1. Scope and Applicability
2. Governance and Editorial Independence
3. Publication Ethics
4. Peer Review Policy
5. Authorship and Contributors
6. Competing Interests and Funding Disclosure
7. Research Integrity and Compliance
8. Reporting Standards
9. Data, Code, and Materials
10. Preprints and Prior Dissemination
11. Originality, Similarity Screening, and Text Recycling
12. Citation Integrity
13. Image, Figure, and Multimedia Integrity
14. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Computational Tools
15. Editorial Decisions, Appeals, and Complaints
16. Corrections, Retractions, and Post-Publication Updates
17. Open Access, Copyright, and Licensing
18. Fees, Waivers, and Funding Transparency
19. Metadata, Identifiers, and Discoverability
20. Indexing and Abstracting
21. Platform, Archiving, and Preservation
22. Special Content: Supplements, Collections, Sponsored Content
23. Privacy, Confidentiality, and Data Protection
24. Accessibility and Inclusive Presentation
25. Misconduct Response and Sanctions
26. Print-on-Demand and Print Subscriptions
27. Policy Maintenance and Version Control

 

1. Scope and Applicability

1.1. Objective

Establish a single, portfolio-wide framework that safeguards research integrity, transparency, and quality across all UMT journals. This policy governs how submissions are handled, reviewed, published, corrected, and preserved, and how responsibilities are allocated among editors, reviewers, authors, and the publisher.

1.2. Applicability

Applies to all UMT journals, editors-in-chief, associate editors, editorial office staff, reviewers, authors, and readers. Journal-level variations are permitted only in a Journal-Specific Author’s Guidelines and must remain consistent with this master policy.

1.3. Policy hierarchy

1. This document: binding cross-portfolio rules for UMT Journals.
2. Journal-Specific Webpages: scoped details such as aims and scope, article types, reference style, APCs, and discipline-specific requirements.
3. Linked standards: external frameworks we implement or align with, including COPE, OASPA, Crossref, OpenCitations, and DOAJ.

1.4. Operating model across the portfolio

1. Open access: all journals publish OA; licensing in Section 17.
2. Peer review: default double-blind model; procedures in Section 4.
3. Platform: all journals run on Open Journal Systems.
4. Persistent identification and status: Crossref DOIs for all citable items and Crossmark to show current article status; metadata and discoverability in Section 19.
5. Preservation: long-term archiving via PKP PN, LOCKSS, and CLOCKSS; details in Section 21.
6. Ethics: COPE-aligned processes and Principles of Transparency; publication ethics in Section 3.

1.5. Core definitions

1. Manuscript: any item submitted for editorial consideration.
2. Article: peer-reviewed content accepted for publication.
3. Version of Record (VoR): the publisher-hosted, final, citable version assigned a DOI.
4. Preprint: author-posted manuscript prior to or during peer review; treatment in Section 10.
5. Post-publication notices: correction, retraction, and expression of concern; criteria and handling in Section 16.
6. Supplement/Collection/Special Issue: curated content with guest editorial involvement; rules in Section 22.
7. Third-party material: content not owned by the authors or publisher that may require permission; handled under Section 17.
8. Sensitive data: data that raise privacy, biosecurity, cultural heritage, or environmental risk considerations; governance in Sections 7, 9, and 23.

1.6. Compliance

Stakeholders are expected to comply with this policy and any journal-specific requirements. Noncompliance may lead to actions outlined in Section 25.

 

2. Governance and Editorial Independence

2.1. Roles and responsibilities

1. Publisher (UMT Journals). Owns this master policy, provides resources and oversight, maintains platform operations on Open Journal Systems, ensures portfolio-wide compliance, and manages memberships and infrastructure including Crossref, OpenCitations, OASPA, DORA and DOAJ.
2. Editor-in-Chief (EIC). Holds final decision authority for the journal. Sets editorial strategy, ensures fair peer review, assigns manuscripts, handles complex ethics cases in coordination with the Publisher and Section 3, and approves guest editor appointments.
3. Associate and Section Editors. Manage peer review end to end inside OJS, recommend decisions to the EIC, ensure reviewer expertise and timeliness, and flag integrity or compliance risks.
4. Editorial Office KRSS. Runs daily operations, triage, author communications, reviewer invitations, and audit-ready record keeping inside OJS. Maintains decision logs and conflict-of-interest registers for editors and reviewers.
5. Advisory or Editorial Board Members. Provide subject expertise, policy feedback, and outreach. No decision authority unless formally delegated by the EIC for a defined case.

2.2. Editorial independence and firewalls

1. Editorial decisions are made without influence from advertisers, sponsors, parent institutions, or funders.
2. Business matters, publicity, and metrics are structurally separated from editorial decision-making.
3. No target-setting or incentives tied to citation counts, acceptance rates, or revenue may influence individual decisions. See Section 12 for citation conduct and Section 23 for advertising boundaries.

2.3. Appointment, terms, and performance

1. Selection. Editors are appointed for expertise, ethical judgment, and readiness to uphold Section 3 and Section 4.
2. Term. Standard three-year term, renewable following performance review.
3. Performance. Reviewed annually on quality and timeliness of decisions, adherence to policy, fairness, and diversity of reviewer selection.
4. Removal. The Publisher may remove editors for policy breaches, persistent delays, undisclosed conflicts, or substantiated misconduct. Reasons are documented and retained.

2.4. Conflicts of interest and recusals for editors and reviewers

1. Editors and reviewers must disclose financial and non-financial interests relevant to a manuscript and recuse when appropriate.
2. Editors do not handle papers where they are authors, collaborators, close colleagues, or competitors with material conflicts.
3. The journal keeps a current conflict register. Public editor COI statements are posted on journal sites when material.
4. Author and funder disclosures are governed by Section 6 to avoid overlap.

2.5. Delegation, acting editors, and documentation

1. When recused, the EIC designates an uninvolved editor as Acting Handling Editor.
2. All assignments, reviews, decisions, and communications occur within OJS to maintain an auditable trail.
3. Decision rationales are recorded succinctly in the editorial log. Appeals and complaints are handled under Section 15.

2.6. Guest editors and special content governance

1. Guest editors are vetted for expertise and conflicts before appointment, receive a limited role within OJS, and operate under the same standards as regular editors.
2. The EIC retains veto power on reviewer selection and decisions.
3. Sponsor involvement, if any, is transparent and has no role in decisions. Operational details for supplements and collections are in Section 22.

2.7. Diversity, equity, and inclusion

1. Board composition and reviewer pools are monitored for geographic, institutional, and demographic breadth appropriate to the field.
2. Editors seek to minimize bias in reviewer assignment and decision-making and to broaden reviewer pipelines.
3. Inclusive author identity practices are followed as described in Section 24 for names and affiliations.

2.8. Training and good practice

1. New editors complete onboarding on COPE Core Practices and portfolio procedures. See COPE.
2. Regular refreshers cover research integrity, bias awareness, responsible use of AI tools, and image integrity basics. See Section 14 for AI limits and Section 13 for image standards.
3. Editors model professional communication and evidence-based decision letters.

2.9. Internal dispute resolution

1. Disagreements among editors are resolved by the EIC after consulting the editorial record and, when needed, external subject experts who are free of conflicts.
2. Portfolio-level conflicts or recurring process issues are escalated to the Publisher for policy interpretation and potential updates to Section 26.

2.10. Compliance and accountability

1. The Publisher conducts periodic audits of editorial records for adherence to this section.
2. Breaches may result in corrective training, reallocation of duties, or removal from role, aligned with Section 25 on sanctions.
3. Public-facing information for each journal includes editor names, contact details, and a clear route for ethics concerns and complaints as specified in Section 15.

 

3. Publication Ethics

3.1. Ethical framework

UMT follows the COPE Core Practices and the joint Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. UMT is a member of OASPA, participates in Crossref (including Crossmark), and supports open citations via OpenCitations. Portfolio-wide expectations for peer review, originality, citation conduct, AI use, and integrity of images, data, and materials are defined in Sections 4, 11–14.

3.2. Scope of ethical concerns

This section governs alleged breaches by any participant in the publication process. Examples include, but are not limited to:

1. Misconduct in research reporting or publication: plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate or concurrent submission, paper-mill activity, undisclosed re-use of text or figures
2. Peer review or editorial manipulation: fake reviewers, coercive citation requests, undisclosed assistance, breach of confidentiality
3. Authorship misrepresentation or undisclosed competing interests
4. Non-compliance with human, animal, or clinical requirements, or with privacy and data protection obligations
   Standards for specific topics are addressed in Section 4 (peer review), Section 6 (competing interests), Section 7 (research compliance), Section 11 (originality and overlap), Section 12 (citation integrity), Section 13 (image and multimedia integrity), Section 14 (AI), and Section 23 (privacy).

3.3. Reporting concerns

1. Each journal site provides a dedicated contact route for ethics concerns. Reports may come from readers, reviewers, editors, or institutions. Anonymous reports are considered when sufficiently evidenced.
2. We discourage using the ethics channel for routine appeals or service complaints; see Section 15.

3.4. Intake and initial assessment

1. Acknowledge receipt within five business days.
2. Secure all relevant records in Open Journal Systems and preserve evidence.
3. Conduct a preliminary assessment to determine if the issue is a misunderstanding, a matter for correction, or a potential breach that warrants a formal investigation.

3.5. Formal investigation procedure

UMT applies the logic of COPE flowcharts and documents each step.

1. Case lead and scope. Assign an uninvolved editor as case lead; define the questions to answer.
2. Notify respondents. Inform the corresponding author (and, if needed, coauthors) of the concerns and invite a response with supporting evidence by a set deadline.
3. Evidence gathering. Request original data or images, ethics approvals, and permissions; consult independent experts where needed.
4. Institutional liaison. When the matter plausibly involves research misconduct, contact the author’s institution or funder to coordinate fact-finding.
5. Assessment. Compare the evidence to policy requirements and relevant community standards.
6. Decision. Determine the remedy. See Section 16 for correction and retraction actions and Section 25 for sanctions.

3.6. Principles guiding investigations

1. Fairness. Give respondents the right to be heard and time to supply evidence.
2. Confidentiality. Share information only on a need-to-know basis and store it securely within OJS; see Section 23 for data protection.
3. Impartiality. Use editors without conflicts and independent experts when appropriate.
4. Proportionality. Match the outcome to the severity, intent, and impact on the record.
5. Timeliness. Proceed without undue delay and keep parties informed of material steps.

3.7. Collaboration with institutions and funders

We cooperate with institutional investigations and may defer final decisions pending their findings when appropriate. If institutional findings conflict with clear evidence impacting the publication record, UMT will act to correct the record independently (Section 16).

3.8. Outcomes and remedies

Possible outcomes include: no action, author clarification, editorial note, minor or major correction, expression of concern, retraction, reviewer or editor removal from roles, submission or reviewer bans, and notification to institutions or funders. Display and linkage rules for notices are in Section 16. Role-related sanctions are handled under Section 25.

3.9. Whistleblowing and protections

UMT protects good-faith whistleblowers from retaliation and keeps identities confidential when legally and practically possible. Malicious or knowingly false allegations may themselves constitute misconduct under Section 25.

3.10. Documentation and record retention

1. Maintain a complete, auditable case file in OJS: report, correspondence, evidence, decisions, and rationale.
2. Retain ethics case files for at least seven years after case closure or for the life of the article, whichever is longer.

3.11. Transparency and learning

Where feasible, UMT may publish periodic anonymized summaries of resolved ethics cases to improve community understanding. Editors receive regular training based on case trends; see Section 2.8.

4. Peer Review Policy

4.1. Principles

1. Objective, evidence-based assessment focused on methodological soundness, originality, and clarity.
2. Fairness and independence from commercial or institutional influence.
3. Confidential handling of all materials within Open Journal Systems.
4. Alignment with COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

4.2. Model and eligibility

1. Default model is double-anonymous peer review for research content.
2. Editorials, corrections, retractions, book reviews, and similar non-research items may be editor-assessed only. Such categories are defined in each Journal-Specific Appendix.
3. Preprints are allowed under Section 10. External reviews on preprints may be considered as context but never replace journal review.

4.3. Process flow inside OJS

1. Initial check by editors for scope, minimal repor
2. Reviewer selection for expertise and independence. Invitations and all correspondence occur
3. Two independent reports minimum. Statistical or methods review is added when warr < categories and appeals are handled unde
4. Audit trail retained in OJS: assignments, communications, versions, and decision rationale.

4.4. Reviewer selection and verification

1. Match expertise to manuscript methods and domain, not just topic keywords.
2. Screen for conflicts and prior collaborations using disclosures and public records where reasonable. See Section 6 for conflict rules.
3. Verify reviewer identity via institutional email, ORCID peer review record when available, and editor knowledge. Fake or proxy reviewer use is prohibited.

4.5. Blinding and confidentiality

1. Files sent to reviewers are anonymized. Authors must prepare blinded manuscripts per journal instructions.
2. Reviewers must not attempt to identify authors. If identities become apparent, notify the editor and continue only if the editor confirms no bias risk.
3. Manuscript content may not be shared, stored externally, or used for personal advantage. Delete local copies after the process concludes.

4.6. Conflicts of interest for reviewers and editors

1. Disclose financial and non-financial interests that could affect objectivity. Decline assignments when a material conflict exists.
2. Editors do not handle submissions where they are authors, close collaborators, or competitors with material conflicts. See Section 2.4.

4.7. Use of AI and external services

1. Reviewers and editors must not upload any manuscript text, data, images, or code to external AI systems or third-party tools.
2. If translation or accessibility tools are needed, reviewers must use local, non-transmitting solutions and maintain confidentiality.
3. Author-side AI use and disclosures are governed by Section 14.

4.8. Reviewer conduct and quality

1. Reports are specific, courteous, and actionable. Critique methods and interpretation, not authorship identity.
2. No coercive or irrelevant citation requests. See Section 12 for citation integrity standards.
3. Do not request privileged data or code for personal research. Data access requests must be justified and routed through editors in line with Section 9.

4.9. Co-reviewing and mentoring

1. Invited reviewers may involve a trainee only with prior editor approval and must record the co-reviewer’s name in OJS for confidentiality and recognition.
2. The invited reviewer remains accountable for the report and all confidentiality obligations.

4.10. Timelines and revisions

1. Standard review timeframes are set at journal level and communicated in invitations. Reviewers who cannot meet the deadline should decline promptly.
2. Editors limit revision cycles. Additional rounds are requested only when new evidence or major analysis changes warrant it.

4.11. Integrity checks during review

1. Editors may request raw data, image originals, or approvals to resolve concerns raised by reviewers.
2. Signals of misconduct or manipulation are escalated under Section 3. Reviewers must report concerns to editors rather than contacting authors directly.

4.12. Decision and communication

1. Editors synthesize reviewer input and their own assessment into a clear decision letter with prioritized actions.
2. Where reports conflict, editors may seek an adjudicative review or a targeted additional review focused on the disputed methods.

4.13. Sanctions and removal from the reviewer pool

Breaches of confidentiality, identity fraud, coercive citation, undisclosed conflicts, or misuse of manuscript content may result in removal from the reviewer pool, notification to institutions or funders, and other actions under Section 25.

 

5. Authorship and Contributors

5.1. Authorship criteria

UMT applies the ICMJE Recommendations. Each listed author must meet all four criteria:

1. substantial contribution to conception/design or data acquisition/analysis/interpretation;
2. drafting the work or critical revision for important intellectual content;
3. final approval of the version to be published;
4. accountability for all aspects of the work.
   Individuals who do not meet all criteria are not authors (see 5.5).

5.2. Contributors statement (CRediT)

Every article includes a public CRediT statement using the NISO CRediT Taxonomy. Roles (e.g., Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Data Curation, Writing–Original Draft, Writing–Review & Editing, Supervision, Funding Acquisition) are assigned to specific authors; multiple roles per author are allowed. Authors confirm accuracy at acceptance.

5.3. Corresponding author responsibilities

The corresponding author (one administrative contact in OJS; co-corresponding authors may be listed on the article):

1. secures approvals from all authors and the responsible institutions;
2. ensures compliance with Section 7 (ethics), Section 9 (data/code/materials), and journal formatting;
3. verifies availability of underlying data or materials per the Data Availability Statement;
4. manages proofs and post-publication queries;
5. confirms that author order and CRediT roles are agreed by all contributors.

5.4. Persistent identifiers and name accuracy

1. ORCID required for all authors at acceptance: https://orcid.org.
2. Names appear as authors wish them to be cited; provide transliteration where applicable.
3. Current affiliations and the affiliation(s) at the time the work was conducted may be listed; institutional identifiers (ROR) are added in metadata (see Section 19).

5.5. Acknowledgments and non-author contributions

List individuals and organizations that contributed without meeting authorship criteria (e.g., data collection assistance, general supervision, language editing, administrative support). Obtain written permission from acknowledged individuals.

1. Disclose professional writing or editorial assistance and the source of funding for such assistance.
2. Disclose AI assistance per Section 14; AI systems cannot be authors.

5.6. Third-party data, materials, and permissions

Authors are responsible for securing permissions for third-party content and materials and for documenting rights to share data/code per Section 9 and licensing in Section 17.

5.7. Changes to authorship

1. Before acceptance. Submit a reasoned request via OJS, signed by all listed authors (including any added/removed). Provide an updated CRediT statement.
2. After acceptance or publication. Requests undergo editorial and, where relevant, institutional review. If approved post-publication, the article is updated and an explanatory notice is issued (see Section 16).
3. Disagreements are handled under 5.8 and Section 3 (investigations) as needed.

5.8. Disputes and investigations

UMT follows the logic of COPE guidance for authorship disputes. Editors may request documentation (e.g., contribution records, correspondence) and may consult authors’ institutions. When disputes cannot be resolved by evidence, the journal may suspend processing or publish an editorial note until the institutional determination is received.

5.9. Group authorship and consortia

When a collaboration/group name is listed as author:

1. specify which individuals take responsibility for the work as authors (meeting 5.1) and list the broader consortium membership in a supplement or appendix;
2. state the guarantor(s)—one or more authors who accept overall responsibility for data integrity and the decision to submit;
3. ensure that indexing metadata identify both the group and named authors.

5.10. Equal contribution and supervisory notes

Equal contributions (e.g., “These authors contributed equally”) and supervisory notes (e.g., “Joint senior authors”) are allowed and appear in an author note on the article; they must be agreed by all authors and align with CRediT roles.

5.11. Deceased authors, name and affiliation updates

1. Deceased authors. Indicate posthumous authorship with a note; a coauthor or institutional representative confirms the final version reflects the deceased author’s contributions.
2. Name changes. Authors may request updates to names, pronouns, and email addresses on the Version of Record without public notice where privacy or safety is implicated. We update the article files, HTML/PDF where feasible, and metadata (including DOI records); Crossmark reflects the update path (see Section 16).
3. Affiliation changes. Post-publication updates to current address are permitted in the article metadata.

5.12. Prohibitions

1. Guest, gift, or ghost authorship is not permitted.
2. Submission listing organizations or AI tools as authors is not permitted (see Section 14 for AI).
3. Editors or reviewers involved in handling a manuscript may not be listed as authors on that manuscript.

5.13. Transparency statements (templates)

1. Authorship confirmation. “All listed authors meet the ICMJE authorship criteria. All authors approved the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.”
2. CRediT statement. “Author roles are provided using the CRediT taxonomy.”

6. Competing Interests and Funding Disclosure

Ensure readers can assess potential influences on research and editorial decisions. This section applies to authors, reviewers, and editors; operational recusals for editors/reviewers are handled in Sections 2 and 4.

6.1. What counts as a competing interest

Declare any relationship or circumstance that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the work.

1. Financial (past 36 months or ongoing): employment, consulting, honoraria, speaker fees, travel support, paid expert testimony, grants or in-kind support (equipment, services, materials), stock/equity/options, royalties, licensed or filed patents.
2. Non-financial: leadership or advisory roles, board/committee memberships, advocacy or lobbying, personal or family relationships, academic rivalry, strong intellectual or ideological commitments, restrictive data/material transfer agreements, or legal disputes related to the work.
3. Funder role: if a sponsor or funder influenced study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript drafting, or the decision to submit.

6.2. Who must declare and when

1. Authors: provide complete disclosures at submission, update them at revision/acceptance, and notify the journal if circumstances change post-publication.
2. Reviewers: disclose potential conflicts on invitation; decline if conflicts are material (process in Section 4).
3. Editors: maintain up-to-date disclosures and recuse where applicable (process in Section 2).

6.3. How to declare (authors)

1. Complete the journal’s disclosure fields in OJS and, when requested, the ICMJE Disclosure Form.
2. Provide a Competing Interests statement and a Funding statement for the article.
3. Identify funders with the Crossref Funder Registry and institutions with ROR where possible. Include grant numbers and program names.
4. State the funder’s role explicitly (or state “no role”).
5. Disclose APC funding sources (if applicable).

6.4. Public disclosure and metadata

1. The article includes a visible Competing Interests section and a Funding section.
2. Corresponding metadata (funder names/IDs, grant numbers, institutional RORs) are deposited with Crossref (see Section 19).
3. Reviewer and editor disclosures are used for process integrity and are not published unless material to the editorial record.

6.5. Editorial assessment and management

1. Disclosures do not imply wrongdoing; editors assess whether safeguards are sufficient (added reviewers, additional data checks, or editorial oversight).
2. If a conflict prevents impartial handling, editors reassign the manuscript (Sections 2 and 4).
3. For sponsored supplements/collections, funder roles and any third-party involvement must be transparent (Section 22).

6.6. Omissions and post-publication updates

1. Undeclared but material interests discovered after publication trigger a notice or correction per Section 16; deliberate concealment may lead to actions under Section 25.
2. Updated disclosures post-publication are linked to the Version of Record via Crossmark (Section 16).

6.7. Author templates (edit as needed)

1. No competing interests: “The authors declare no competing interests.”
2. Competing interests exist: “[Author initials] reports [nature of relationship, organization, time period]. All other authors declare no competing interests.”
3. Funding (with role): “This work was funded by [Funder legal name] (grant [number]). The funder had/no had a role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, and the decision to publish.”
4. APC disclosure (if applicable): “Article processing charges were covered by [institution/funder].”

 

7. Research Integrity and Compliance

7.1. General obligation

Authors must demonstrate that the research was conducted lawfully and ethically, under recognized community and regulatory standards, and that approvals, consents, and permits were in place before data collection. Editors may request documentary evidence (e.g., approval letters, consent forms, permits) and may contact institutions or regulators. Failure to provide evidence may lead to rejection or post-publication action (see Section 16).

7.2. Human participants (health, social, behavioral)

1. Ethics review. Obtain approval from a competent IRB/REC (or documented exemption). State board name, approval number/date, and jurisdiction in the manuscript.
2. Informed consent. Obtain prospective, written consent from participants (or legally authorized representatives). For minors, obtain guardian consent and age-appropriate assent. Consent to publish identifiable information (e.g., images, quotations, case details) must be explicit.
3. Standards. Align with the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant national regulations. Studies using secondary human data require proof that the original consent and data-sharing terms permit the new use, or that a waiver has been granted by the IRB/REC.
4. Vulnerable populations. Provide additional protections (risk minimization, independent oversight, community engagement).
5. De-identification. Remove direct identifiers from shared datasets; use controlled access where re-identification risks remain (coordinate with Section 9 and Section 23).

7.3. Clinical trials and interventional studies

1. Prospective registration. Register before first participant enrollment in a WHO-recognized registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov or the WHO ICTRP; include the registry ID in the abstract and Methods.
2. Local compliance. Where applicable, comply with national requirements (e.g., Pakistan DRAP) and device/biologic regulations in the country of conduct.
3. Protocol and reporting. Adhere to design-appropriate reporting standards (see Section 8); submit the protocol/Statistical Analysis Plan on request. A data-sharing statement is required (see Section 9).

7.4. Case reports and case series

Obtain explicit consent to publish from patients (or guardians). If a patient has died, seek consent from next of kin where local law or norms require. Masking alone may not suffice when unique clinical details could identify the individual.

7.5. Animal research (including fish and invertebrates)

1. Approvals. Obtain institutional or national animal ethics approval (or documented exemption) before procedures.
2. Welfare. Apply the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) and humane endpoints; report anesthesia, analgesia, housing, and monitoring.
3. Reporting. Follow ARRIVE for transparency (checklists may be required at submission; see Section 8).

7.6. Fieldwork, environmental, and wildlife research

1. Permits. Secure collection, access, and export/import permits in advance (e.g., park authorities, environmental agencies, institutional fieldwork approvals).
2. Endangered species and sensitive locations. Comply with conservation law and avoid publishing precise geolocation data where it could endanger species or sites (coordinate data handling with Section 9).
3. International frameworks. When applicable, comply with CITES and the Nagoya Protocol (access and benefit-sharing). Declare permit numbers and competent authorities in the manuscript.

7.7. Human biospecimens, genetics, and genomics

1. Provenance and consent. Confirm lawful acquisition and consent for the specific analyses and for data sharing/long-term storage where planned. For biobank materials, provide the biobank name and governance reference.
2. Incidental findings and return of results. Describe the management policy if study design anticipates clinically significant findings.
3. Sensitive data. Genomic and health data often require controlled access; specify repository and access conditions (Section 9).

7.8. Social media, online platforms, and public datasets

1. Platform terms and expectations. Research using data from online platforms must comply with the platform’s terms and applicable law and avoid harm to users.
2. Consent and privacy. Public availability does not eliminate privacy or context concerns. Describe steps taken to minimize risk (e.g., paraphrasing, aggregation, removal of handles) and state whether consent/IRB exemption applies.

7.9. Dual-Use Research of Concern (DURC), biosecurity, and safety

1. Authors must assess whether methods or data could materially enable harm (e.g., pathogen enhancement, weaponization, critical infrastructure attacks).
2. Disclose risk assessments and any institutional/governmental oversight. Editors may request redactions of enabling details or decline publication where risks outweigh benefits.
3. Laboratory and field safety procedures must comply with applicable biosafety, chemical safety, and radiation safety rules; state the biosafety level where relevant.

7.10. Cultural heritage, indigenous knowledge, and community engagement

1. Obtain permissions required by custodial authorities for research involving human remains, sacred objects, or culturally sensitive materials.
2. For indigenous/community knowledge, describe engagement, benefit-sharing, and consent processes; follow community data governance where applicable.

7.11. Software, hardware, and security research with potential harm

When work could enable exploitation (e.g., cybersecurity vulnerabilities), follow coordinated disclosure practices, legal requirements, and responsible timelines. Provide sufficient detail for validation without exposing systems to imminent risk (coordinate with Section 9 on code sharing).

7.12. Documentation and transparency in manuscripts

Manuscripts must include an Ethics Statement with:

1. the approving body name(s), approval number(s)/date(s), and jurisdiction(s), or a reasoned statement of exemption;
2. consent procedures (including to publish identifiable data/images where applicable);
3. registry identifiers (trials/protocols/field permits/biobank references);
4. brief description of risk mitigation for sensitive data or DURC;
5. a pointer to the Data Availability Statement (Section 9).

7.13. Retention and audit

Keep ethics approvals, consent forms, permits, and key raw data for at least seven years after publication (or longer if local law requires). Provide copies promptly upon editorial request.

7.14. Non-compliance

UMT may reject submissions, require protocol amendments, contact institutions or regulators, publish editorial notes, or issue post-publication actions (Section 16). Proven breaches may trigger sanctions under Section 25.

8. Reporting Standards

Ensure that every article is complete, auditable, and reproducible. Authors must follow study-appropriate community guidelines and submit the relevant checklist(s) at peer-review and acceptance.

8.1. Core reporting requirements (all articles)

1. Completeness. Methods must allow an informed reader to repeat the study without contacting the authors. Specify instruments, reagents, software (name, version), operating settings, and parameter choices.
2. Prespecification. Distinguish prespecified from exploratory analyses. Explain protocol deviations.
3. Statistics. Report effect sizes with uncertainty (e.g., 95% CIs); give exact p-values; state model assumptions, missing-data handling, multiplicity adjustments, and randomization/blinding where used. Name the statistical package and version.
4. Units and nomenclature. Use SI units and recognized discipline standards (e.g., IUPAC for chemicals, accepted taxonomic and gene nomenclature).
5. Resources. Identify key resources with RRIDs (antibodies, organisms, cell lines, tools): https://rrid.site.
6. Figures/tables. Provide sample sizes (n) for each analysis, define variability measures, include scale bars where relevant, and label axes/units clearly. (Technical integrity requirements are in Section 13.)
7. Checklists. Upload completed checklists as Supplementary Files and cite them in Methods.

8.2. Design-specific reporting (use the latest official guidance)

1. Randomized and non-randomized trials
   • CONSORT (use relevant extensions, e.g., cluster, non-inferiority, pragmatic)
   • Intervention description: TIDieR
   • Protocols: SPIRIT
2. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
   • PRISMA 2020 (include PRISMA flow diagram)
   • Scoping reviews: PRISMA-ScR
   • Search strategies: PRISMA-S
   • Observational meta-analyses: MOOSE
3. Observational studies
   • STROBE and relevant extensions (e.g., RECORD for routinely collected health data; STREGA for genetic association)
4. Prediction/prognostic modeling
   • TRIPOD (see TRIPOD-AI where applicable)
5. Diagnostic accuracy
   • STARD (index test, reference standard, thresholds, indeterminates)
6. Qualitative research
   • COREQ or SRQR
7. Case reports
   • CARE
8. Animal research
   • ARRIVE 2.0 (welfare approvals and ethics are governed by Section 7; here, report items per ARRIVE)
9. Implementation research
   • StaRI
10. Economic evaluations
    • CHEERS 2022
11. Sex and gender variables
    • SAGER Guidelines
12. Cell lines and biological materials
    • Authenticate and report contamination checks; reference misidentified lines via ICLAC Register. Provide RRIDs.
13. Domain-specific “minimum information” standards (omics and beyond)
    • Use appropriate standards indexed at FAIRsharing (e.g., MIAME for microarrays, MINSEQE for sequencing, MIFlowCyt for flow cytometry, MIAPE for proteomics, MSI for metabolomics). State repositories/links in Section 9’s Data Availability Statement.

8.3. Searches, flow diagrams, and transparency items

1. Provide full search strings for at least one database (systematic reviews); describe dates, limits, and deduplication.
2. Include a participant or record flow diagram where standard (e.g., PRISMA, CONSORT).
3. Clearly label protocol registrations and identifiers (trial/prospero/OSF/etc.) and cite the protocol.

8.4. Software, code, and computational reproducibility (reporting only)

1. Name all software, libraries, and versions; note key settings, seeds, and hardware relevant to results.
2. If notebooks or scripts are provided, cite them in Methods and cross-reference the Data Availability Statement (Section 9).

8.5. What to submit (minimum package)

1. Completed design-specific checklist(s) named and versioned.
2. Any required flow diagram(s).
3. A short Reporting Checklist Statement in the Methods, e.g.:
   “This study adheres to the CONSORT 2010 checklist (Supplementary File S1) and TIDieR (Supplementary File S2). The protocol (SPIRIT) was registered at [registry], ID [XXXX].”
4. If multiple guidelines apply, list each and provide separate checklists.

8.6. Editorial assessment

1. Editors verify checklist completeness and alignment with the manuscript. Missing or non-conformant items may trigger return without review.
2. Peer reviewers assess adherence to the declared guideline(s); unresolved gaps may require revision or lead to rejection.

9. Data, Code, and Materials

Make results verifiable and reusable. Authors must enable others to inspect, reproduce, or build on the work, subject to lawful and ethical limits.

9.1. Scope and definitions

1. Data: raw, processed, and derived datasets, including qualitative materials, images, and multimedia.
2. Code: analysis scripts, packages, notebooks, pipelines, trained models.
3. Materials: reagents, organisms, cell lines, plasmids, hardware designs, protocols.

9.2. Data Availability Statement (required)

Every research article must include a Data Availability Statement (DAS) that is specific, truthful, and verifiable. The DAS must identify what is shared, where, under what license, and how to access it. “Available on request” is not acceptable unless a documented exception in 9.8 applies. Link persistent identifiers directly in the DAS.

9.3. Minimum availability at acceptance

By acceptance, authors must ensure:

1. A stable, public repository record for data and code with a persistent identifier (e.g., DOI or ARK).
2. Versioning that matches the article.
3. A human-readable README describing files, variables, units, and workflow.
4. Non-proprietary or open formats when feasible (CSV, TSV, JSON, TXT, XML, TIFF, PNG; avoid locked spreadsheets).

9.4. Choosing repositories

Use community or generalist repositories that issue persistent identifiers and support citation. Examples:

1. Generalist: Zenodo, Figshare, OSF, Dryad
2. Domain: gene expression GEO, sequence reads SRA, proteomics PRIDE, structural data PDB, earth and environmental data PANGAEA, social science ICPSR
   Find more via FAIRsharing and re3data.

9.5. Licensing for reuse

1. Data: prefer open data licenses that permit broad reuse, such as CC0 or CC BY from Creative Commons.
2. Code: use an OSI-approved license, e.g., MIT, BSD, Apache-2.0, GPL; see the Open Source Initiative.
3. State the license explicitly in the repository and in the DAS. Do not apply restrictive licenses without a documented reason.

9.6. Citing data, code, and protocols

1. Cite datasets, software, and protocols in the References with creator, year, title, repository, version, and persistent identifier.
2. Follow the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles and use DataCite metadata where offered.
3. In-text, reference the persistent identifier at first mention.

9.7. Sensitive, restricted, or third-party data

Sharing may be constrained by privacy, contractual terms, national security, cultural heritage rules, or biosecurity risk. In these cases:

1. Provide a controlled access route through a data access committee or secure enclave.
2. Share de-identified derivatives or metadata sufficient for verification.
3. Document the legal or ethical basis for restriction in the DAS and point to the gatekeeper or request process.
4. Comply with Section 7 (ethics) and Section 23 (privacy and data protection).

9.8. Third-party rights and proprietary sources

If data or materials were obtained under license or MTA, authors must confirm the right to publish results and to share at least the metadata. Note any reuse restrictions and how to request access.

9.9. Embargoes

Embargoes are exceptional. If justified by funder or legal obligations, set the shortest feasible period, not exceeding 12 months from publication. State the embargo end date and what will be released. Pre-publication private links for peer review are required despite an embargo.

9.10. Code and computational reproducibility

1. Deposit the exact version of analysis code and notebooks, with a requirements file (e.g., requirements.txt, environment.yml) or lockfile.
2. Record key runtime details in the README: OS, package versions, compiler/interpreter, and any random seeds.
3. Container or workflow files (e.g., Dockerfile, Nextflow, Snakemake) are encouraged.
4. Trained models and weights should be deposited with the code when legally and ethically permissible, with a model card or equivalent description.

9.11. Materials availability

1. For biological and chemical reagents, deposit via recognized repositories when available (e.g., plasmids at Addgene) and state catalog or accession numbers.
2. For hardware and physical assemblies, provide CAD or Gerber files and a bill of materials in an open format.
3. State any MTA requirements and realistic fulfillment timelines.

9.12. Reviewer access during peer review

At submission, provide private, anonymized repository links or reviewer tokens so reviewers can access data and code without revealing author identity. Do not require account creation or manual approvals for reviewers. After acceptance, switch links to public, permanent records.

9.13. Integrity and provenance

Keep original raw data and unprocessed image files; supply on request to editors under Section 13. Maintain provenance from raw inputs to final results. Manipulations that change scientific meaning are prohibited.

9.14. Post-publication updates and versioning

If data or code are corrected or extended after publication, create a new version in the repository, keep earlier versions accessible, and update the article via Crossmark per Section 16. Explain the nature of changes in release notes.

9.15. Non-compliance

Missing or inadequate sharing plans may result in return without review, rejection, or post-publication notices. Deliberate obstruction or misrepresentation may trigger actions under Section 25.

9.16. Templates

1. Open data: “Data supporting the findings are available at [repository] [DOI] under [license]. Code is at [repository] [DOI].”
2. Controlled access: “De-identified data are available on approved request from [data access committee or repository] [link/DOI]. Access is restricted due to [reason]. Code and analysis scripts are openly available at [DOI].”
3. Third-party: “Data were obtained under license from [provider]. Aggregated results are available at [DOI]. Access to the underlying data requires permission from [contact or URL].”

 

10. Preprints and Prior Dissemination

UMT permits responsible prior dissemination, especially preprints, when it improves speed, transparency, and priority claims. Prior dissemination does not prejudice editorial decisions provided authors follow this section and maintain double-anonymous review conditions.

10.1. What counts as prior dissemination

1. Preprints posted to recognized servers (e.g., arXiv, bioRxiv, medRxiv, SocArXiv, OSF Preprints).
2. Conference outputs: abstracts, posters, short papers, and recorded talks.
3. Theses/dissertations in institutional repositories.
4. Registered protocols and trial records (e.g., ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP).
5. Datasets, code, and materials shared in repositories (see Section 9).
   These are not considered prior publication when authors comply with this section.

10.2. Preparing submissions for double-anonymous review

1. Do not include author names, affiliations, or explicit self-identifiers in the manuscript or file metadata.
2. If citing your preprint, use a neutral, blinded in-text reference (e.g., “Blinded Preprint, 2025”) and supply the full citation in a separate unblinded document for editorial use.
3. Remove self-referential statements that reveal identity (lab names, grant numbers tied uniquely to a person) from the blinded file; these can be restored after peer review (see Section 4 for process).

10.3. Citing preprints in submissions

1. Preprints may be cited when they are central to the work. Clearly mark as “preprint” in the reference list and, where available, include the server name and persistent identifier/DOI.
2. For clinical or policy-sensitive topics, rely primarily on peer-reviewed sources and contextualize preprint citations for risk and uncertainty.

10.4. Linking versions on acceptance

Upon acceptance, authors must:

1. Add the journal DOI to the preprint record and link the Version of Record (VoR) from the preprint.
2. Update statements on the preprint to indicate formal publication, including the citation to the VoR.
3. Ensure data/code links in the article and preprint point to the same persistent records (Section 9). Cross-version status and updates will be reflected via Crossmark (Section 16).

10.5. “Scoop protection”

UMT will not reject a manuscript solely because similar results are posted or published by others after the submitting author’s:

1. preprint posting date (with a time-stamped identifier), or
2. manuscript submission date to the journal (whichever is earlier).
   Editors still assess methodological soundness, originality of execution, and contribution to the field.

10.6. Conferences and extended versions

1. Journal articles derived from conference papers are eligible if they offer a substantive advance (e.g., expanded methods/analysis, additional data, deeper interpretation). Authors must disclose the conference version and provide a comparison summary at submission.
2. If the conference paper is under copyright, obtain permission to reuse overlapping text/figures or rewrite appropriately. Similarity screening is handled under Section 11.

10.7. Theses and dissertations

Work drawn from an examined thesis/dissertation in an institutional repository is welcome. At submission, disclose the repository link and clarify what is new (e.g., updated analysis, added data). Ensure any third-party content in the thesis is cleared for journal publication.

10.8. Media, press, and public communication

1. Authors may discuss their work publicly (e.g., seminars, media, blogs, social platforms) without implying acceptance by a UMT journal.
2. Do not release embargoed details (if any) that the journal communicates during production.
3. For clinical or high-risk topics, include clear statements that preprints are not peer-reviewed and avoid patient-care recommendations until the VoR is available.

10.9. Community reviews and commentary

Comments or external reviews hosted on preprint platforms (e.g., PREreview/OSF) can be uploaded as Supplementary Files for context. They do not replace journal peer review (Section 4). Editors may consider them when triangulating concerns or improvements.

10.10. Version posting by authors (AAM/VoR)

1. Before acceptance: Authors may post and update preprints freely, following 10.3.
2. After acceptance: Authors may post the Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) or the VoR consistent with the article license and any journal-level instructions (see Section 17). Always link to the DOI of the VoR once available.

10.11. Misrepresentation and corrections

Failure to disclose prior dissemination, or statements implying journal endorsement before a decision, may lead to rejection or post-publication action (Section 16) and sanctions (Section 25).

  

11. Originality, Similarity Screening, and Text Recycling

11.1. Principle and author declaration

1. Submissions must be original, not under consideration elsewhere, and free of undisclosed reuse.
2. Preprints are allowed and do not count as prior publication when handled under Section 10.
3. At submission, the corresponding author confirms exclusivity, originality, and the accuracy of all attributions and permissions.

11.2. Duplicate submission and redundant publication

1. Do not submit the same or substantially similar work to more than one journal at the same time.
2. Redundant publication includes republication of the same hypotheses, data, analyses, or conclusions with minimal incremental value, including “salami slicing” of one dataset into multiple near-duplicate papers.
3. Conference papers extended into journal articles are acceptable only with a substantive advance and full disclosure per Section 10.7.
4. Theses and dissertations may be developed into articles with disclosure and clear additions per Section 10.8.

11.3. Text recycling: what is acceptable

1. Limited reuse of methods or background text is acceptable when:
   • the wording is genuinely standard or unavoidable,
   • the original is cited, and
   • the overlap is not misleading about novelty.
2. Reuse across a series by the same authors must be minimal and cited. The new article must stand on its own contribution.

11.4. Text recycling: what is not acceptable

1. Reuse of substantial paragraphs, results, or interpretation from the authors’ prior works without citation.
2. Reuse that creates the impression of a new dataset or analysis when it is not.
3. Copy–paste from any source, including AI-generated text trained on others’ work, without attribution. See Section 14 for AI use rules.

11.5. Use of sources, quotation, and paraphrase

1. Quote sparingly and mark quotations with quotation marks or block formatting, with a full citation.
2. Paraphrase in your own words and cite the source.
3. For any third-party text, figures, or tables, ensure rights clearance and proper attribution. Technical rules for figures are in Section 13; permissions and license compatibility are in Section 17.

11.6. Similarity screening workflow

1. All submissions are checked using Turnitin.
2. A Minimum of 18% percent thresholds are used. Editors interpret reports in context and examine matched sources.
3. Typical steps:
1. Editorial triage of the report and the manuscript sections involved.
2. Author query for explanation and, where appropriate, a corrected version.
3. Decision based on extent, location, and intent of overlap: proceed, revise, reject, or escalate under Section 3.
4. Post-acceptance screening may be repeated if concerns arise during production.

11.7. Paper mills and undeclared third-party involvement

1. Submissions bearing indicators of paper-mill origin, fabricated authorship, or manipulated text/images are investigated under Section 3.
2. Professional language editing is allowed when disclosed in Acknowledgments per Section 5.5. Any ghost writing or undisclosed third-party authoring is prohibited.

11.8. Reuse of visuals, tables, datasets, and code

1. Visuals and multimedia: comply with Section 13 for integrity and with Section 17 for permissions and license compatibility.
2. Datasets and code: follow sharing and citation rules in Section 9. Re-publication of the same dataset as novel is not allowed.

11.9. Remedies and outcomes

1. Minor unattributed overlap limited to methods or background with no impact on novelty: correction during revision, with added citations and rewording.
2. Material unattributed overlap that affects interpretation or novelty: rejection, or if discovered post-publication, a correction or retraction per Section 16.
3. Duplicate submission or redundant publication: rejection and possible sanctions per Section 25; post-publication cases follow Section 16.
4. Systematic or intentional misconduct: referral to institutions or funders and portfolio-wide sanctions per Section 25.

11.10. Author checklist at submission

1. I confirm exclusive submission to a UMT journal and compliance with Section 10 on preprints.
2. I have cited and, where needed, quoted any reused text.
3. I have permissions for any third-party content or have replaced it with appropriately licensed material.
4. I have disclosed any prior articles using the same dataset and explained the distinct contribution of this manuscript.
5. I understand the journal will screen for similarity using Turnitin and may request raw materials, revisions, or explanations.

12. Citation Integrity

Ensure references are accurate, relevant, balanced, and verifiable. This section applies to authors, reviewers, and editors. It governs what to cite, how to cite, and what practices are unacceptable. (Preprint citations: Section 10. Data/software citations: Section 9.)

12.1. Standards for good practice

1. Relevance & sufficiency. Cite what directly supports your claims, methods, and context—no padding.
2. Balance. Include corroborating and conflicting evidence where it materially affects interpretation.
3. Primacy. Prefer primary, citable sources over tertiary summaries.
4. Currency. Use up-to-date scholarship where the field is active; justify reliance on legacy sources.
5. Accuracy. Quote sparingly, paraphrase faithfully, and represent results without exaggeration.
6. Retrievability. Provide DOIs where available via Crossref; ensure all items are discoverable.
7. Open references. UMT deposits open reference lists to support the open citation ecosystem (I4OC, OpenCitations).
8. Label status. Clearly label retracted/updated items and preprints; explain use of retracted items only for historical analysis (not as supporting evidence).

12.2. Prohibited practices

1. Coercive citation. Any request (by reviewers/editors/authors) to add citations for non-scholarly reasons. Report to the editor immediately; handled under Section 3. See COPE: citation manipulation.
2. Excessive self-citation. Author self-citations must be proportionate and strictly relevant.
3. Citation cartels/rings. Coordinated or reciprocal citation to inflate metrics.
4. Manufactured or “hallucinated” references. Non-existent, unretrievable, or placeholder citations.
5. Irrelevant bouquets. Long lists added to game metrics or appease stakeholders.
6. Misrepresentative citation. Citing papers as if they support claims they do not.

12.3. Author responsibilities

1. Vet every reference for accuracy (authors, title, venue, year, DOI) and relevance to the specific claim.
2. Mark the status of preprints and of retracted/corrected items; do not rely on retracted work as evidence.
3. Provide dataset/software/protocol citations per Section 9, with persistent identifiers.
4. Disclose when suggested citations originate from reviewers and justify inclusion on scholarly grounds.

12.4. Reviewer responsibilities

1. Recommend citations only when they fill specific, articulated gaps.
2. Do not suggest your own work unless directly pertinent; state this transparently in the confidential note to the editor.
3. Never condition a recommendation on adding any specific citation. Report suspected manipulation.

12.5. Editorial responsibilities

1. Screen decision letters for coercive or irrelevant citation requests; remove them and brief reviewers.
2. Sample references for accuracy, recency, balance, and DOI coverage; request fixes where needed.
3. Where patterns of manipulation emerge (authors, reviewers, editors, or external groups), escalate under Section 3 and apply outcomes in Section 25.

12.6. Quality control at submission and acceptance

1. At submission: the reference list must be machine-checkable (DOIs where available; consistent formatting per the Journal-Specific Appendix). Flag any unretrievable items.
2. Before acceptance: resolve accuracy issues; replace non-retrievable sources with citable alternatives or justify retention. Confirm that any retracted/corrected items are properly contextualized.
3. Production: references are validated and deposited with Crossref; open references are enabled (Section 19).

12.7. Post-publication corrections

Reference errors or newly discovered retraction statuses are corrected via the article’s Crossmark record (Section 16). Where conclusions materially change, editors may issue a correction or expression of concern.

12.8. Sanctions

Documented coercion, systematic padding, cartels, or fabricated references may lead to rejection, reviewer/editor removal, portfolio-wide bans, and institutional notification (Section 25).

12.9. Author & reviewer checklists

1. Authors
   1. Every reference directly supports a claim/method/context.
   2. DOIs added where available; preprints and retractions clearly labeled.
   3. Data/software/protocols cited with persistent IDs (Section 9).
   4. No irrelevant self-citations; any reviewer-suggested additions justified.
2. Reviewers
   1. Suggested additions are minimal, specific, and justified in your report.
   2. No conditioning of recommendations on adding citations.
   3. Report suspected citation manipulation privately to the editor.

13. Image, Figure, and Multimedia Integrity

Safeguard the fidelity of visual, audio, and video evidence. This section governs creation, adjustment, assembly, labeling, and submission of figures, tables, images, and multimedia accompanying scholarly articles.

13.1. First principles

1. Show what was recorded; do not create, remove, or obscure information.
2. Any transformation must be explainable and reproducible.
3. Provide underlying data for all quantitative figures per Section 9.
4. Patient/participant identifiability and consent are governed by Sections 7 and 23.

13.2. Permitted global adjustments (must apply to the whole image)

1. Uniform changes to brightness/contrast, white balance, gamma, or color levels.
2. Linear scaling of intensity across an entire channel.
3. Non-destructive cropping for clarity.
   Disclose material adjustments in the figure legend when they affect perception.

13.3. Prohibited or restricted manipulations

1. Adding, deleting, moving, or cloning features; painting over artifacts; selective smoothing/sharpening; AI “inpainting” or generative fill.
2. Non-linear intensity adjustments that alter relative relationships between regions/channels without explicit justification and legend disclosure.
3. Changing aspect ratios, axes, or color scales in ways that mislead.
4. JPEG or other heavy compression that introduces artifacts affecting interpretation.
5. Using AI-generated images to represent empirical data (see Section 14).

13.4. Composites, splicing, and re-use

1. Spliced panels must be separated by clear dividing lines and described in the legend (what was spliced; why; acquisition conditions).
2. Panels from different experiments, times, or exposures must not be presented as contemporaneous unless explicitly stated.
3. Re-use of the same image, lane, or field in multiple panels requires explicit labeling (“same sample as Figure 2b. Lable of Figure”).
4. Apply identical processing to all images compared within a composite.

13.5. Gels and blots (e.g., Westerns, PCR, Northern/Southern)

1. Provide uncropped, unprocessed source images as supplementary files, with lanes/bands and molecular weight/size markers visible.
2. State the loading controls, normalization method, and the number of biological replicates.
3. Do not remove, move, or duplicate bands; avoid contrast clipping that saturates bands.
4. Indicate any splices with visible boundaries and legend notes.

13.6. Microscopy and biomedical imaging

1. Include scale bars (length specified) rather than magnification only.
2. Declare objective, numerical aperture, acquisition system, detector, key settings (exposure, gain), and temperature/medium where relevant.
3. For multi-channel fluorescence, state dyes/fluorophores and show single channels when needed to avoid bleed-through ambiguity.
4. Pseudocolor must be defined; use perceptually consistent color maps and avoid rainbow scales that distort gradients.
5. Avoid histogram clipping; disclose any deconvolution or denoising.

13.7. Quantitative graphics and charts

1. Axes, units, and sample size (n) required for every plot.
2. Error bars must be defined (SD, SE, CI) and the number of replicates given.
3. Bar charts representing means should use a zero baseline; justify non-zero baselines for line/scatter only if essential and clearly labeled.
4. Do not omit data points without stating criteria; disclose outlier rules and any data exclusions.
5. Use consistent scales and legends across compared panels.

13.8. Multimedia (audio, video, 3D, animation)

1. Describe capture hardware, frame rate/sampling rate, codec, and any edits (e.g., trimming, speed change, denoising).
2. Do not add or remove events; edits must not alter timing or sequence in a way that misrepresents findings.
3. Provide captions that explain what is shown and how it supports claims.
4. For clinical content, ensure consent to publish and de-identify per Sections 7 and 23.

13.9. File preparation and formats (production-ready)

1. Raster images (photos, micrographs): TIFF or PNG, RGB, no layers, no compression or lossless compression; final size ≥300 dpi.
2. Line art: vector (SVG, PDF, EPS) or 1200 dpi bitmap.
3. Combination figures (line + photo): 600–900 dpi.
4. Color space: RGB; embed color profiles where possible.
5. Fonts: embed in vector files; avoid bitmap text.
6. Figure assembly: submit composite figures as single plates with labeled panels (a, b, c…).
   Journal-specific layout styles (font, label size) appear in each Journal-Specific Appendix.

13.10. Legends and transparency

Every figure/multimedia item must:

1. Explain acquisition conditions essential for interpretation (instrument, key settings);
2. Disclose non-trivial processing (e.g., background subtraction, deconvolution, normalization);
3. Identify splices, reused panels, or pseudo color;
4. Cross-reference underlying datasets or code (Section 9).

13.11. Screening and editorial verification

1. Submissions may be screened using image forensics tools for duplication, splicing, and contrast manipulation.
2. Editors and reviewers may request original, unprocessed files (e.g., RAW, original TIFFs) and acquisition logs.
3. Failure to provide originals promptly may lead to rejection or post-publication action (Sections 16, 25).
4. Suspected manipulation is investigated under Section 3.

13.12. Provenance and retention

Maintain originals (RAW or first-generation files), acquisition metadata, and processing scripts for at least seven years or longer if required by law or funder (see Sections 7 and 9).

13.13. Accessibility notes

1. Provide informative alt text or extended descriptions per Section 24.
2. Use color palettes distinguishable by common forms of color-vision deficiency; never encode critical information in color alone.

13.14. Templates (to adapt in legends)

1. Global adjustment disclosure: “Brightness/contrast adjusted uniformly across the entire image; no non-linear changes.”
2. Splice disclosure: “Panel 2c comprises two images acquired in the same experiment; junctions indicated by white lines.”
3. Pseudocolor: “Heat map uses a perceptually uniform colormap; higher values correspond to warmer hues.”
4. Blot source data: “Uncropped blots with markers are provided in Supplementary Figures S1–S3.”

 

14. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Computational Tools

14.1. Scope and definitions

1. Generative AI: systems that produce novel text, images, audio, video, code, or data (e.g., large language models, diffusion models).
2. Analytical software: statistical packages, ML libraries, simulation frameworks, and workflow systems.
3. Local vs cloud: local tools run on the author’s controlled hardware with no external transmission; cloud tools transmit content to third-party servers.

14.2. First principles

1. Human accountability: AI cannot be an author. Named authors are responsible for every claim, figure, and line of code.
2. Transparency: material AI use must be disclosed in the manuscript.
3. Reproducibility: analyses aided by software or AI must be repeatable by a knowledgeable reader.
4. Privacy and rights: do not expose confidential data to external tools; handle personal data under Section 23; respect licenses for models, datasets, and outputs.
   See guidance from COPE on AI in publishing and the WAME statement.

14.3. Permitted uses by authors (with disclosure and verification)

1. Language editing and translation: grammar, clarity, and style assistance is allowed. Authors must review and accept responsibility for all changes and verify references.
2. Code assistance: scaffolding or refactoring code is allowed if authors validate logic, remove insecure or license-incompatible snippets, and provide the final code with a license per Section 9.
3. Analytical support: model selection, parameter search, or feature engineering may use automated tools if the final statistical design is justified and reproducible, with full methods and software versions reported.
4. Conceptual illustrations: generative images may be used for schematics or conceptual diagrams only if clearly labeled as “illustration,” never as empirical evidence. Technical data graphics and any image representing measured data must follow Section 13.

14.4. Prohibited uses by authors

1. Fabricating or altering data, images, or results with generative tools.
2. Generating citations or sources that do not exist or cannot be retrieved.
3. Uploading confidential or identifiable manuscript content or participant data to external services without lawful basis and explicit approval.
4. Listing any AI system as an author.
5. Using AI to write the manuscript without human verification that ensures factual accuracy, proper attribution, and compliance with Sections 8, 9, 11–13.

14.5. Disclosure requirements in manuscripts

Include an AI and Software Use Statement in the Methods or Acknowledgments when AI materially influenced the work. The statement must specify:

1. tool or model name, provider, version/release date, and whether local or cloud use;
2. purpose of use (e.g., translation, code generation, model training assistance, image illustration);
3. human verification performed;
4. any constraints or known limitations relevant to interpretation.
   Keep prompt logs and intermediate outputs privately for audit and provide on request to editors under Section 3.

Template
“We used [tool, version, provider, local/cloud] for [purpose]. All outputs were reviewed and verified by the authors. The tool did not generate or alter empirical data, images, or statistical results.”

14.6. Methods and reporting for ML/AI research

If the research develops or evaluates ML/AI systems, report at minimum:

1. Data provenance and inclusion/exclusion criteria, preprocessing, leak-prevention, and train/validation/test splits.
2. Performance metrics appropriate to the task and class balance; uncertainty estimates; comparison to transparent baselines.
3. Generalization checks: external validation or cross-site validation when feasible.
4. Fairness and subgroup analysis when outputs may affect people; describe harm mitigation steps.
5. Model transparency: architecture or algorithm class, training objective, hyperparameters, and seeds where applicable.
6. Artifacts: release code, configuration files, and weights where lawful and ethical, with an accompanying model card or equivalent; otherwise provide a stub package and full instructions (Section 9).

14.7. Computational reproducibility

1. Deposit code, scripts, and notebooks with exact versions, dependency manifests, and random seeds.
2. Provide environment capture (e.g., Dockerfile, environment.yml, or lockfile) and note hardware relevant to performance or replication (e.g., GPU model, RAM).
3. Document all pre-trained models used, with licenses and persistent identifiers.

14.8. Use by reviewers and editors

1. Reviewers and editors must not upload manuscript text, data, images, or code to external AI systems or third-party services.
2. Limited use of local, non-transmitting utilities for spelling or format checks is acceptable, but not for drafting substantive review content.
3. If any AI assistance materially shapes a review or editorial analysis, disclose this privately to the handling editor. All judgments remain human-made.

14.9. Synthetic data and simulations

1. Synthetic data are acceptable only when the method for generation is described, validation against real data is provided, and risks of data leakage or re-identification are addressed.
2. Clearly label synthetic datasets in text and legends. Do not mix synthetic and real data without explicit identification and justification.
3. Deposit generation code and seeds per Section 9.

14.10. Third-party rights, safety, and security

1. Verify that pretrained models and datasets used permit the intended reuse. Respect attribution and share-alike obligations.
2. Remove or mask secrets and credentials from shared code; avoid models or prompts that could enable harm as described in Section 7.9.
3. For clinical or safety-critical contexts, ensure that AI outputs are decision support only and not clinical advice. Document human oversight.

14.11. Detection, audits, and enforcement

1. The journal may use forensic tools to examine text, images, code, and logs. AI-detection scores are not decisive evidence by themselves; editors will assess multiple indicators.
2. Failure to disclose material AI use, privacy breaches, or reliance on fabricated outputs may lead to rejection, correction, or retraction (Section 16) and sanctions (Section 25).

14.12. Quick-reference checklist for authors

1. Have we disclosed all material AI or software assistance.
2. Did we verify every output and citation, and remove fabricated or non-retrievable items.
3. Are code, data, and models deposited with licenses, versions, and seeds (Section 9).
4. Do figures comply with Section 13 and avoid generative images as empirical evidence.
5. Have we protected personal or confidential data under Section 23.

15. Editorial Decisions, Appeals, and Complaints

15.1. Decision taxonomy

UMT journals use the following standardized outcomes (shown to authors in Open Journal Systems):

1. Desk reject (out of scope, insufficient reporting, ethical risk, low priority, or manifest flaws).
2. Reject after review.
3. Revise — major or minor, with consolidated, ranked action points.
4. Accept.

15.2. Decision criteria and decision letters

Editors base decisions on methodological soundness, clarity, originality, relevance to the journal’s aims, and adherence to Sections 7–14. Decision letters:

1. synthesize reviewer critiques (no verbatim identities or confidential notes);
2. separate must-fix from could-improve points;
3. specify evidence required (e.g., raw data, approvals; see Sections 7, 9, 13);
4. state revision timelines (15.3) and the expected number of rounds.

15.3. Revision policy and timelines

1. Time limits. Default windows: minor 3–7 days; major 7–14 days. Extensions may be granted on request before the deadline.
2. Scope control. Revisions should address the decision letter; adding new experiments that change the study’s nature requires editor approval.
3. Rounds. Editors usually limit to two revision rounds; further rounds only when essential.

15.4. Grounds for appeal (what qualifies)

Appeals must present specific evidence of:

1. a factual or procedural error (e.g., misread analysis, missed dataset, conflict not managed per Section 6);
2. a material oversight (e.g., reviewer error demonstrably affecting the conclusion);
3. disproportionate demands (e.g., non-essential experiments beyond the paper’s claims);
4. new analysis or documentation that directly resolves an editor-identified deficiency.

Not grounds: simple disagreement with expert judgment, priority disputes with third parties, or new results coll after the decision (submit as a new manuscript).

15.5. How to appeal (authors)

Within 30 days of the decision, submit via OJS:

1. a concise cover letter (≤900 words) identifying the decision being appealed;
2. point-by-point, evidence-based responses (tables/figures may be attached as “Appeal Supplement”);
3. any updated files with tracked changes.
   Do not contact reviewers directly. Maintain the double-anonymous posture (Section 4).

15.6. Appeal handling and independence

1. The Editor-in-Chief assigns an uninvolved senior editor to adjudicate. Editors with conflicts recuse (Sections 2.4, 6).
2. The adjudicator may:
1. uphold the decision;
2. invite a revised submission (same handling editor or a new one);
3. seek an adjudicative review from a new, independent expert;
4. recommend acceptance in rare cases where misjudgment is clear.
3. One formal appeal per manuscript. The adjudicator’s decision is final for that submission.

15.7. Resubmission after rejection

If invited, authors may resubmit as a new manuscript with a cover note describing substantive changes. Prior reviews may be considered at the editor’s discretion but do not bind the outcome.

15.8. Complaints (process and service)

Use the journal’s public contact channel for:

1. Process/service issues (e.g., unresponsive handling, missed timelines, inappropriate tone).
2. COI or conduct concerns about editors/reviewers (without revealing reviewer identity if known through inference).
   Handling:
3. Editorial Office logs the complaint and acknowledges within 5 business days.
4. An uninvolved senior editor reviews communications and timelines.
   • Outcome options: apology and process correction, change of handling editor, timeline reset, or training/reminder to staff.
     Serious conduct issues are escalated under Section 25.

15.9. Complaints alleging ethical breaches

Allegations of plagiarism, fabrication, authorship fraud, peer-review manipulation, or undisclosed conflicts are ethics cases and follow Section 3 (COPE-aligned flow). Outcomes that affect the record (corrections, retractions) are issued under Section 16.

15.10. Communication rules

1. Keep all correspondence inside OJS to preserve the audit trail.
2. No direct contact between authors and reviewers.
3. Respect confidentiality and tone standards; abusive or harassing conduct may trigger actions under Section 25.

15.11. Transparency and record-keeping

1. Editors document decision rationales and key turning points in OJS.
2. Appeal packets, adjudicator notes, and outcomes are retained with the manuscript record.
3. Portfolio-level patterns (e.g., repeated citation coercion) are monitored and, where necessary, addressed via training or policy updates.

15.12. Templates (for efficiency and consistency)

Appeal cover letter (author)

1. Decision date and outcome: Reject after review / Major revision not accepted
2. Grounds for appeal: factual/procedural error, material oversight, disproportionate demand, new analysis resolving X
3. Evidence summary: 1–3 bullets with exact locations in the manuscript/supplement
4. Requested remedy: adjudicative review / reconsideration based on enclosed analysis / convert to revision

Complaint (process/service)

1. Manuscript ID and timeline summary
2. Specific concern (with dated examples)
3. Desired resolution (e.g., change of handling editor, clarification of expectations, timeline update)

16. Corrections, Retractions, and Post-Publication Updates

16.1. Purpose and principles

Keep the scholarly record accurate, transparent, and permanent. Actions are guided by COPE Retraction Guidelines and surfaced through Crossmark. Outcomes match the severity, intent, and impact on conclusions.

16.2. Notice types (taxonomy)

1. Publisher Correction (erratum): publisher or production error affecting clarity, metadata, figures, or layout.
2. Author Correction (corrigendum): author error that materially affects the record but not the central findings.
3. Addendum: substantive clarification or additional information that does not alter results.
4. Editorial Note: contextual information when clarification is needed during or after an inquiry.
5. Expression of Concern: credible doubt about integrity or compliance while an investigation proceeds.
6. Retraction: the findings are unreliable or the article is ethically or legally compromised.
7. Retraction and Replacement: in rare cases, a corrected, republished Version of Record (VoR) replaces the retracted article, with both versions linked and fully explained.
8. Withdrawal (pre-publication only): removal of an accepted manuscript prior to formal publication; posted with a brief notice if already online.

16.3. Typical triggers

1. Honest error (analysis, methods, figure assembly, reagent mix-ups).
2. Breaches of publication ethics (Sections 3, 11, 12, 13, 14).
3. Lack of required approvals or consent (Section 7).
4. Undeclared competing interests that materially affect interpretation (Section 6).
5. Legal risks (defamation, court orders) or rights issues (Section 17).
6. Name, identity, or affiliation updates that do not change conclusions (handled as VoR updates; see 16.8 and Section 5.11).

16.4. Process (how decisions are made)

1. Intake: reports from readers, editors, reviewers, institutions, or authors are logged; acknowledgement in five business days.
2. Assessment: editors review evidence; potential ethics cases follow Section 3 procedures and may involve institutions.
3. Determination: decide the appropriate outcome in 16.2.
4. Author notification: share draft notice for factual review (not for negotiation about outcome).
5. Publication: post the notice, update Crossmark, and deposit relationships in Crossref.
6. Communication: inform complainant (if known), authors, and where relevant, funders or institutions.

16.5. Display, linking, and permanence

1. Every notice receives its own DOI and is openly accessible.
2. Cross-link both ways: notice ↔ affected article.
3. Crossmark on the article shows current status, version history, and links to notices.
4. PDF/HTML marking: retracted articles remain available with clear banners and prominent watermarks; correction dates appear on the first page and in footers.
5. We do not remove content except for legal or safety imperatives; if removal is unavoidable, a tombstone page with metadata and the reason remains.

16.6. Metadata and registries

1. Deposit to Crossref with explicit relationships (e.g., “is-correction-of,” “is-retraction-of,” “updates”). See Crossref relationship guidance in our metadata practice (Section 19).
2. Update indexers and directories where applicable (e.g., DOAJ at journal level).
3. Ensure references remain open and machine-readable.

16.7. Criteria and examples

1. Correction: mislabeled axes, incorrect author affiliation, reference errors, legend mistakes, minor figure replacements with original files supplied, small numerical corrections that do not alter conclusions.
2. Addendum: newly available dataset, protocol detail, or community alert that clarifies but does not change results.
3. Expression of Concern: credible allegation with unresolved evidence after a reasonable period, or where institutional investigation is pending.
4. Retraction: fabricated or falsified data, pervasive plagiarism or redundant publication, unverifiable results after good-faith requests for originals, lack of required ethical approval/consent, undisclosed competing interests that invalidate trust in the findings, or legal determinations.
5. Retraction and Replacement: pervasive but correctable errors where a full, audited revision is produced; the original remains accessible as retracted and both records explain the linkage.

16.8. Versioning and minor updates

1. Minor VoR updates that do not affect interpretation (typos, metadata, author email, name changes, affiliation corrections) are documented via Crossmark without a separate correction notice. Name and identity updates follow Section 5.11 and are implemented discreetly to respect privacy and safety.
2. Substantive changes that affect interpretation require a formal Correction with a DOI.

16.9. Author-initiated requests

Authors should submit:

1. the exact location of the issue (figure/panel, table cell, paragraph, equation);
2. the corrected text/figure and original source files;
3. a statement on whether conclusions change;
4. confirmation that all coauthors agree.
   Editors decide the outcome in 16.2 and may seek external verification.

16.10. Third-party requests

Well-evidenced requests from readers or institutions are considered. For privacy or legal issues, the Publisher may consult counsel (Section 23 reports are assessed on merit.

16.11. Presentation of notices

1. Notices are concise, factual, and specific. They state who is issuing the notice (authors, editors, or publisher), why, what evidence was considered, and which parts of the article are affected.
2. Avoid value judgments; include dates and identifiers.
3. If an institution provided findings, cite the public record or summarize its conclusion.

16.12. Timeframes

Aim to post a correction within 4 weeks of the final decision and a retraction or expression of concern within 6 weeks, recognizing that external investigations may constrain timelines. Progress updates may appear as Editorial Notes.

16.13. Interactions with preservation systems

The status change propagates to preservation services. Archived copies in PKP PN, LOCKSS, and CLOCKSS are not deleted; public records indicate updated status (see Section 21).

16.14. Sanctions and follow-up

When misconduct is confirmed, role-related actions may follow Section 25. Repeat patterns can trigger portfolio-wide measures and editor training. Where conclusions remain valid after a correction, editors may add an Editorial Note to aid interpretation.

16.15. Templates

1. Correction (Author/Publisher)
   • “This article was corrected on [date]. The changes affect [locations]. The conclusions do / do not change. Original and corrected files are available in the supplementary materials. Crossmark records the update history.”
2. Expression of Concern
   • “Serious questions regarding [issue] were raised on [date]. An investigation is underway. This notice alerts readers to interpret the findings with caution. Crossmark will be updated when the investigation concludes.”
3. Retraction
   • “This article is retracted at the request of [authors/editors/publisher] because [reason]. We contacted the authors on [dates] and reviewed [evidence]. The reliability of [entire work / specific parts] is compromised. The article remains available with retraction watermarks for the scholarly record. A replacement article [is / is not] provided. Crossmark and Crossref metadata have been updated to reflect this status.”

17. Open Access, Copyright, and Licensing

All UMT journals are Gold Open Access. By default, articles are published under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Journal-specific exceptions (e.g., CC BY-NC, CC BY-ND) are allowed only where funder/society rules require them and must be stated in the Journal-Specific Appendix.

17.1. Who owns copyright

1. Authors retain copyright to their articles.
2. Authors grant UMT a non-exclusive, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish, distribute, preserve, translate for indexing/abstracting, and make the Version of Record (VoR) available under the chosen CC by 4.0 license.
3. Authors retain the right to reuse their article anywhere, in any format, in line with the CC license and with proper attribution to the VoR.

17.2. What the license permits (CC BY 4.0)

Anyone may share (copy and redistribute) and adapt (remix, transform, build upon) the work, for any purpose including commercial, provided they:

1. give appropriate credit;
2. link to the license;
3. indicate if changes were made; and
4. do not imply endorsement.
   Other CC options if approved for a journal confer narrower reuse rights and must be honored exactly as stated on the article.

17.3. License display and machine-readability

1. The selected CC license appears on the article webpage, PDF front page, and in the metadata.
2. License URLs are embedded in HTML/PDF and deposited with Crossref so text- and data-mining agents can identify reuse rights (metadata specifics are handled in Section 19).

17.4. Third-party material and credit lines

1. Authors must ensure that all third-party content (figures, tables, images, questionnaires, proprietary scales, maps, artwork) is either:
   1. original and created by the authors, or
   2. used under a license compatible with the article’s CC license, or
   3. used with written permission from the rightsholder.
2. Any item not released under the article’s license must carry a credit line stating the rightsholder, the specific license/permission, and any reuse restrictions. If permission cannot be obtained, replace or remove the item before acceptance.
3. For datasets, code, and materials, see Section 9 (to avoid overlap).

17.5. Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) and VoR sharing

1. Preprints: allowed per Section 10.
2. AAM: may be posted in repositories and personal/institutional sites immediately on acceptance, labeled as the accepted manuscript, with a link to the forthcoming/article DOI when available.
3. VoR: may be posted and reused according to the chosen CC license. Always cite and link the VoR DOI. (Versioning and corrections are governed by Section 16.)

17.6. Text and Data Mining (TDM)

1. TDM is allowed under the article’s CC license without additional permission.
2. Please respect reasonable technical measures (rate limits) that protect platform stability. License signals are machine-readable (Section 19).

17.7. Author warranties and permissions

By submitting, authors warrant that:

1. the work is original, lawful, and does not infringe copyright, privacy, publicity, or other rights;
2. permissions have been obtained for any third-party material (17.5) and acknowledgments/credit lines are accurate;
3. the article does not contain defamatory or otherwise unlawful content;
4. all necessary approvals/consents required under Section 7 are in place;
5. any AI-assisted text or images are disclosed per Section 14 and do not violate third-party licenses/terms of use.

17.8. Use of trademarks, logos, and endorsements

CC licenses do not grant rights to use others’ trademarks or logos. Reuse must not state or imply UMT or author endorsement. Trade names and product references are for identification only.

17.9. Commercial reuse and author self-reuse

1. Under CC BY 4.0, commercial reuse (including translations, compilations, and educational/commercial platforms) is permitted with attribution and license terms.
2. Authors may reuse any part of their article in books, theses, lectures, and derivative works, provided they cite the VoR and honor third-party credit lines.

17.10. Takedown requests and disputes

1. Rights or privacy concerns should be reported via the journal’s contact at [email protected]. UMT will review promptly and, where warranted, act under Section 16 (e.g., correction, metadata update, or exceptional removal with a tombstone record).
2. Counter-notices and resolution communications are recorded within the journal’s system.

17.11. Recommended attribution format

“© Author(s) [Year]. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit CC BY 4.0. Cite as: [full citation with DOI].”

17.12. Policy changes

If licensing options change portfolio-wide, updates appear on this policy page and propagate to journal sites. Existing articles remain under the license shown on the VoR at publication; subsequent corrections or updates do not alter the original license.

18. Fees, Waivers, and Funding Transparency

18.1. What UMT charges (and what we do not)

1. Article Processing Charge (APC): charged only on acceptance (if applicable). The amount, currency, and any taxes are stated on each journal’s site (Journal-Specific Author’s Guidelines).
2. No submission fees.
3. No page or color charges.
4. No charges for corrections, retractions, or editorial notices (Section 16).
5. No paid fast-track or preferential handling—editorial decisions are independent of ability to pay (Sections 2 and 4).

18.2. When and how payment happens

1. Invoice timing: issued after acceptance; payment is due before publication of the Version of Record.
2. Payer: authors may designate an institution or funder to pay.
3. Methods: bank transfer or card (as available per journal). The payer covers bank/transfer fees.
4. Taxes: applied where legally required; the invoice specifies tax jurisdiction and rate.
5. Receipts: issued upon settlement; institutional purchase orders are accepted where available.

18.3. Waivers and discounts (eligibility and process)

UMT supports equitable open access.

1. Automatic country waivers/discounts: based on the World Bank economy classification (link) and Research4Life eligibility (link).
   1. Low-income economies: full waiver.
   2. Lower-middle-income economies: at least 50% discount.
   3. Eligibility is determined by the corresponding author’s primary affiliation country at submission.
2. Need-based waivers: available for unfunded research regardless of country; provide a short justification and (if applicable) a funder-rejection note.
3. Institutional agreements: if UMT or a partner institution offers central funding or discounts, details appear on the journal site; eligibility is verified by affiliation/domain.
4. How to request: select the waiver option in OJS at submission or before acceptance; decisions are communicated in writing.
5. Firewall: waiver review is administratively separated from editorial decision-making (Sections 2 and 4).

18.4. Transparency to readers

1. Each article includes Funding and Competing Interests statements per Section 6.
2. APC funding sources (e.g., grant, department, institution) should be named in the article’s Funding statement.
3. Portfolio-level APC and waiver information is summarized annually on the publisher site (aggregate counts and ranges).

18.5. Refunds, cancellations, and disputes

1. If rejected: no APC is charged.
2. If withdrawn by authors after acceptance but before publication: administrative costs may apply; journals state the amount locally.
3. Duplicate payments or billing errors: fully refundable.
4. Post-publication: APCs are not refunded for later corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern (Section 16).
5. Disputes: email the journal office with the invoice number; we respond within 5 business days with a resolution path.

18.6. Third-party services and funding mandates

1. Editing, translation, or figure preparation services used by authors are strictly optional, at the author’s expense; using a service does not guarantee acceptance.
2. Authors are responsible for funder mandate compliance (e.g., license choice, data sharing, embargo rules). See Section 17 for licensing and Section 9 for data/code.
3. We capture funder metadata using the Crossref Funder Registry and institutional identifiers via ROR (Section 19).

18.7. What journals must display (Journal-Specific Author’s Guidelines)

1. The APC amount (including currency and taxes, if any), scope of what it covers, and what is not included.
2. Waiver/discount rules and a link to request forms in OJS.
3. Accepted payment methods, billing contact, and lead times from invoice to publication.
4. Any institutional agreements or society arrangements.
5. The statement that ability to pay does not affect editorial decisions.

18.8. Author checklist (before submission)

1. Have you identified a funder or budget for the APC if applicable?
2. Do you or your institution qualify for an automatic waiver/discount (World Bank/Research4Life)?
3. If unfunded, do you need a need-based waiver?
4. Is the Funding statement ready (Section 6) and consistent with license/data obligations (Sections 17 and 9)?

19. Metadata, Identifiers, and Discoverability

Standardize high-quality, machine-readable metadata so articles are citable, linkable, findable, and reusable across scholarly systems. This section covers what UMT collects, how we register it, and how we expose it to the ecosystem.

19.1. Persistent identifiers (PIDs) we use

1. Articles and all citable items: DOI via Crossref.
2. Authors: authenticated ORCID iDs collected at acceptance.
3. Affiliations: ROR identifiers in metadata when available.
4. Funders and awards: Crossref Funder Registry names and IDs; grant or award numbers as provided by authors.
5. Data, code, and materials: repository DOIs or other PIDs (e.g., ARK, Handle) linked with proper relation types (see 19.4).
6. Trials, protocols, registries: include registry identifiers such as ClinicalTrials.gov or ICTRP numbers.
   All PIDs appear in the article and are deposited in Crossref.

19.2. What we deposit for every DOI record

UMT registers and maintains rich Crossref metadata for each citable item:

1. title, subtitle, language;
2. author list with ORCID iDs; corresponding author flag;
3. affiliations with ROR IDs where possible;
4. abstract; keywords; article type; publication dates; acceptance date if available;
5. license URI and start date (Section 17);
6. funding data with Funder Registry IDs and award numbers;
7. full reference list with open references enabled;
8. relationships to datasets, code, protocols, supplements, and updates;
9. Crossmark status data for versioning and post-publication notices (Section 16).

19.3. Relationship metadata (linking the research graph)

We declare standard Crossref relation types so readers and machines can navigate the record:

1. isSupplementedBy / supplements for datasets, code, and materials;
2. isPreprintOf / hasPreprint for version linking to preprints
3. isVersionOf / hasVersion for AAM and VoR;
4. isCorrectionOf / isCorrectedBy, isRetractionOf / isRetractedBy, expression-of-concern per Section 16;
5. references / isReferencedBy for open citation flow;
6. isPartOf / hasPart for collections, special issues, and article components.
   Authors must supply repository links and identifiers to enable these relations.

19.4. Machine-readable formats and exposure

1. JATS XML: production delivers JATS 1.x article XML with full metadata, references, funding, license tags, and Crossmark assertions.
2. Schema.org JSON-LD: article pages embed JSON-LD for discovery and TDM. See schema.org/ScholarlyArticle.
3. OAI-PMH: each journal exposes OAI endpoints from Open Journal Systems.
4. Sitemaps: machine sitemaps are kept current for crawlers.
5. Open references: UMT opts in to open references to support I4OC and OpenCitations.
6. Cited-by linking: Crossref Cited-by is enabled so reference links propagate.

19.5. Author responsibilities for accurate metadata

At submission and acceptance authors must provide:

1. verified names as they wish to be cited; ORCID iDs authenticated through the journal site;
2. current affiliation and, if different, the affiliation at the time of the work; ROR IDs when known;
3. complete Funding statement with Funder Registry names and award numbers;
4. structured abstract in English; discipline keywords and, where relevant, controlled vocabularies such as MeSH;
5. full reference list with DOIs, PubMed IDs, arXiv IDs, or other identifiers where available;
6. stable PIDs and access links for datasets, code, and protocols (Section 9).
   Incomplete or inconsistent metadata may delay processing.

19.6. Quality control and validation

1. References are validated for DOI coverage and retrievability; dead or circular links are corrected or queried.
2. Author names, ORCID iDs, and affiliations are checked for collision or duplication; corresponding author emails are validated.
3. Funding statements are normalized to Funder Registry entries; award numbers are captured verbatim.
4. License tags are verified to match the article display and PDF (Section 17).
5. Automated and manual checks ensure JATS, JSON-LD, and Crossref deposits are consistent.

19.7. Corrections and lifecycle management

1. When content changes per Section 16, Crossref records are updated with the appropriate relation type and Crossmark status.
2. Metadata corrections that do not alter interpretation, such as author name updates or affiliation changes, are pushed to Crossref and reflected on the article page without a formal correction notice, with traceability in Crossmark.
3. Broken external links in the article record are repaired or redirected where possible.

19.8. Discoverability practices for authors and editors

1. Write informative titles and structured abstracts that front-load the novelty, design, and population or domain.
2. Use specific keywords rather than broad terms; align with community vocabularies where they exist.
3. Cite primary datasets and software with PIDs; this improves inbound linking and search recall.
4. Ensure figure and table captions are descriptive; add alt text and long descriptions per Section 24 to improve search and accessibility.
5. Avoid uncommon abbreviations in titles and abstracts unless they are community standards.

19.9. Timing and service levels

1. DOI registration: assigned at acceptance and deposited to Crossref no later than 5 business days after the Version of Record is published.
2. Updates: Crossmark, license, funding, and relationship updates are pushed within 5 business days of confirmation.
3. Discovery feeds: OAI-PMH and sitemaps refresh at least daily on publication days.

19.10. Journal-level implementation notes

Each journal must:

1. keep its OAI-PMH endpoint, sitemap, and robots rules active and accurate;
2. display the DOI, license, ORCID badges, and funding information on the article page and PDF front matter;
3. maintain consistent article types and section taxonomies to support reliable indexing;
4. ensure the journal masthead and policies are machine-discoverable and linked from the home page.

19.11. Minimal metadata checklist (production)

1. DOI, title, article type, language
2. full author list with ORCID iDs
3. affiliations with ROR IDs
4. abstract and keywords
5. license URI and start date
6. funding with Funder Registry IDs and award numbers
7. full references with DOIs where available, open references enabled
8. Crossmark assertions and any relation types to data, code, preprints, corrections

20. Indexing and Abstracting

UMT seeks broad, responsible discoverability. Indexers apply their own criteria and timelines. Acceptance is never guaranteed and does not influence editorial decisions. Each journal discloses its current indexing status on its site with direct links to the index records.

20.1. Status disclosure

1. Every journal maintains a public page listing active indexers and aggregators, with live links.
2. Claims such as “under evaluation” are dated and removed when no longer current.
3. Delistings or scope changes are posted with a brief reason, if known.
4. We never sell or broker “indexing services.”

20.2. Eligibility prerequisites across the portfolio

These foundation items must be in place before any application. Technical specifics sit in Section 19; preservation in Section 21.

1. Open access with a visible license on every article page and PDF.
2. Stable editorial governance and a declared peer review model.
3. Ethical alignment and COPE adherence.
4. Regular publication cadence and a completed backfile for the last two issues or last 12 months.
5. DOIs via Crossref, Crossmark enabled, open references, ORCID collection for all authors.
6. JATS XML, Schema.org JSON-LD, OAI-PMH, sitemaps, and accurate Crossref deposits.
7. Long-term preservation via PKP PN, LOCKSS, and CLOCKSS.

20.3. Target indexers and what they typically require

(Requirements are illustrative. The indexer’s rules control.)

1. DOAJ: OA license on article pages, editorial transparency, peer review description, APC disclosure, archiving, and metadata quality.
2. Scopus: Content Selection and Advisory Board evaluation; consistency, citation performance, editorial quality, and ethics signals.
3. Web of Science Core Collection: editorial rigor, citation behavior, regional and subject relevance; possible entry through ESCI with progression to SCIE, SSCI, or AHCI.
4. PubMed and PubMed Central: biomedical scope. PubMed requires inclusion pathways; PubMed Central requires JATS XML deposits, VoR quality, and compliance with NIH/ICMJE standards.
5. ERIC, INSPEC, PsycINFO, CABI, AGRICOLA, Ei Compendex, EBSCO, ProQuest, Dimensions: discipline fit, metadata quality, and ethical signals.
   Journal teams select targets based on scope and community use. Each application dossier maps our evidence to the specific indexer’s checklist.

20.4. Application workflow

1. Readiness check against 20.3 with sample articles.
2. Dossier: masthead, aims and scope, ethics links, peer review description, recent issues, indexing-ready XML, archiving proof, and citation analytics where requested.
3. Submission via the indexer’s portal with a named contact.
4. Follow-up: timely responses to indexer queries and provision of additional documents.
5. Outcome logging: decisions are recorded; successful inclusions are linked on the journal site and metadata feeds are activated.

20.5. Post-acceptance obligations

1. Keep feeds healthy: Crossref, OAI-PMH, sitemaps, and any index-specific delivery.
2. Maintain article-level license tags, funding metadata, and references as open and machine-readable.
3. Resolve metadata or linking errors within five business days of notification.
4. Notify the indexer of journal title changes, ISSN changes, platform migrations, or scope revisions.

20.6. Quality and risk controls

1. Monitor citation patterns for anomalies, including self-citation spikes and special-issue clustering.
2. Enforce Section 12 on citation integrity and Section 13 on image integrity.
3. Track retractions and corrections through Crossmark so indexers can update records (Section 16).
4. Audit special issues and guest editor programs for consistency with Section 22.
5. If an indexer flags concerns, assign a case lead, implement a corrective plan, and report back with evidence.

20.7. Responsible metrics

UMT supports responsible use of metrics. We do not promise Impact Factor acquisition or promote misleading indicators. Journal pages may display a small set of transparent indicators, for example: acceptance rate, review and production timelines, download counts, open-data rate, and citation coverage, each with clear definitions. Authors should use field-appropriate metrics and qualitative indicators of contribution.

20.8. Journal responsibilities

Each journal must:

1. Keep the indexing page current with links and dates.
2. Maintain consistent article types and section taxonomies to support reliable indexing.
3. Ensure English metadata for titles and abstracts where required by target indexers.
4. Provide a contact route for indexers to reach the editorial office.

20.9. Author guidance

Accurate titles, structured abstracts, strong keywords, and PID-cited datasets and software improve discovery. Follow Section 19 for metadata and Section 9 for data and code links.

21. Platform, Archiving, and Preservation

Guarantee stable access to the Version of Record and associated files over time. This section covers platform operations, preservation services, deposit timing, and continuity planning.

21.1. Publishing platform

All journals run on Open Journal Systems. Editorial workflow, peer review, production, and publication occur inside OJS with role-based access and auditable logs.

21.2. What is preserved

For every citable item we preserve:

1. Article PDF and, where produced, full-text HTML
2. JATS XML and all production metadata deposited per Section 19
3. Figures, tables, supplementary files, multimedia, and source data that accompany the article
4. Post-publication notices linked through Crossmark per Section 16

21.3. Preservation services

UMT Journals uses a layered strategy:

1. PKP Preservation Network for automated, distributed preservation of OJS content
2. LOCKSS nodes for additional redundancy
3. CLOCKSS for dark archiving and controlled trigger events

Journal homepages display preservation status and links to registry entries.

21.4. Deposit workflow and timing

1. On publication of the Version of Record, OJS packages article files and metadata for PKP PN.
2. Crossref DOI registration and Crossmark assertions are deposited in line with Section 19 timelines.
3. Where journals participate in additional networks, deposits occur within five business days of VoR release.

21.5. Resolvability and link durability

1. DOIs must resolve to live article pages with license, metadata, and files.
2. If domains or platforms change, we implement permanent redirects and update Crossref targets.
3. External links inside articles are checked during production; broken links are repaired or replaced with archival versions where possible.

21.6. Integrity and fixity

1. Preservation networks perform periodic fixity checks.
2. Internally, we maintain checksums for master files and verify them during backup rotation and migration.
3. Discrepancies trigger file restoration from preserved copies or internal backups with a documented audit trail.

21.7. Backups and retention

1. Nightly encrypted backups of OJS databases and uploaded files.
2. Multi-region retention with regular restore testing.
3. Minimum retention for production masters and logs is seven years, or longer where law or funder requires.

21.8. Continuity and disaster recovery

1. Platform outage classifications and response targets are defined at the publisher level.
2. Disaster scenarios use static mirrors for read access to PDFs and HTML while services are restored.
3. In a catastrophic failure, CLOCKSS trigger mechanisms or LOCKSS restoration provide public access until primary services resume.

21.9. Migrations and format sustainability

1. Before any platform migration, we export full JATS XML, PDFs, and media with intact directory structures and identifiers.
2. Post-migration validation checks DOI resolution, internal asset links, license display, Crossmark status, and machine-readable metadata.
3. Preferred preservation formats: PDF/A for paginated text, TIFF or PNG for raster images, SVG/EPS for vector, WAV/FLAC for audio, and lossless or high-bitrate MP4 for video.

21.10. Versioning and permanence

1. The Version of Record is permanent. Updates follow Section 16 and are surfaced through Crossmark.
2. Retracted items remain accessible with clear status banners and watermarks. If removal is legally required, a tombstone page remains with identifiers and reasons.

21.11. Third-party content and rights constraints

1. If third-party content cannot be preserved under the article license, we preserve descriptive metadata and a credit line, and we store redacted versions where required.
2. Datasets or code subject to controlled access are preserved via their repository with persistent identifiers and are linked from the article record.

21.12. Accessibility in preserved copies

1. Article pages and PDFs carry license, DOI, and metadata fields that preservation systems can parse.
2. We aim to retain structural tags and alt text in preserved versions. Accessibility conformance practices are in Section 24.

21.13. Journal responsibilities

Each journal must:

1. Display its preservation statement and service participation
2. Keep OJS, plugins, and preservation connectors current
3. Monitor deposit reports and resolve failures within five business days
4. Verify DOI, Crossmark, and file access after each release and after any system upgrade

21.14. Contact and incident reporting

Preservation or access issues can be reported via the journal contact route. The Editorial Office logs incidents, acknowledges within five business days, and documents resolution actions. Where public access is impaired, a notice may be posted on the journal site until normal service is restored.

 

22. Special Content: Supplements, Collections, Sponsored Content

22.1. Definitions

1. Special Issue: a curated set of articles on a defined theme, run on standard journal timelines.
2. Collection: a virtual grouping across issues or time, often updated; no separate pagination.
3. Supplement: an additional issue funded by an external party or tied to a conference or project.
   All formats follow the same standards for ethics, peer review, integrity, and licensing as regular content. See COPE for principles referenced across this policy.

22.2. Proposal and approval

1. Who may propose: EIC, board members, or vetted Guest Editors. External proposals require a short dossier: theme, aims, article types, estimated volume, timeline, and any funding source.
2. Assessment: EIC evaluates fit with journal scope, editorial capacity, conflicts, feasibility, and risk controls.
3. Approval: granted by the EIC and recorded in OJS with a handling plan. Sponsored supplements additionally require a written agreement that preserves editorial independence (22.6).

22.3. Guest Editors: role and vetting

1. Vetting: expertise, publication record, prior editorial experience, and conflict screening. Use institutional email and verifiable affiliation.
2. Appointment: limited OJS permissions; no access to conflicted manuscripts.
3. Training: onboarding on peer review, ethics, AI limits, image integrity, and citation integrity, referencing Sections 3–4, 12–14.
4. Conduct: adhere to the same standards as staff editors; conflicts and recusals align with Sections 2.4 and 6.

22.4. Call for papers and transparency

1. Public Call for Papers states scope, article types, timelines, and that all submissions undergo double-anonymous review.
2. The journal site labels the Special Issue/Supplement page with Guest Editor names and conflicts statements.
3. Authors with Guest Editor ties must declare them; Guest Editors must recuse from those manuscripts.

22.5. Peer review and decision control

1. Model: Identical to Section 4. Minimum two independent expert reports; methods/statistics review when warranted.
2. Firewalls: sponsors and Guest Editors have no acceptance authority. Final decisions rest with the EIC or a designated uninvolved editor.
3. Integrity checks: similarity screening, image forensics, and citation audits apply as standard.

22.6. Sponsorship and funding

1. Editorial independence is non-negotiable: sponsors do not select reviewers, influence decisions, or view confidential material.
2. Written agreement covers: funding scope, no editorial control, disclosure text to be printed on the Special Issue page, and handling of APCs or fee waivers per Section 18.
3. Disclosure: every sponsored item carries a Funding statement and a visible note on the issue page. Logos appear only in non-article pages and must not imply endorsement; see Section 17.9.

22.7. Conference and proceedings-linked content

1. If tied to a meeting, the CFP must state whether submissions are open beyond conference presenters.
2. Prior dissemination rules follow Section 10. Conference short papers must show a substantive advance to qualify as journal articles.
3. Program committees cannot act as peer reviewers for their own submissions; recusal rules apply.

22.8. Quality controls specific to special content

1. Manuscript caps per Guest Editor and per Special Issue to maintain review quality; set at journal level.
2. Rate limits on invited papers relative to open submissions to avoid insularity.
3. Pattern checks: monitor acceptance times, reviewer overlap, citation spikes, and topic clustering for anomalies.
4. Spot audits: editors sample raw data, image originals, and references in at least 10% of accepted papers.
5. Paper-mill safeguards: identity verification for authors and reviewers; reject proposals showing integrity red flags.

22.9. Conflicts of interest

1. Guest Editors, reviewers, and authors disclose relationships per Section 6.
2. Guest Editors cannot handle manuscripts from their institution, close collaborators, or recent coauthors; these are reassigned to uninvolved editors.
3. All conflict decisions are logged in OJS.

22.10. Content standards and formats

1. Reporting and data standards are identical to Sections 8–9.
2. Figures, multimedia, and image integrity follow Section 13.
3. AI and software use is disclosed per Section 14.
4. Article license is the journal’s default unless the Journal-Specific Appendix states an approved exception (Section 17).

22.11. Labeling, metadata, and discoverability

1. Special Issues, Collections, and Supplements are clearly labeled on article pages, PDFs, and in metadata.
2. Crossref deposits include isPartOf/hasPart relations and, where applicable, funding and sponsor fields (Section 19).
3. Crossmark is enabled for all items; updates and notices follow Section 16.

22.12. Indexing considerations

1. Follow Section 20 readiness criteria. Special content must not dilute scope or cadence.
2. If an indexer raises concerns, the EIC assigns a case lead, implements a corrective plan, and reports outcomes. Delistings and remedial actions are disclosed on the journal site.

22.13. Production and timelines

1. The CFP includes submission and decision windows plus a publication plan. Rolling publication is allowed; a closing editorial can introduce the full set when complete.
2. Delays beyond published windows require an update on the Special Issue page.

22.14. Misconduct, corrective actions, and closure

1. Suspected manipulation, undeclared sponsorship, or compromised review triggers a Section 3 investigation.
2. Outcomes may include manuscript rejection, correction, retraction, removal of Guest Editors from roles, suspension of the Special Issue, or portfolio-wide sanctions (Sections 16 and 25).
3. After closure, a short editorial may summarize scope, contributions, and open data/code rates.

22.15. Minimal documents to file in OJS

1. Approved proposal with conflicts register and funding terms.
2. CFP text and timelines.
3. Guest Editor role letter and training confirmation.
4. Handling plan showing decision authority and recusal routes.
5. Post-mortem note capturing metrics, issues, and lessons learned.

23. Privacy, Confidentiality, and Data Protection

23.1. Scope and roles

1. Controller. For editorial systems and the publisher website, UMT (Journals Office) acts as the data controller. Individual journals operate under this policy; some activities may be jointly controlled by UMT and the journal’s host faculty/unit.
2. Systems covered. Submission, peer review, and publication occur in Open Journal Systems (OJS) plus supporting services (Crossref, preservation networks, payment providers).
3. Audience. Authors, coauthors, contributors, reviewers, editors, readers, and site visitors.

23.2. What we collect and why (editorial operations only)

We collect the minimum data needed to run peer review and publish the Version of Record:

< href="https://orcid.org">https://orcid.org).
1. Professional details: affiliations (with ROR where available: https://ror.org), roles (author/reviewer/editor), keywords, expertise, funding sources (Crossref Funder Registry).
2. Manuscript metadata: titles, abstracts, references, acknowledgments, disclosures (competing interests, ethics approvals).
3. Operational data: OJS account details, audit logs, invitations, decision letters, reviewer reports, timestamps, IP(s) used for security.
4. Payments (if applicable): invoicing contact, organization, billing address; handled by a PCI-compliant processor.
   We do not sell personal data. We use it solely for editorial, production, publication, indexing, preservation, and compliance purposes.

23.3. Lawful bases for processing

Depending on the activity, we rely on:

1. Contract/performance of a service: managing submissions, peer review, publication, and APC billing.
2. Legitimate interests: safeguarding research integrity, preventing fraud/manipulation, conflict checks, reviewer matching, platform security.
3. Consent: optional newsletter sign-ups; public recognition of reviewers; certain cookies/analytics; recontact for future reviews.
4. Legal obligation: responding to court orders; accounting/tax record-keeping; data protection duties. Where consent is the basis, it can be withdrawn at any time without affecting prior lawful processing.

23.4. Confidentiality of submissions and peer review

1. Manuscripts, reviewer identities, and reports are confidential. Use is limited to editorial purposes inside OJS.
2. Our model is double-anonymous (Section 4). Reviewer names are disclosed only if a reviewer opts in (e.g., ORCID credit) and the editor agrees.
3. Co-reviewers must be pre-authorized and recorded in OJS; all co-reviewers are bound by the same confidentiality.
4. Reviewers and editors must not upload any manuscript content to external tools or AI systems (see Section 14).

23.5. Personal data inside manuscripts

1. If articles contain personal data (e.g., patient images, quotes, case details), authors must have a lawful basis and consent to publish identifiable information per Section 7.
2. Published articles form a permanent scholarly record. Deleting content post-publication is exceptional and follows Section 16 (tombstone or notice remains).
3. Use de-identification where possible and avoid publishing precise geolocation or other high-risk identifiers unless scientifically essential and consented.

23.6. Cookies, analytics, and logs

1. Essential cookies (session, authentication, CSRF) are required for OJS to function.
2. Optional analytics are limited and consent-based in jurisdictions that require it (e.g., EEA/UK). No third-party advertising trackers.
3. Server and application logs (IP, user agent, request paths) are collected for security and reliability.

23.7. International transfers

UMT hosts and processes data in jurisdictions necessary to operate a global publishing platform. For transfers from the EEA/UK, we use recognized safeguards (e.g., Standard Contractual Clauses) and vendor due diligence. The journal site lists key processors and their locations.

23.8. Data sharing with third parties (processors)

We share personal data only with processors who support editorial publishing, under contracts that require confidentiality and security:

1. Identifiers and metadata: Crossref for DOI/Crossmark registration.
2. Preservation: PKP PN, LOCKSS, CLOCKSS.
3. Indexing/discovery: OAI-PMH feeds and sitemaps (Section 19); directories such as DOAJ at journal level.
4. Email and payment services: as listed on journal sites.
   Processors may change; we maintain an up-to-date public list and will announce material changes when required.

23.9. Security measures

1. Transport & storage: TLS in transit; encryption at rest where supported; routine patching and hardening.
2. Access control: role-based permissions in OJS; least-privilege accounts; mandatory editor/reviewer confidentiality; periodic access reviews.
3. Integrity & availability: backups, fixity checks, and disaster recovery as per Section 21.
4. Organizational controls: staff training, background-aware onboarding, and written confidentiality undertakings.

23.10. Retention

1. Editorial records (submission files, reviews, decisions): retained at least seven years after final decision or publication, to support audit, ethics, and legal obligations.
2. Accounts: kept while active; deleted or anonymized after inactivity with a reasonable buffer.
3. Publication record: Version of Record and associated metadata/files are preserved permanently (Section 21).
4. Logs: security logs retained for a limited period consistent with threat modeling and legal limits.

23.11. Your rights (jurisdiction-dependent)

Subject to applicable law, you may have the right to access, rectify, erase (with limits for published records), restrict processing, object to certain processing, and port your data. You may also withdraw consent and lodge a complaint with a supervisory authority (e.g., GDPR: https://gdpr.eu).

1. Requests should be submitted via the contact route on the journal site.
2. We may verify identity and clarify scope.
3. We respond within the statutory timeframe (e.g., one month under GDPR), noting that erasure generally does not apply to the Version of Record.

23.12. Children and vulnerable persons

We do not knowingly register children as users of editorial systems. Where a stud groups, consent-to-publish and ethics safeguards are governed by Section 7. We avoid processing participant identifiers in editorial systems beyond what is necessary for review.

23.13. Automated decision-making

We do not make acceptance decisions by automated means. Tools such as similarity screening or image forensics assist editors but do not replace human judgment (Sections 11 and 13).

23.14. Incident response and breach notification

We maintain an incident response plan. If a personal data breach occurs that is likely to result in risk to individuals, we will notify the relevant authority within the required timeframe (e.g., 72 hours under GDPR) and inform affected individuals when legally required. We keep a breach register.

23.15. Legal requests and sensitive disclosures

We review law enforcement or legal demands for user data for scope and validity and disclose only what is necessary and lawful. Where permitted, we notify affected individuals. Sensitive disclosures (e.g., threats, safety risks) are escalated under internal protocols.

23.16. Changes to this section

We update this section when laws, standards, or systems change. The effective date and change history appear on the publisher site. Material changes affecting consent-based processing will be flagged to users.

 

24. Accessibility and Inclusive Presentation

24.1. Commitment and scope

UMT commits to WCAG 2.2 Level AA conformance for all journal sites and article files. We follow W3C resources for accessible web content and documents: WCAG 2.2, WAI-ARIA, and guidance on media accessibility. This section covers what authors, editors, and production must do so that content is usable by screen readers, keyboard users, and readers with varied needs.

24.2. Responsibilities

1. Authors prepare accessible manuscripts, figures, tables, equations, data, and media.
2. Editors and reviewers flag accessibility blockers during assessment.
3. Production ensures accessible HTML and tagged PDF, correct metadata, and conformance checks before publication.

24.3. Web pages and PDFs

1. Structure use proper headings in order, lists, and semantic elements. Avoid visual formatting alone.
2. Tagged PDFs export with heading structure, reading order, list and table tags, alt text, and language tag. Prefer PDF/UA capable exports.
3. Contrast ensure at least 4.5:1 for text and 3:1 for large text per WCAG 2.2.
4. Keyboard all controls and article content must be reachable and operable by keyboard. Focus indicators must be visible.
5. Links use descriptive link text, not “click here”.
6. Language set the document language and mark passages in other languages.

24.4. Figures, images, and graphics

1. Alt text provide concise, informative alternative text for every non-decorative image. Decorative images use empty alt.
2. Extended descriptions for complex figures supply an extended description in the caption or a linked file.
3. Color use do not rely on color alone to encode meaning. Add patterns, labels, or shapes.
4. Palettes choose palettes that remain legible for common color-vision deficiencies.
5. Data access provide the underlying data as CSV or similar open format per Section 9.
6. Integrity follow Section 13 for processing disclosures and prohibitions.

24.5. Tables

1. Use real table structures, not images of tables.
2. Include a single header row and, where needed, header columns with scope attributes. Avoid merged cells that break reading order.
3. Provide concise titles and notes. For very large tables, offer an accessible data file and summarize key findings in the text.

24.6. Equations, code, and math

1. Prefer MathML or LaTeX rendered with MathJax so screen readers can parse expressions. Provide a textual explanation of key equations when complex.
2. Do not embed equations as images unless unavoidable. If images are used, include accurate alt text.
3. Share executable code and notebooks per Section 9 and ensure monospaced formatting with line numbers only where helpful.

24.7. Audio, video, and animations

1. Captions provide accurate captions for video.
2. Transcripts provide transcripts for audio-only content and audio descriptions where important visual information is not conveyed by audio.
3. Player controls must be keyboard operable with visible focus.
4. Formats use widely supported formats and containers. See Section 13.9 for integrity rules and disclosure of edits.

24.8. Inclusive and respectful language

1. Use person-first or community-preferred terminology and avoid stigmatizing labels.
2. Write plainly where possible. Avoid unnecessary jargon and unexplained acronyms in abstracts and captions.
3. Respect diacritics and author name forms consistently. Name change requests follow Section 5.11.

24.9. Layout and typography

1. Use responsive HTML and avoid layout tables.
2. Ensure sufficient text size and line spacing. Do not justify body text if it creates excessive spacing rivers.
3. Avoid images of text. If logos or marks are required, include appropriate alt and do not imply endorsement (see Section 17.9).

24.10. Metadata for accessibility

1. Embed license, language, authors with ORCID, affiliations with ROR, funders, and linked PIDs in HTML, JATS XML, and PDF properties per Section 19.
2. Include alt text and long descriptions in JATS where supported so preservation systems capture them (Section 21).

24.11. Author submission requirements

Authors must:

1. supply alt text for all figures and label any decorative images;
2. provide extended descriptions for complex graphics where needed;
3. ensure tables are structural, not images, and avoid merged header cells;
4. provide captions and transcripts for media;
5. render math with MathML or MathJax-ready LaTeX;
6. keep color contrast and non-color encodings;
7. provide underlying data and code in open formats per Section 9.

24.12. Editorial and production checks

1. Automated checks with reputable tools for WCAG 2.2 AA signals, followed by manual review of keyboard navigation, headings, link text, images, and tables.
2. Verify tagged PDF reading order and table structure.
3. Confirm that alt text, captions, transcripts, and math rendering are present and correct.
4. Confirm metadata completeness and machine readability per Section 19.

24.13. Alternative formats and requests

1. Readers may request alternative formats. We will provide reasonable accommodations and aim to respond within five business days.
2. Where third-party content cannot be made accessible, provide an equivalent alternative or a detailed description and contact route.

24.14. Updates and continuous improvement

1. Accessibility issues reported by users are logged and prioritized.
2. Material fixes are pushed to the Version of Record and recorded via Crossmark per Section 16.
3. This section is reviewed periodically to reflect updates to WCAG, WAI-ARIA, MathML, and related standards.

24.15. Quick checklists

1. Authors
   1. Alt text present and accurate
   2. Complex figure descriptions provided
   3. Tables are structural and readable
   4. Captions and transcripts included
   5. Math is screen-reader friendly
   6. Colors not the only encoding
   7. Data and code available in open formats
2. Production
   1. HTML passes keyboard and basic screen reader tests
   2. PDF is tagged with correct reading order
   3. Contrast and link text verified
   4. Metadata complete and machine readable
   5. Crossmark active and license visible
3. Editors
   1. Blockers flagged during review
   2. Require fixes before acceptance where barriers exist
   3. Confirm accessibility items in the final decision checklist

 

25. Misconduct Response and Sanctions

Apply fair, proportionate consequences when conduct undermines integrity. This section covers who decides, how decisions are made, and what sanctions are available for authors, reviewers, Guest Editors, Editors, and third parties interacting with UMT journals.

25.1. Principles

1. Due process: follow the COPE-aligned procedure in Section 3; give respondents a chance to reply and supply evidence.
2. Proportionality: match actions to severity, intent, and impact.
3. Consistency: comparable cases receive comparable outcomes.
4. Documentation: maintain an auditable record in OJS.
5. Confidentiality: share only on a need-to-know basis (Section 23).
6. Transparency: where the publication record is affected, issue formal notices via Crossmark (Section 16).
7. Protection: safeguard whistleblowers acting in good faith (Section 3.9).

25.2. Misconduct categories (examples; not exhaustive)

1. Research/reporting: fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, undeclared text/figure reuse, duplicate submission/publication, paper-mill activity.
2. Peer review/editorial: fake reviewer identities, breach of confidentiality, coercive citation, undeclared conflicts, handling own or close associates’ papers, manipulating decisions.
3. Integrity of content: image splicing/duplication without disclosure, AI-generated empirical images or data, data/code unavailability after claims of openness.
4. Compliance failures: missing ethics approvals/consents, ignoring trial registration rules, unsafe DURC disclosures (Sections 7, 9, 13, 14).
5. Process abuse: identity fraud, retaliation or harassment, frivolous or malicious complaints.

25.3. Sanction ladder (portfolio-wide)

UMT applies one or more actions from the ladder below. Combinations are common.

1. Advisory note/training (first, low-impact lapses).
2. Formal written warning recorded in OJS.
3. Conditions on processing (e.g., mandatory checklist completion, data deposit, image originals).
4. Manuscript outcome: return without review, rejection, or withdrawal of acceptance.
5. Public record actions: correction, addendum, expression of concern, retraction, or retraction-and-replacement (Section 16).
6. Role restrictions: removal from reviewer/editor/Guest Editor roles; exclusion from special issues; loss of adjudication privileges.
7. Submission moratorium (authors): time-bound ban across all UMT journals (typical ranges: 6–36 months; severe cases may be longer).
8. Notification: inform institutions, employers, funders, or regulators when warranted.
9. Security measures: enhanced verification, identity checks, and screening on future submissions.

25.4. Role-specific consequences

1. Authors: Rejection; retraction or correction of published work; submission moratorium; bar from acting as reviewer or editor; notification to institution/funder; requirement to complete research-integrity training before future consideration.
2. Reviewers: Removal from reviewer pool; permanent or time-bound ban; revocation of any public recognition; notification to institution where serious (e.g., confidentiality breaches, fake identities, citation coercion).
3. Editors/Guest Editors: Immediate recusal from implicated manuscripts; removal from role or termination of Guest Editor appointment; suspension of special issue; audit of affected content; public editorial note when the public record was impacted; training and probation for lesser breaches.

25.5. Mapping typical findings to actions (guidance)

1. Minor unattributed text in Methods; no effect on claims → warning + mandatory fixes; proceed after correction.
2. Material plagiarism or redundant publication → rejection (or retraction if published) + 12–36-month moratorium; institutional notice.
3. Data/image fabrication or falsification → retraction; long or indefinite moratorium; institutional/funder notification.
4. Undeclared major COI that compromises trust → correction or retraction (context-dependent) + moratorium; editor reassignment if internal.
5. Coercive citation or review manipulation → remove reviewer/Guest Editor; ban; notify institution; audit related manuscripts.
6. Paper-mill indicators not resolved by evidence → rejection; portfolio-wide moratorium; identity verification on future submissions.
7. Breach of peer-review confidentiality or external AI uploads of confidential text → reviewer/editor removal; ban; institutional notice for severe cases.

25.6. Decision authority and escalation

1. Manuscript-level sanctions: Handling Editor proposes; EIC decides; Publisher is informed for log consistency.
2. Portfolio-level sanctions (bans, editor removals, special-issue suspension): decided by the Publisher on recommendation of the EIC, with written rationale.
3. External notifications: approved by the Publisher after legal/privacy checks (Section 23).

25.7. Communication to parties

Decisions are conveyed in concise, factual letters that state: the finding, policy basis (section numbers), evidence considered, actions taken, duration (if any), and the route for appeal. We do not disclose complainant identities unless permitted and safe (Section 3.9).

25.8. Appeals of sanctions

1. A respondent may appeal within 30 days with new evidence or a clear procedural error claim.
2. Appeals are adjudicated by an uninvolved senior editor or, for portfolio-level actions, by the Publisher (or delegate) not involved in the original decision.
3. One appeal per decision. Outcomes: uphold, modify, or rescind. Where the record is affected, updates are issued via Crossmark (Section 16).

25.9. Record-keeping and retention

1. Keep the full case file in OJS: allegation, correspondence, evidence, decision memo, and outcomes.
2. Retain for at least seven years after closure (or longer where law requires).
3. Maintain a confidential portfolio register of active bans and role restrictions accessible to EICs and the Publisher.

25.10. Portfolio coordination and prevention

1. Track patterns (e.g., repeated citation misconduct, image anomalies, paper-mill signals).
2. Use targeted training, reviewer pool curation, and special-issue audits (Section 22) to reduce recurrence.
3. Update this policy if systemic risks emerge (Section 26).

25.11. Public communications (when appropriate)

1. When misconduct affects the public record, publish the appropriate notice (Section 16).
2. When editor or Guest Editor actions materially impacted the record, an Editorial Note may describe remedial steps (audit, reassignment, policy changes) without naming third parties beyond what due process allows.

25.12. Templates (internal use; adapt case-by-case)

1. Sanction decision (private letter)
   1. Finding: e.g., material text overlap and duplicate submission
   2. Policy basis: Sections 3, 11, 25.6
   3. Evidence considered: similarity report, timeline, prior publication
   4. Action: rejection + 24-month submission moratorium across UMT journals
   5. Effective dates: from [date] to [date]
   6. Appeal route and deadline: per 25.9
2. Reviewer removal notice (private)
   1. Finding: breach of confidentiality / coercive citation
   2. Action: immediate removal from reviewer pool; 36-month ban
   3. Reminder: confidentiality obligations survive removal
3. Guest Editor termination (public-facing summary optional)
   1. Reason: conflict mismanagement compromising review independence
   2. Remedies: reassignment of manuscripts, audit of accepted papers, training update posted on policy page if needed

 

26. Print-on-Demand and Print Subscriptions

UMT journals are born-digital open access. Print is an optional service for readers and libraries who want physical copies of the Version of Record. This section governs print formats, ordering, subscriptions, quality, and how print interacts with the canonical online record.

26.1. Canonical record and version control

1. The online Version of Record with DOI is the authoritative source. See Crossmark and Section 16 for updates, corrections, and retractions.
2. Print reproduces the VoR PDF. If an article changes after printing, the online VoR and Crossmark notice control. Later print issues carry a brief “Notices and Updates” list that points readers to the DOI.

26.2. What we print

1. Issue reprints: soft-cover compilations of a completed issue or special issue.
2. Article reprints: single-article booklets for teaching or events.
3. Annual volumes: year-end bound compilations where a journal’s cadence supports it.
4. Supplements: clearly labeled; sponsorship disclosures appear per Section 22.

26.3. Format and quality

1. Interior: grayscale or full color as printed from the VoR PDF. Color figures remain in color.
2. Paper and binding: library-suitable stock and durable binding; exact specs may vary by printer and region.
3. Cover: journal masthead, ISSN, volume, issue, month and year, DOI range.
4. Accessibility: print uses the same figure labels and captions as the VoR; long descriptions and alt text remain online (Section 24).
5. Minor layout differences may occur; scientific content and pagination of the VoR PDF are preserved.

26.4. Licensing and reuse of printed copies

1. Articles remain under the online Creative Commons license shown on the article and PDF front page. See CC BY 4.0 unless a journal specifies otherwise in its Appendix.
2. Printed copies can be shared and adapted under the same license terms. Credit the VoR with DOI.
3. Third-party materials retain the credit-line restrictions shown in the article (Section 17.5).

26.5. Orders and fulfillment

1. How to order: from the journal site or UMT publisher page. An order link is displayed on each issue’s landing page.
2. Who may order: individuals and institutions. Libraries may use purchase orders.
3. Regions: global fulfillment via regional print partners when available; shipping options and lead times are shown at checkout.
4. Lead times: typical dispatch within 5 to 10 business days after payment; transit time depends on destination.
5. Tracking: provided where carrier services allow.

26.6. Subscriptions

1. Type: print-only standing orders for future issues of a given journal.
2. Term: annual, aligned to the journal’s publication year; mid-year starts receive all issues for that year shipped as released or in a consolidated shipment.
3. Coverage: regular issues are included; special issues and supplements may be included or priced separately as stated on the journal site.
4. Renewal: auto-renewal is optional and can be disabled at any time before the renewal invoice is issued.
5. Address changes: must be submitted at least 20 days before the next shipment.

26.7. Pricing, taxes, and invoices

1. Prices cover print, binding, and shipping. They do not include Article Processing Charges.
2. Currency and tax treatment depend on the fulfillment region. Taxes and duties, if applicable, are displayed at checkout or stated on the invoice.
3. Institutions can request pro forma invoices. Payment methods and bank details are provided during checkout.

26.8. Claims, returns, and damages

1. Non-delivery: claim within 60 days of shipment for domestic addresses and 90 days for international. We will replace or refund upon verification.
2. Damaged items: report within 14 days of receipt with photos; we will replace at no cost.
3. Cancellations: allowed before print starts. After printing, cancellations are handled as returns; shipping is non-refundable unless due to our error.
4. Address errors: replacement costs may apply if the address provided was inaccurate.

26.9. Print identifiers and cataloging

1. Each journal displays ISSN-L, e-ISSN, and, where registered, p-ISSN on the cover and verso.
2. Library cataloging and vendor records use the DOI range and issue metadata deposited under Section 19. MARC or KBART records are supplied where applicable.

26.10. Advertising and sponsor notices

1. UMT does not sell third-party advertising space in print.
2. Sponsor acknowledgments related to a supplement or special issue may appear on the cover verso or a front matter page, with clear wording and no editorial influence, consistent with Section 22 and Section 17.9.

26.11. Privacy and data protection

1. Order and subscription data are processed under Section 23. We use only vetted payment and logistics processors, with contracts requiring confidentiality and security.
2. We do not sell personal data. Subscribers can request access or corrections via the contact route on the journal site.

26.12. Environmental considerations

Print partners are selected for responsible sourcing and recyclable materials where feasible. Print quantities are minimized through on-demand workflows.

27. Disclaimers

1. In case of any discrepancy between print and online, the online Version of Record with DOI prevails.
2. Map and trademark usage follows the license and credit lines in Section 17.9.
3. Color reproduction may vary by print region but does not alter the scientific meaning of figures.

26.13. Contact

1. For quotations, standing orders, address changes, or claims, use the contact form on the journal site or the UMT Journals Office email listed there. We acknowledge within five business days and provide a resolution path.
2. If you want, I can also supply short web copy for each journal’s “Order print” page and a one-page library sheet with subscription terms, to keep the policy clean and the operational details easy to use.

 

27. Policy Maintenance and Version Control

27.1. Ownership and scope

1. Owner: Knowledge and Research Support Services (KRSS-UMT) formly known as UMT Journals (Publisher).
2. Coverage: this master editorial policy and all Journal-Specific Appendices.
3. Binding effect: portfolio-wide unless a journal’s Appendix expressly permits a stricter requirement that does not conflict with this policy.
4. Last Updated on December 12, 2025 by Syed Mughees Ul Hassan, Assistant Manager Publication, Admin OJS and Technical Support Editor for UMT Journals.

27.2. Triggers for change

Policy updates may be initiated by:

1. developments in community standards (e.g., updated guidance from COPE);
2. legal/regulatory changes (privacy, research compliance, accessibility);
3. platform or infrastructure changes in Open Journal Systems, Crossref (including Crossmark), preservation networks, or indexing requirements;
4. risk findings from investigations (Section 3), audits, or indexer feedback (Section 20).

27.3. Versioning scheme

1. Use MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH (e.g., 2.1.0) with an effective date.
2. MAJOR: new obligations or substantial re-architecture (e.g., a new disclosure class).
3. MINOR: added clarity or limited new steps that do not change outcomes.
4. PATCH: typographical or purely editorial fixes.
   The policy page shows the current version at top and a public change log.

27.4. Effective dates and transition rules

1. Submissions received on/after the effective date follow the new version.
2. Manuscripts already under review continue under the prior version unless the update addresses safety, legality, or integrity—then the new rule applies immediately and is flagged to authors.
3. Published content is unaffected; article-level updates use Section 16 and surface via Crossmark.

27.5. Communication and transparency

1. Prominent banner for MAJOR updates on the publisher site and journal homepages for at least 30 days.
2. Email notice to Editors-in-Chief and editorial offices; editors brief boards as needed.
3. A public change log details what changed, why, and the sections affected.

27.6. Templates, checklists, and systems

1. When policy changes, UMT updates:
   1. OJS submission forms, decision letter templates, reviewer forms;
   2. production
   3. author-facing templates (DAS, COI, CRediT, AI statement).
2. Deployed artifacts carry the same MAJOR.MINOR number as the policy they implement.

27.7. Training and onboarding

1. New editors receive the current version during onboarding (Section 2.8).
2. After MAJOR updates, UMT issues concise “what changed” briefs and optional webinars; attendance or confirmation is logged.

27.8. Emergency updates

1. For urgent integrity, legal, or safety issues, the Publisher may enact immediate changes.
2. Emergency changes are labeled in the change log and reviewed within 60 days for consolidation into a regular release.

27.9. Feedback and change requests

1. Authors, reviewers, editors, and readers can propose improvements via the contact route on the publisher site.
2. The Publisher triages requests monthly; accepted items are scheduled for a MINOR or MAJOR release.

27.10. Archiving prior versions

1. Prior policy versions remain publicly accessible (PDF/HTML) with version numbers and dates.
2. Internal records link manuscripts to the policy version in force at key milestones (submission, acceptance).

27.11. Interpretation and conflicts

1. Where interpretation is disputed, the Publisher issues a written determination referencing section numbers and the intent of the policy.
2. If any clause is held unenforceable under local law, the remainder remains in force; the clause is applied to the maximum lawful extent.