We operate a robust and well-regarded peer-review process to ensure that content is always of the highest standard and trusted content. For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for the Nonlinear Convex Analysis and Optimization (an International Journal on Numerical, Computation and Applications) are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices.

We provide detailed guidance on ethics for journal editors, authors and

Editor Responsibilities

• Accountability

The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

• Fairness

The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

• Confidentiality

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.

• Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues

The editor will be guided by COPE’s Core Practices when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in the Nonlinear Convex Analysis and Optimization (an International Journal on Numerical, Computation and Applications). Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.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. The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. The editor should seek so ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e., should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

• Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewer Responsibilities

• Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

• Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

• Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

• Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

• Acknowledgement of sources

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 data of which they have personal knowledge.

• Disclosure and conflict of interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

Author Responsibilities

• Reporting standards

Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

• Originality and Plagiarism

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.

• Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes

unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

• Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

• Authorship of a manuscript

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 named in an Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

• Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

• Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

• Fundamental errors in published works

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’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

Publisher’s Confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.

Editorial Policies 

MANUSCRIPTS 

Each manuscript must be submitted via ncao.journal@gmail.com. The Managing Editor then sends it to an appropriate Editor, who is from now responsible for the review process. However, a submission may be declined by the Managing Editor without review, if deemed inappropriate for reasons other than scientific merit. The primary criteria for judging the acceptability of a manuscript are its originality, scientific importance and interest to a general mathematical audience. This policy permits declination of a manuscript solely on the Editor’s judgment that the studies reported are not sufficiently novel or important to merit publication in Open Mathematics. 

The manuscript submitted to this journal should: 

• Contain original work not published elsewhere in any medium (in the whole or in part) by the authors or anyone else and not under consideration for publication in any other medium. This restriction does not apply to review articles. Authors are allowed to put their manuscripts in arXiv preprints repository and use arXiv’s article ID for manuscript transfer to our Editorial Manager. Authors are encouraged to register in arXiv service appropriate citing information (including paper’s DOI) after paper acceptance and publication 

• Focus on the aims and scope of the journal.

• Be clearly and correctly written: Should contain all essential features of a scientific publication that is easy to understand for the target audience; 

• Written in English: Attention to detail of the language will avoid severe misunderstandings which might lead to rejection of the paper;

• Composed in LaTeX environment. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS 

Our contributors are asked to make sure their submissions comply with rules governing the formatting.  Although the journal can provide limited technical support, it is ultimately the responsibility of the author to deliver a properly formatted electronic version of the article.  Please carefully follow the guidelines described in Instructions for Authors. 

OVERVIEW OF THE EDITORIAL PROCESS 

The whole peer-review workflow is performed through the handling editor. For detailed submission guidelines please refer to the Instruction for Authors or contact Managing Editor of the journal. 

Submission 

Each manuscript should be accompanied by a cover letter which should explicitly state that the authors have the authority to publish the work and that the manuscript (or one with substantially the same content, by any of the authors) has not been previously published in any language anywhere and that it is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal. All authors of the manuscript are responsible for its content; they must have agreed to its publication and have given the corresponding author the authority to act on their behalf in all matters pertaining to publication. The corresponding author is responsible for informing the co-authors of the manuscript status throughout the submission, review, and production process. 

Authorship 

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. Those who do not meet that criteria should be acknowledged (see Instructions for Authors for details). It is the sole responsibility of contributors to determine the authors of the manuscript submitted to the journal. Authors must ensure that anyone named in the acknowledgments agrees to being so named. Editors of Nonlinear Convex Analysis and Optimization (an International Journal on Numerical, Computation and Applications) may require that the corresponding author obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals. 

Addition or Removal of Authors

The authors’ request for addition or removal of an author should be properly justified. Please note that a change in authorship request (order of listing, addition or deletion of a name, or corresponding author designation) after submission of the manuscript will be implemented only after receipt of signed statements of agreement from all parties involved (all listed authors and the author to be removed or added). 

Peer Review process 

Each manuscript after uploading to Editorial Manager receives an individual identification code that is used in all correspondence regarding the publication process. However, a submission may be declined by the Editor without review, if the studies reported are not sufficiently novel or important to merit publication in the journal. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable (insufficient originality or of limited interest to the target audience) are returned to the author(s) without review. The Managing Editor may appoint an Editor, with expertise in the relevant field, who is fully responsible for further handling the manuscript and an ultimate decision about its acceptance/rejection. 

Choice of reviewers 

The Editor seeks advice from experts in the appropriate field. Research articles and communications are refereed by a minimum of two reviewers, review papers by at least three. 

Suggestions from authors 

Authors can suggest persons competent to review their manuscript. However, please note that this will be treated only as a suggestion, and the final selection of reviewers is exclusively the Editor’s decision. The authors’ names are revealed to the referees, but not vice versa. The reviewers make an objective, impartial evaluation of scientific merits of the manuscript. Reviewers operate under guidelines set forth in the Guidelines for reviewers and are asked to comment on the following aspects of submitted manuscripts: 

novelty and originality of the work; broad interest to the community of researchers; significance to the field, potential impact of the work, conceptual or methodological advances described; study design and clarity; substantial evidence supporting claims and conclusions; rigorous methodology 

If a manuscript is believed to not meet the standards of the journal or is otherwise lacking in scientific rigor or contains major deficiencies, the reviewers will attempt to provide constructive criticism to assist the authors in ultimately improving their work. If a manuscript is believed to be potentially acceptable for publication but needs to be improved, it is invited for reconsideration with the expectation that the authors will fully address the reviewer’s suggestions. Once all reviews have been received and considered by the Editor, a decision letter to the author is drafted. There are several types of decisions possible: 

Accept without revision 

Minor revision 

Major revision 

Reject 

Revised manuscript submission 

When a revision of a manuscript is requested, authors should return the revised version of their manuscript as soon as possible. Prompt action may ensure fast publication if a paper is finally accepted for publication. If it is the first revision of an article, authors need to return their revised manuscript within 28 days. If it is the second revision authors need to return their revised manuscript within 14 days. If these deadlines are not met, and no specific arrangements for completion have been made with the Editor, the manuscript will be treated as a new one and will receive a new identification code along with a new registration date. 

The final decision is made by the Managing Editor, or in case of conflict, by the Editor-in-Chief. 

Final proofreading 

Authors will receive a pdf file with the edited version of their manuscript for final proofreading. This is the last opportunity to view an article before its publication on the Journal web site. No changes or modifications can be introduced once it is published. Thus, authors are requested to check their proof pages carefully against the manuscript within 3 working days and prepare a separate document containing all changes that should be introduced. Authors are sometimes asked to provide additional comments and explanations in response to remarks and queries from the language or technical editors. 

Immediate publication 

Manuscripts ready for publication are promptly posted online. The manuscripts are considered to be ready for publication when the final proofreading has been performed by the authors, and all concerns have been resolved. Authors should notice that no changes can be made to the articles after online publication. 

Erratum 

If any errors are detected in the published material, they should be reported to the Managing Editor. The corresponding authors should send the appropriate corrected material to the Managing Editor via email. This material will be considered for publication as soon as feasible. 

Copyright 

All authors retain copyright, unless due to their local circumstances (their work is not copyrighted). The use of each article will be governed by the Creative-Commons Attribution license (CC-BY). The corresponding author grants the journal an exclusive license to use the article, by signing the License to Publish. Scanned copy of license should be sent to the journal, as soon as possible. 

SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT AND OTHER FRAUD 

Scientific misconduct is defined by the Office of Research Integrity as “fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research”. In cases where there is a suspicion or allegation of scientific misconduct or fraudulent research in manuscripts submitted or published, the Editors reserve the right to impose sanctions on the authors, such as: 

• immediate rejection of the manuscript; 
• banning author(s) from submitting manuscripts to the journal for a certain period of time;
•  retracting the manuscript; 
• alerting editors of other journals and publishers; 
• bringing the concerns to the authors’ sponsoring or funding institution or other appropriate authority for investigation 

This journal publishes only original manuscripts that are not also published or going to be published elsewhere. Multiple submissions/publications, or redundant publications (re-packaging in different words of data already published by the same authors) will be rejected. If they are detected only after publication, the journal reserves the right to publish a Retraction Note. In each particular case Editors will follow COPE’s Core Practice and implement its advice. 

Plagiarism 

This journal uses the plagiarism detection software CrossCheck. When plagiarism in the submitted manuscript is identified, Editors will follow COPE guidelines on plagiarism. 

Retraction Policy 

Serious errors in a published manuscript and infringements of professional ethical codes will result in an article being retracted. This will occur where the article is clearly defamatory or infringes others’ legal rights, where the article is, or there is good reason to expect it will be, the subject of a court order, or where the article if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk. In any of these cases, all co-authors will be informed about a retraction. A Retraction Note detailing the reason for retraction will be linked to the original article. 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST 

In order to encourage transparency without impeding publication, all authors, referees, and editors must declare any association that poses a conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript. There should be no contractual relations or proprietary considerations that would affect the publication of information contained in a submitted manuscript. A competing interest for a scholarly journal is anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, review, or publication of research findings, or of articles that comment on or review research findings. Potential conflicts of interest exist when an author, editor or reviewer has financial, personal or professional interests in a publication that might influence their scientific judgment. Examples of such conflicts include, but are not limited to: 

• Financial conflicts: stock ownership; patents; paid employment or consultancy; board membership; research grants; travel grants and honoraria for speaking or participation at meetings; gifts 
• Personal conflicts: relationship with editors, editorial board members, or with possible reviewers who have had recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors, have commented on drafts of the manuscript, are in direct competition, have a history of dispute with the authors 
• Professional conflicts: public associations with institutions or corporations whose products or services are related to the subject matter of the article; membership of a government advisory council/committee; relationship with organizations and funding bodies 

Authors should declare whether they have any conflicts of interests that could have influenced the reporting of the experimental data or conclusions in their paper. Such a statement should list all potential interests or, if appropriate, should clearly state that there are none. The editors may decide not to publish papers when we believe the competing interests are such that they may have compromised the work, or the analyses or interpretations presented. Upon submission of a manuscript, authors may suggest to exclude any specific editors or reviewers from the peer review of their article. It is the responsibility of authors to disclose in the Acknowledgments section any funding sources for the project or other relationships that are relevant. Authors are suggested to fill in the Conflicts of Interest Form and send the electronic version to the Managing Editor. 

Editors should consider whether any of the above competing interests are relevant to them and the manuscript under consideration. Editor who believes that the conflict will preclude an impaired judgment should disclose to the Editor the nature of the conflict and decline to handle the paper. Reviewers should consider whether any of the above applies to them and declare any such competing interests. If they feel they cannot review a paper because of any competing interest, they should tell us. They should also declare any association with the authors of a paper. 

DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS AND DATA 

The publication of an article in the journal is subject to the understanding that authors will make all data and associated protocols available to readers on request. The Methods section should include details of how materials and information may be obtained. In cases of dispute, authors may be required to make any primary data available to the Managing Editor. 

In the case of new software, source code should ideally be made available, for example as supporting information with the rest of the paper, or by deposition at a publicly accessible resource such as sourceforge.net. For a new algorithm, a detailed description should be published in the paper. In cases where the software/algorithm is not central to the paper, we nevertheless encourage authors to make all relevant materials freely available. Software can be provided under license where necessary, but any restrictions on the availability or on the use of materials might be judged to diminish the significance of a paper, and therefore influence the decision about whether a paper should be published subject to those conditions. 

POLICY ON COMMENTING ON ARTICLES 

Readers are free to submit comments, questions, or criticism about all articles published in the NCAO journal. 

The journal the right not to post comments deemed to be discourteous, inaccurate or libellous and the right to remove comments already posted. 

Comments may also be declined if they: 

• are irrelevant to the article 
• are lacking cogency 
• are incomprehensible 
• appear to be advertising 

Authors of all comments are requested to reveal all competing interests they might have with respect to the article. For more details see Conflict of Interest. 

APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS 

Appeals 

Authors who want may appeal on the rejection of their manuscript should contact Editor of specific journal. Appeals should refer to scientific content of the manuscript and its suitability for publication. The decision made by the Managing Editor is final. 

Complaints 

Authors who want to make complaints should, in the first instance, contact the Managing Editor of the journal. In case, the Managing Editor is not able to resolve the complaint, the Authors should contact us directly.

Editorial Policies 

MANUSCRIPTS 

Each manuscript must be registered and uploaded in the Editorial Manager (an on-line submission system available here (soon). The Managing Editor then sends it to an appropriate Editor, who is from now responsible for the review process. However, a submission may be declined by the Managing Editor without review, if deemed inappropriate for reasons other than scientific merit. The primary criteria for judging the acceptability of a manuscript are its originality, scientific importance and interest to a general mathematical audience. This policy permits declination of a manuscript solely on the Editor’s judgment that the studies reported are not sufficiently novel or important to merit publication in Open Mathematics. 

The manuscript submitted to this journal should: 

• Contain original work not published elsewhere in any medium (in the whole or in part) by the authors or anyone else and not under consideration for publication in any other medium. This restriction does not apply to review articles. Authors are allowed to put their manuscripts in arXiv preprints repository and use arXiv’s article ID for manuscript transfer to our Editorial Manager. Authors are encouraged to register in arXiv service appropriate citing information (including paper’s DOI) after paper acceptance and publication 

• Focus on the aims and scope of the journal.

• Be clearly and correctly written: Should contain all essential features of a scientific publication that is easy to understand for the target audience; 

• Written in English: Attention to detail of the language will avoid severe misunderstandings which might lead to rejection of the paper;

• Composed in LaTeX environment. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS 

Our contributors are asked to make sure their submissions comply with rules governing the formatting.  Although the journal can provide limited technical support, it is ultimately the responsibility of the author to deliver a properly formatted electronic version of the article.  Please carefully follow the guidelines described in Instructions for Authors. 

OVERVIEW OF THE EDITORIAL PROCESS 

The whole peer-review workflow is performed in the Editorial Manager online system here (soon). For detailed submission guidelines please refer to the Instruction for Authors or contact Managing Editor of the journal. 

Submission 

Each manuscript should be accompanied by a cover letter which should explicitly state that the authors have the authority to publish the work and that the manuscript (or one with substantially the same content, by any of the authors) has not been previously published in any language anywhere and that it is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal. All authors of the manuscript are responsible for its content; they must have agreed to its publication and have given the corresponding author the authority to act on their behalf in all matters pertaining to publication. The corresponding author is responsible for informing the co-authors of the manuscript status throughout the submission, review, and production process. 

Authorship 

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. Those who do not meet that criteria should be acknowledged (see Instructions for Authors for details). It is the sole responsibility of contributors to determine the authors of the manuscript submitted to the journal. Authors must ensure that anyone named in the acknowledgments agrees to being so named. Editors of Nonlinear Convex Analysis and Optimization (an International Journal on Numerical, Computation and Applications) may require that the corresponding author obtain written permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals. 

Addition or Removal of Authors

The authors’ request for addition or removal of an author should be properly justified. Please note that a change in authorship request (order of listing, addition or deletion of a name, or corresponding author designation) after submission of the manuscript will be implemented only after receipt of signed statements of agreement from all parties involved (all listed authors and the author to be removed or added). 

Peer Review process 

Each manuscript after uploading to Editorial Manager receives an individual identification code that is used in all correspondence regarding the publication process. However, a submission may be declined by the Editor without review, if the studies reported are not sufficiently novel or important to merit publication in the journal. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable (insufficient originality or of limited interest to the target audience) are returned to the author(s) without review. The Managing Editor may appoint an Editor, with expertise in the relevant field, who is fully responsible for further handling the manuscript and an ultimate decision about its acceptance/rejection. 

Choice of reviewers 

The Editor seeks advice from experts in the appropriate field. Research articles and communications are refereed by a minimum of two reviewers, review papers by at least three. 

Suggestions from authors 

Authors can suggest persons competent to review their manuscript. However, please note that this will be treated only as a suggestion, and the final selection of reviewers is exclusively the Editor’s decision. The authors’ names are revealed to the referees, but not vice versa. The reviewers make an objective, impartial evaluation of scientific merits of the manuscript. Reviewers operate under guidelines set forth in the Guidelines for reviewers and are asked to comment on the following aspects of submitted manuscripts: 

novelty and originality of the work; broad interest to the community of researchers; significance to the field, potential impact of the work, conceptual or methodological advances described; study design and clarity; substantial evidence supporting claims and conclusions; rigorous methodology 

If a manuscript is believed to not meet the standards of the journal or is otherwise lacking in scientific rigor or contains major deficiencies, the reviewers will attempt to provide constructive criticism to assist the authors in ultimately improving their work. If a manuscript is believed to be potentially acceptable for publication but needs to be improved, it is invited for reconsideration with the expectation that the authors will fully address the reviewer’s suggestions. Once all reviews have been received and considered by the Editor, a decision letter to the author is drafted. There are several types of decisions possible: 

Accept without revision 

Minor revision 

Major revision 

Reject 

Revised manuscript submission 

When a revision of a manuscript is requested, authors should return the revised version of their manuscript as soon as possible. Prompt action may ensure fast publication if a paper is finally accepted for publication. If it is the first revision of an article, authors need to return their revised manuscript within 28 days. If it is the second revision authors need to return their revised manuscript within 14 days. If these deadlines are not met, and no specific arrangements for completion have been made with the Editor, the manuscript will be treated as a new one and will receive a new identification code along with new registration date. 

The final decision is made by the Managing Editor, or in case of conflict, by the Editor-in-Chief. 

Final proofreading 

Authors will receive a pdf file with the edited version of their manuscript for final proofreading. This is the last opportunity to view an article before its publication on the Journal website. No changes or modifications can be introduced once it is published. Thus, authors are requested to check their proof pages carefully against the manuscript within 3 working days and prepare a separate document containing all changes that should be introduced. Authors are sometimes asked to provide additional comments and explanations in response to remarks and queries from the language or technical editors. 

Immediate publication 

Manuscripts ready for publication are promptly posted online. The manuscripts are considered to be ready for publication when the final proofreading has been performed by the authors, and all concerns have been resolved. Authors should notice that no changes can be made to the articles after online publication. 

Erratum 

If any errors are detected in the published material, they should be reported to the Managing Editor. The corresponding authors should send the appropriate corrected material to the Managing Editor via email. This material will be considered for publication as soon as feasible. 

Copyright 

All authors retain copyright, unless due to their local circumstances (their work is not copyrighted). The use of each article will be governed by the Creative-Commons Attribution license (CC-BY). The corresponding author grants the journal exclusive license to use of the article, by signing the License to Publish. Scanned copy of license should be sent to the journal, as soon as possible. 

SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT AND OTHER FRAUD 

Scientific misconduct is defined by the Office of Research Integrity as “fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research”. In cases where there is a suspicion or allegation of scientific misconduct or fraudulent research in manuscripts submitted or published, the Editors reserve the right to impose sanctions on the authors, such as: 

• immediate rejection of the manuscript; 
• banning author(s) from submitting manuscripts to the journal for a certain period of time;
•  retracting the manuscript; 
• alerting editors of other journals and publishers; 
• bringing the concerns to the authors’ sponsoring or funding institution or other appropriate authority for investigation 

This journal publishes only original manuscripts that are not also published or going to be published elsewhere. Multiple submissions/publications, or redundant publications (re-packaging in different words of data already published by the same authors) will be rejected. If they are detected only after publication, the journal reserves the right to publish a Retraction Note. In each particular case Editors will follow COPE’s Core Practice and implement its advice. 

Plagiarism 

This journal uses the plagiarism detection software CrossCheck. When plagiarism in the submitted manuscript is identified, Editors will follow COPE guidelines on plagiarism. 

Retraction Policy 

Serious errors in a published manuscript and infringements of professional ethical codes will result in an article being retracted. This will occur where the article is clearly defamatory or infringes others’ legal rights, where the article is, or there is good reason to expect it will be, the subject of a court order, or where the article if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk. In any of these cases, all co-authors will be informed about a retraction. A Retraction Note detailing the reason for retraction will be linked to the original article. 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST 

In order to encourage transparency without impeding publication, all authors, referees, and editors must declare any association that poses a conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript. There should be no contractual relations or proprietary considerations that would affect the publication of the information contained in a submitted manuscript. A competing interest for a scholarly journal is anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, review, or publication of research findings, or of articles that comment on or review research findings. Potential conflicts of interest exist when an author, editor, or reviewer has financial, personal, or professional interests in a publication that might influence their scientific judgment. Examples of such conflicts include, but are not limited to: 

• Financial conflicts: stock ownership; patents; paid employment or consultancy; board membership; research grants; travel grants and honoraria for speaking or participation at meetings; gifts 
• Personal conflicts: relationship with editors, editorial board members, or with possible reviewers who have had recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors, have commented on drafts of the manuscript, are in direct competition, have a history of dispute with the authors 
• Professional conflicts: public associations with institutions or corporations whose products or services are related to the subject matter of the article; membership of a government advisory council/committee; relationship with organizations and funding bodies 

Authors should declare whether they have any conflicts of interest that could have influenced the reporting of the experimental data or conclusions in their paper. Such a statement should list all potential interests or, if appropriate, should clearly state that there are none. The editors may decide not to publish papers when we believe the competing interests are such that they may have compromised the work, or the analyses or interpretations presented. Upon submission of a manuscript, authors may suggest excluding any specific editors or reviewers from the peer review of their article. It is the responsibility of authors to disclose in the Acknowledgments section any funding sources for the project or other relationships that are relevant. Authors are suggested to fill in the Conflicts of Interest Form and send the electronic version to the Managing Editor. 

Editors should consider whether any of the above competing interests are relevant to them and the manuscript under consideration. The editor who believes that the conflict will preclude impaired judgment should disclose to the Editor the nature of the conflict and decline to handle the paper. Reviewers should consider whether any of the above applies to them and declare any such competing interests. If they feel they cannot review a paper because of any competing interest, they should tell us. They should also declare any association with the authors of a paper. 

DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS AND DATA 

The publication of an article in the journal is subject to the understanding that authors will make all data and associated protocols available to readers on request. The Methods section should include details of how materials and information may be obtained. In cases of dispute, authors may be required to make any primary data available to the Managing Editor. 

In the case of new software, source code should ideally be made available, for example as supporting information with the rest of the paper, or by deposition at a publicly accessible resource such as sourceforge.net. For a new algorithm, a detailed description should be published in the paper. In cases where the software/algorithm is not central to the paper, we nevertheless encourage authors to make all relevant materials freely available. Software can be provided under license where necessary, but any restrictions on the availability or on the use of materials might be judged to diminish the significance of a paper, and therefore influence the decision about whether a paper should be published subject to those conditions. 

POLICY ON COMMENTING ON ARTICLES 

Readers are free to submit comments, questions, or criticism about all articles published in NCAO journal. 

The journal has the right not to post comments deemed to be discourteous, inaccurate, or libelous and the right to remove comments already posted. 

Comments may also be declined if they: 

• are irrelevant to the article 
• are lacking cogency 
• are incomprehensible 
• appear to be advertising 

Authors of all comments are requested to reveal all competing interests they might have with respect to the article. For more details see Conflict of Interest. 

APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS 

Appeals 

Authors who want may appeal the rejection of their manuscript should contact the Editor of a specific journal. Appeals should refer to the scientific content of the manuscript and its suitability for publication. The decision made by the Managing Editor is final. 

Complaints 

Authors who want to make complaints should, in first instance, contact Managing Editor of the journal. In case, the Managing Editor is not able to resolve the complaint, the Authors should contact us directly.