Veritas is committed to upholding the integrity of the scholarly record and adheres to the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (COPE/DOAJ/OASPA/WAME). The policies below apply equally to authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher. This statement is reviewed periodically; current version: July 2026. Queries: myveritasjournal@gmail.com.

Our double-blind peer-review process is described in full in the Peer Review Policy; our licensing terms are described in the Open Access Statement & Licensing. This page covers authorship, misconduct, conflicts of interest, editorial independence, corrections and retractions, and appeals.

1. Authorship Policy

Authorship carries intellectual, ethical, and legal responsibility. Consistent with ICMJE guidance, every listed author must have: made a substantial intellectual contribution to the conception, design, or analysis of the work; participated in drafting or critically revising the manuscript; approved the final version submitted; and be prepared to be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the work. Ghost authorship (omitting a qualifying contributor) and gift or honorary authorship (listing someone who made no qualifying contribution) are both prohibited. Authorship disputes must be resolved before submission; disputes arising after submission or publication will be handled in line with COPE guidance. By submitting, the corresponding author confirms that all co-authors have read, approved, and consented to the submission and agreed to the authorship order, that the work is not under simultaneous consideration elsewhere, and that all conflicts of interest and any use of AI tools have been disclosed. Contributors who assisted only with technical, language, or administrative support should be named in an Acknowledgements section rather than listed as authors.

2. Originality, Plagiarism & Duplicate Submission

All submissions must be original, unpublished work not under consideration elsewhere. Plagiarism in any form — presenting another’s words or ideas as one’s own, closely paraphrasing without citation, or self-plagiarism (reusing substantial portions of one’s own prior published work without disclosure) — is a serious breach of scholarly integrity. Duplicate submission (submitting the same or substantially identical manuscript to more than one outlet at the same time) and redundant publication (publishing the same findings in multiple venues without cross-referencing) are equally prohibited. All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism-detection software prior to review, in line with the threshold stated in our Submission Guidelines.

3. Artificial Intelligence & Generative Tools Policy

This policy is guided by the COPE Position Statement on Authorship and AI Tools (2023). Authors may use AI tools for limited assistive tasks such as grammar and language checking, provided the use is disclosed in the submission. The following are not permitted: manuscripts that are fully or substantially AI-generated without meaningful human intellectual contribution; using AI to fabricate or misrepresent arguments, evidence, or sources; listing an AI tool as an author, since AI cannot meet authorship criteria or be held accountable; and using AI to generate peer-review reports or submitting manuscript content to AI platforms during review. Undisclosed AI use is treated as equivalent to plagiarism and may result in rejection, retraction, and exclusion from future submission.

4. Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as strictly confidential documents; evaluate them objectively, promptly, and on scholarly merit alone; declare any conflict of interest and decline assignments where impartiality is compromised; never use material from an unpublished manuscript for personal advantage; and refrain from using AI tools to generate review reports or submitting manuscript content to AI platforms. Reviewer misconduct, including breach of confidentiality or fabricated reviews, results in exclusion from the reviewer pool.

5. Duties of Editors

Editors decide solely on scholarly merit, without regard to authors’ nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political beliefs, or institutional affiliation; maintain the confidentiality of submissions; recuse themselves from manuscripts authored by themselves, colleagues, or close collaborators, referring such submissions to an editor with no conflicting relationship; and act on credible allegations of misconduct in line with COPE guidance.

6. Conflict of Interest

All parties must declare any actual or potential conflict — financial, personal, institutional, or professional — that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their conduct. Authors declare such interests in the submission; if none exist, a statement to that effect is required. Reviewers decline an assignment where a competing interest exists. Editors recuse themselves from decisions involving submissions from colleagues or institutional associates (see Section 5).

7. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made solely on scholarly merit, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope; no external party has influence over acceptance or rejection. Manuscript acceptance is never contingent on payment — the Article Processing Charge described in our Submission Guidelines is invoiced only after a manuscript has been accepted on scholarly merit through peer review. The journal does not accept commissioned articles for which acceptance is guaranteed in advance.

8. Corrections, Retractions & Post-Publication Policy

Honest errors are corrected through a published correction notice linked to the original article: a corrigendum covers an author-originated error, an erratum covers a journal-originated error. An expression of concern may be published where credible evidence of possible misconduct exists but cannot yet be fully resolved. Articles found to involve serious misconduct or fundamentally unreliable findings are retracted: retracted articles are not removed but remain accessible, clearly marked “RETRACTED” with the date and reason, in line with COPE guidance on corrections and retractions.

9. Appeals & Complaints

Appealing an editorial decision. Authors who believe a rejection was based on a factual error, a misunderstanding of scope, or a procedural irregularity may appeal. Appeals based solely on disagreement with reviewers’ scholarly opinions will not be considered. Email myveritasjournal@gmail.com with the subject line “Appeal: [Manuscript Title]” within 30 days of the decision, including specific grounds and any supporting evidence. A decision will be communicated within 30 days and is final.

Raising an ethics concern. Anyone with a credible concern about misconduct in a submitted or published article may contact the editorial office at myveritasjournal@gmail.com with the subject “Ethics Concern: [Article Title]”, including the citation, a description of the concern, and any supporting evidence. All concerns are treated confidentially, acknowledged within 5 working days, with a substantive response within 30 days, following COPE guidance throughout.

Complaints about editorial conduct. Given the journal’s current single-editor structure, complaints about the Editor-in-Chief’s own conduct are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief in their capacity as publisher and answered within 30 days. Complainants who feel this is inadequate are encouraged to put the complaint in writing and retain the correspondence. As the Editorial Board expands to include independent international members, the journal intends to designate one such member as an independent point of contact for complaints against the Editor-in-Chief.