POLICIES
Publication Ethics
Publication Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement
Prosperity: International Journal of Community Service and Empowerment is firmly committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and academic integrity. Ethical principles governing publication in this journal are aligned with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines. All participants in the publishing process—including authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers—share responsibility in ensuring that all published work reflects transparency, honesty, and ethical research practices.
Duties of Authors
Reporting Accuracy
Authors must submit manuscripts that present a truthful, precise, and balanced account of the research conducted. Data, analyses, and findings must be reported without falsification, fabrication, or manipulation. Manuscripts must contain sufficient methodological detail to enable reproducibility. Providing misleading or intentionally inaccurate information is regarded as unethical behavior.
Originality and Plagiarism
Submitted manuscripts must be original and must not infringe upon the intellectual property of others. Authors are responsible for ensuring proper acknowledgment of all referenced works and for citing sources appropriately. Text taken directly from other works must be clearly quoted and referenced. Submitting plagiarized content in any form is strictly prohibited.
Multiple, Redundant, and Concurrent Submission
Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously or publish different versions of the same research in multiple venues. Multiple articles derived from a single research project must be transparently identified and cross-referenced to the primary publication.
Acknowledgment of Sources
Authors must explicitly acknowledge all data sources, supporting materials, and scholarly contributions that influenced the work. All funding or institutional support must be disclosed.
Authorship Criteria
Authorship must reflect meaningful intellectual contribution. Individuals who contributed substantially to the conception, methodology, execution, analysis, or interpretation should be listed as authors. Individuals providing technical or administrative assistance may be acknowledged separately. All listed authors must approve the final version prior to submission and agree to be accountable for the content.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Authors must disclose any financial, institutional, or personal relationships that may influence interpretation or presentation of the research. All sources of financial support must be clearly identified.
Corrections and Retractions
If authors become aware of errors or inaccuracies in a published article, they must immediately notify the editor and collaborate in correcting or retracting the work.
Ethical Considerations in Research
Authors must identify any risks or hazards involved in the research and must confirm compliance with relevant ethical standards, including approvals for studies involving human participants or animals.
Duties of Reviewers
Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential and may not be shared, discussed, or disclosed without authorization from the editor.
Objectivity and Constructive Evaluation
Reviewers must offer impartial, evidence-based assessments and avoid personal criticism. Feedback should be constructive, clear, and aimed at improving academic quality. Reviewers must distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions.
Source Verification
Reviewers must ensure that referenced literature has been appropriately cited and must identify any missing references to previously published work. Reviewers should inform the editor of concerns regarding originality, ethical violations, or substantial similarity to other work.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must decline involvement if a conflict of interest exists due to financial, academic, collaborative, or personal relationships. Information obtained during review must not be used for personal advantage.
Timeliness
Reviewers must complete evaluations within the agreed timeframe. If unable to provide a timely review, they must notify the editor promptly so that alternative reviewers can be appointed.
