Publishing Ethics & Malpractice Statement

1. Our Commitment

PIJCACE adheres to rigorous international standards and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. The journal applies these ethical standards to all submissions. The editors strive to serve authors and readers, to improve the journal's processes continually, to maintain the integrity of the academic record, to facilitate freedom of expression, and to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies whenever needed.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

PIJCACE maintains rigorous academic standards through a structured double-blind evaluation. All research submissions follow this workflow:

1. Initial desk screening. The Managing Editor verifies scope and formatting and carries out a similarity check.
2. Double-blind review. Two external subject specialists evaluate the manuscript independently, without knowing the author's identity; authors likewise do not know the reviewers' identities.
3. Editorial decision. Accepted, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Declined. Where revisions are requested, authors are asked to respond to every reviewer comment in the resubmitted article.
4. Copyediting & DOI registration. Typesetting, Crossref XML registration, and publication.

The typical time from submission to publication is about 15 weeks; this is a target and may vary. Editorial decisions are based on a paper's importance, originality, validity and clarity, and its relevance to the journal's scope. They are not influenced by authors' nationality, race, gender, religion, political worldview, or institutional affiliation. The editors will respect an author's request that particular individuals not review their article where the request is practicable and well reasoned.

3. Duties of Editors

Editors evaluate manuscripts fairly and on academic merit, keep submissions and reviewer identities confidential, and do not use unpublished material from a submission in their own work without the author's written consent. Editors recuse themselves from any submission where they have a conflict of interest. Submissions authored by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, or editorial board members are handled by an editor with no conflict, are sent to external reviewers, and remain anonymised throughout the review process. Editors ensure that reviewers are suitably qualified and that reviewers receive guidance on what is expected of them.

4. Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers treat manuscripts as confidential documents and do not share, discuss, or make use of their content. They decline the invitation if they feel unqualified or cannot review promptly, disclose any competing interests before agreeing to review, and conduct reviews objectively with clear, reasoned comments that authors can use to improve their work. Reviewers are encouraged to comment on originality and to alert the editors to suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, or ethical concerns. Reviewers will not be approached where a conflict of interest is detected.

5. Duties of Authors, Originality & Similarity Screening

Authors must guarantee that submitted works are original, have not been published previously, and are not under simultaneous review elsewhere. They must acknowledge all sources used and cite publications that influenced their work, and limit authorship to those who made substantial intellectual contributions.

PIJCACE treats plagiarism as serious misconduct. All submissions are screened with Turnitin on submission and again before publication, and the definitions, thresholds, and sanctions are set out in full in our Plagiarism & Originality Policy. Plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, and improper authorship attribution (gift or ghost authorship) lead to rejection and may be reported to the author's institution or funder. Use of AI tools is governed by our AI Research Policy.

6. Conflict of Interest & Funding Disclosure

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any financial, academic, or personal interests that could influence the research or its evaluation. Authors must acknowledge all sources of external research funding, and state the funder's role, if any, in the research.

7. Research Involving People, Fieldwork & Permissions

Work involving interviews, performances, fieldwork, or living participants must have obtained informed consent and follow applicable institutional or national ethical standards. Authors are responsible for securing permission to reproduce images, artwork, audio, and extended quotations. Authors are asked to sign the Consent to Publish Agreement, and where a submission includes illustrations, artwork, or other third-party material, a completed Permissions Form must accompany it. Submissions will not be published without these documents.

8. Research Data Availability & Reproducibility

In alignment with open science charters, PIJCACE encourages authors of empirical and computational studies to state where supporting data, survey instruments, or code are located. Authors may deposit datasets in trusted public repositories (such as Zenodo, OSF, or GitHub) with permanent DOIs, or state that data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

9. Complaints, Appeals & Allegations of Misconduct

Concerns about a submission, a published article, or the editorial process may be sent to ethics@poorvam.com. We acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and investigate their validity promptly, taking appropriate steps. Where misconduct is suspected, we first seek a response from those accused before taking the matter further; where warranted, we may consult independent experts and inform the relevant institution.

Authors may appeal a rejection once, in writing, giving reasoned grounds. Appeals are considered by an editor who was not involved in the original decision. Complaints concerning the Editor-in-Chief may be sent directly to the Publication Head at publication@poorvam.com; such complaints are not routed through the Editor-in-Chief. Where the Publication Head is also conflicted, an independent senior member of the editorial board will handle the matter.

10. Corrections, Retractions & Post-Publication Discussion

PIJCACE uses Crossmark so that readers can see the current status of every article. We publish corrections promptly and with due prominence when a significant inaccuracy affects interpretation, an expression of concern while an investigation is ongoing, and a retraction where work proves fraudulent, seriously flawed, or unethical. Retracted articles remain online, clearly marked, so the record stays transparent to readers, aggregators, and indexing services. Cogent criticism of published work may be submitted as a response and, where suitable, published. See our Crossmark & Updates Policy for details.

11. Author Name Change Policy

Authors who change their names due to marriage, divorce, gender transition, or religious conversion may request updates to their published papers and Crossref DOIs. In line with scholarly best practice on author name changes, these updates are made discreetly, without a public erratum or retraction notice, to protect author dignity.