Journal of Digital Measurement and Evaluation Research (DMER) is a peer-reviewed journal that aims to ensure high standards of publication ethics. All parties involved in the publication process (editors, authors, referees, publishers, and readers) are obliged to accept standards of ethical conduct.

DMER is subject to the principles of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors). It complies strictly with COPE rules on good broadcasting practices and follows the procedures outlined in the COPE flowcharts when dealing with suspicious misconduct.

EDITOR AND EDITORIAL BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES

• Editors fully authorize for the publication and schedule of all editorial content of the journal.
• these decisions, the journal's publication policies, copyright and plagiarism, and legal requirements take into account.
• It provides guest editors with guidance on everything that is expected of authors and reviewers; also explains peer review processes.
• The editor guides new members of the editorial board on all issues expected of them and ensures that current members are kept up to date on new policies and developments.
• The editor evaluates the articles solely on the basis of their academic and intellectual rights, regardless of author's race, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religious belief, citizenship, political orientation or social class.
• The editors ensure that all submitted articles are evaluated for publication and reviewed by at least two referees who are experts in this field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts to be published, its approval, its importance for researchers and readers, comments by reviewers, and other legal requirements. The Chief Editor may consult with other editors or referees when making this decision.
• Editors obliged to protect the identity confidentiality of both the authors and the referees.
• Editors ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected and that reviewers' database is developed, maintained, and updated based on the reviewer's performance.
• The editor and editorial board members will not use the unpublished information described in a submitted text for their own research purposes without the express written permission of the authors.
• The editor will not consider articles that contain conflicts of interest arising from authors who are in competition or cooperation, companies or institutions, or other relationships/affiliations with any of them. Instead, he will ask another editorial board member to evaluate the article.
• Editors take sensitive measures when ethical concerns arise about a submitted article or a published article. Even if the publication discovers years later, each of the reported unethical publishing behaviors will be considered. Editors follow COPE flowcharts for suspected misconduct. Upon investigation, if ethical concerns based on sound grounds, a correction, withdrawal, explanation, apology statement or any other relevant note shall publish immediately..

GUEST EDITORS RESPONSIBILITIES

• The guest editor provides a description of the thematic topic and the thematic role of each article.
• It provides guides to authors on the overall design and boundaries of the thematic topic.
• The Editor cooperates with the Editorial Board to select the appropriate reviewers for all articles.
• The editor ensures that the issue can publish on scheduled dates in collaboration with the editorial board for the selection of draft articles, referee process, selection of final articles and drafting of pre-publication issue.
• Write the introduction text of the thematic issue.

AUTHORS RESPONSIBILITIES

• Authors of reports 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. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
• Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
• 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. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.
• Authors should not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one publication at a time. This constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
• Authors must ensure that they have written original works and that any work or words of others authors, contributors or sources have been appropriately credited and referenced.
• Authors submitting their works to DMER for publication as original articles confirm that the submitted works represent their own contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works without clearly citing the source. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
• Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
• Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
• Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
• Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).
• When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.

REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES

• Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour.
• Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
• Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
• Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
• Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.
• Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper.
• Referee reports may be shared with interested stakeholders and even readers of the journal. Therefore, the referees should produce their reports in an objective, qualified, supported by scientific arguments and do not bear any trace of the referee's personal information.
• Despite the application of the blind arbitration system; eviewers evaluate manuscripts based on content without regard to the authors’ race, age, gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, religious belief, citizenship, political orientation or social class.
• Reviewers should not consider 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 papers.

PUBLISHERS RESPONSIBILITIES

• The publisher provides practical support for DMER's editor and editorial board to follow COPE's COPE Code of Conduct.
• It provides all the legal and enforcing conditions necessary for the autonomy of the editorial decisions.
• It protects the intellectual property and copyrights inherited by the publication of the articles and performs legal follow-up of possible infringements.
• Performs corporate identity, promotion and administrative management.
• Ensures the maintenance of good practices in accordance with high publishing standards.
• 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, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work.  The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
• The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our own digital archive.

READERS RESPONSIBILITIES

• Journal readers should refrain from violating the copyright of scientific articles.
• Not share or disseminate full-text files of articles on social media or any other online platform without the permission of the publisher.
• It should report with email via dmer-editor@penpublishing.net any publications suspected of publication ethics, suspected of plagiarism or typo