisions.

Publisher

The publisher is responsible for supporting appropriate editorial procedures, maintaining publication records, and facilitating corrections or retractions where necessary.

The publisher must respect the independence of editorial decisions.

IJHACSS supports independent inquiry, intellectual diversity, and evidence-based academic criticism.

Research in humanities and social sciences may involve controversial subjects, competing historical narratives, philosophical disagreement, political institutions, religious traditions, cultural practices, or disputed social theories.

The journal does not equate disagreement with academic misconduct.

A manuscript may offer an unconventional interpretation or challenge established scholarly positions without violating research integrity principles.

However, scholarly freedom also requires accurate representation of evidence, responsible reasoning, and transparency regarding the sources and limitations of claims.

The journal distinguishes between legitimate intellectual disagreement and deliberate deception.

Where disagreement concerns interpretation rather than misconduct, the editorial office may facilitate scholarly discussion through letters, commentaries, or other appropriate publication formats.

The proposed IJHACSS Research and Academic Misconduct Policy is informed by recognized scholarly publishing principles, including guidance provided by:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Guidance concerning the management of publication ethics concerns, cooperation between journals and institutions, corrections, and retractions.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

Recommendations concerning publication integrity, misconduct, editorial responsibility, and the correction of published literature.

Applicable Institutional Research Ethics Frameworks

Relevant procedures for the investigation of research misconduct and protection of research participants.

These sources provide useful principles for responsible publication, although the journal's policies must also reflect the research traditions and ethical requirements of humanities, arts, commerce, and social sciences.

Reference to these organizations does not imply formal membership or accreditation.

Readers, researchers, authors, reviewers, and institutions may contact IJHACSS regarding concerns about the integrity of submitted or published scholarly work.

Reports should contain sufficient information to identify the manuscript and describe the concern.

International Journal of Humanities, Arts, Commerce and Social Sciences (IJHACSS)

Publisher: LBS Publication (A Unit of SharLak Foundation)

Editorial Email: editor@ijhacss.com

Support Email: support@ijhacss.com

Website: https://khaki-starling-459600.hostingersite.com/

Postal Address: Shalbhkas Villa, Behind Bank Colony, Abhimanyu Nagar, Rupaspur, Patna – 801503, Bihar, India.

The journal seeks to handle research integrity concerns responsibly, protect relevant confidential information, and take appropriate action based on the evidence available.

Our Commitment

At IJHACSS, we believe that knowledge advances through intellectual honesty, careful investigation, rigorous interpretation, and open scholarly dialogue.

Research integrity is not limited to the prevention of fabrication or plagiarism. It requires accurate representation of evidence, acknowledgment of intellectual contributions, transparency concerning research methods, ethical responsibility toward participants, and willingness to correct the scholarly record when necessary.

By promoting responsible research conduct and fair editorial procedures, IJHACSS seeks to strengthen confidence in academic publishing across the humanities, arts, commerce, and social sciences.

IJHACSS — Upholding Research Integrity, Protecting Academic Freedom, and Advancing Responsible Scholarship.