•  
  •  
 

Policies and Ethics

Content

AUIQ Humanities and Social Sciences (AHSS) is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing. The journal adheres to the guidelines and principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows best practices to ensure integrity, transparency, and accountability throughout the publication process. Submission of a manuscript implies that all authors have reviewed and approved its content, in addition to agreeing to comply with the journal’s policies and ethical standards.

Access, Copyright, and Licensing

Who Can Submit?

Anyone may submit an original manuscript to AUIQ Humanities and Social Sciences (AHSS), provided they hold the necessary rights or have obtained permission from the copyright owner(s). Submissions must be original, not previously published, and not under consideration elsewhere. By submitting a manuscript, authors acknowledge that, upon acceptance, copyright will be transferred to Al-Ayen Iraqi University.

Open Access Policy

All articles published in AHSS are freely accessible online to read and download immediately upon publication. The journal is committed to open access, with the aim of maximizing the visibility and impact of scholarly research.

To support sustainable open access, an article processing charge (APC) applies to each accepted manuscript. For detailed information about the APC, please refer to the Author Guidelines page.

Copyright Transfer

Upon acceptance, authors transfer copyright of their articles to Al-Ayen Iraqi University. The university holds the copyright and ensures that all published content is made available under an open access license.

License Terms

All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). This license allows users to read, download, copy, distribute, and share the work for non-commercial purposes, provided that proper attribution is given to the original authors. Modifications, adaptations, or derivative works are not permitted.

{ top }

Advertisements

The journal does not accept advertisements from third parties.

{ top }

Affiliations

All authors are required to accurately list their institutional affiliations, which should reflect the organization(s) where the research was approved, supported, or conducted. For original research articles, affiliations must clearly indicate the specific institutions associated with the study. For other types of submissions, such as review articles or commentaries, affiliations should correspond to the authors' institutions at the time of submission.

Misrepresentation or falsification of affiliations is considered a violation of the journal’s ethical standards and may constitute misconduct. In such cases, the journal reserves the right to contact the relevant institutions to conduct an investigation and may take appropriate actions, including a retraction or correction of the article.

{ top }

Appeals and complaints

The journal adheres to the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regarding appeals of editorial decisions and complaints related to the peer review process. We welcome authors to submit an appeal if they believe there has been an oversight or undue bias in the handling of their manuscript.

When submitting an appeal, authors should provide clear evidence or new information that addresses or clarifies the concerns raised during the review process. Given that most articles are based on scientific data, evidence-based arguments are essential to facilitate reconsideration. For opinion pieces or commentary articles, appeals are less likely to result in a change of decision, as editorial judgment primarily considers readability, relevance, and the supporting evidence provided.

While we do not expect frequent appeals, and decisions made by editors are often final, authors who believe there are substantial grounds for review should follow the procedures outlined below. It is important to understand that rejection decisions may be based on factors such as priority, relevance, or quality, which are often outside the scope of appeals. Still, we remain committed to fairness and transparency in our editorial processes.

To submit an appeal, authors are encouraged to contact the editorial office with a detailed explanation and supporting evidence, following the instructions provided on our website.

{ top }

Acknowledgment

Individuals who have made significant contributions to the development of a manuscript but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be duly acknowledged in an acknowledgments section. This includes those who provided support in areas such as funding, study design, data collection, analysis, technical assistance, or intellectual input that substantially influenced the work.

Authors are responsible for obtaining explicit permission from those they intend to acknowledge. This permission should include sharing the final version of the manuscript so the individual can review and confirm the context of their acknowledgment. For contributions made by groups or organizations that do not qualify for authorship but have played a key role, they may be recognized under specific headings such as “Research Team,” “Collaborators,” or similar, with a clear description of their respective roles.

{ top }

Authorship

Defining Authorship

Authorship should be reserved for individuals who have contributed substantially to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the research or scholarly work reported. All persons meeting these criteria must be listed as co-authors. Those who have contributed to specific aspects of the project but do not fulfill all authorship requirements should be recognized through acknowledgments or listed as collaborators.

Responsibility of the Corresponding Author

The corresponding author holds the duty to confirm that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript and agree with its submission. The list of authors must accurately represent each individual’s contributions and must not include anyone who does not meet the authorship criteria. Falsification or misrepresentation of authorship—such as including non-contributors or omitting qualified individuals—is a breach of ethical standards and can lead to correction, retraction, or other corrective actions in line with the journal’s policies.

Authorship Criteria

Only those individuals who have made significant contributions to the study should be named as authors, based on the following criteria aligned with international standards:

  • Involvement in the conception or design of the study, or in the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.
  • Participation in drafting the manuscript or providing critical revisions that enhance the intellectual content.

In addition, all authors are required to:

  • Approve the final version of the manuscript prior to submission.
  • Accept responsibility for all aspects of the work, ensuring its accuracy, integrity, and adherence to ethical standards.

All listed authors must meet these criteria. Those who do not should be acknowledged but not included as authors. The corresponding author is accountable for verifying that all authors meet the authorship standards and that the author list accurately reflects individual contributions.

Contribution Statement

For manuscripts with multiple authors, the journal mandates a brief contribution statement detailing each author’s role. This should include key activities such as study design, data collection, data analysis, drafting, or critical revision of the manuscript. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all listed authors have approved and that the contribution statement accurately captures their respective roles.

{ top }

Citations

All references included in the manuscript must be documented accurately and in accordance with the journal’s specified citation style. Authors are responsible for ensuring that each citation is directly relevant, verifiable, and substantively supports the content of the work. References should primarily include sources that have significantly influenced the development or understanding of the research or discussion presented.

Priority should be given to citing credible, peer-reviewed sources, such as academic journal articles, to ensure the references' credibility and relevance. Self-citations should be used sparingly and only when they are directly pertinent to the manuscript's content.

Authors are accountable for verifying the accuracy of all citations and are advised to avoid practices such as citation manipulation or excessive self-citation. Non-compliance with proper citation standards may result in rejection, correction, or retraction of the article, in accordance with the journal’s ethical policies.

For additional information on ethical citation practices and to prevent citation manipulation, authors are encouraged to review guidelines provided by COPE discussion on citation manipulation.

{ top }

Conflicts of Interest

Declaration of Interests

Authors must fully disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing the objectivity or impartiality of their research and its reporting. This disclosure should be made at the point of submission and include all relevant financial and non-financial relationships. Transparency in declaring conflicts is essential to uphold the integrity and credibility of the scholarly record, and any failure to disclose relevant interests may jeopardize the publication process or lead to retraction.

Scope of Disclosures

Disclosures should encompass all types of relationships and interests that might reasonably be seen to affect the research or its interpretation. Financial interests include, but are not limited to, direct employment, consultancy fees, research grants, honoraria, royalties, stock ownership, or patent rights associated with the study or its topics. Non-financial interests, such as personal relationships, advisory or board memberships, ideological or advocacy commitments, or involvement in legal disputes relevant to the research, must also be disclosed if they could be viewed as potentially influencing the work or its presentation.

Examples of Conflicts

Typical conflicts to disclose include receiving research funding from commercial entities or organizations with a vested interest, owning patents or copyrights related to the research, holding a position of employment with a company or organization that could benefit from the results, or having a close personal or familial relationship with someone involved in the research process. Additionally, membership on advisory boards or committees related to the research subject should be disclosed. The goal is to ensure full transparency about any interests that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research or its conclusions.

Declaration and Responsibility

All authors are responsible for providing a comprehensive declaration of any potential conflicts of interest during the submission process. These disclosures will be published alongside the article to promote transparency and reader trust. It is imperative that authors proactively identify and disclose all relevant interests, both financial and non-financial, to avoid ethical conflicts. Failure to reveal conflicts—whether deliberate or inadvertent—may result in the rejection of the manuscript, or, if discovered post-publication, in correction, retraction, or other corrective measures to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

{ top }

Corrections, Expressions of Concern, Retractions

Corrections

The journal is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of accuracy and integrity in scholarly publishing. When an honest error is identified in a published article—such as data inaccuracies, typographical mistakes, or minor methodological clarifications—that does not undermine the overall validity of the work, a correction notice will be issued. This correction will be published as a separate document linked to the original article, clearly outlining the nature of the error, the correction made, and the potential impact on the interpretation of the findings. The aim is to ensure that the scholarly record remains clear, accurate, and trustworthy.

Issuance of an Expression of Concern

An expression of concern serves as an interim notification when credible suspicions or allegations regarding the integrity, validity, or ethical conduct of a publication arise, pending a formal investigation. Such concerns may relate to potential misconduct, data irregularities, authorship disputes, or ethical violations. This notice is intended to alert readers to unresolved issues without making definitive judgments. It will remain published until the investigation concludes, which may result in either the issuance of a correction, retraction, or dismissal of the concern.

Retractions of Published Articles

Retractions are issued when the published work is deemed unreliable due to misconduct—such as data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or duplicate publication—or due to significant honest errors that invalidate the results. Retractions also occur in cases of ethical violations, such as lack of approval from an ethical review board. When an article is retracted, a formal notice will be posted, explaining the reasons for retraction. The original publication will remain accessible with a clear watermark or label indicating that it has been retracted, ensuring transparency and the integrity of the scientific record.

Responsibility of Authors

Authors are responsible for monitoring their published work and must promptly notify the journal if they discover inaccuracies, errors, or misconduct. They are expected to cooperate fully with the editors in issuing corrections, clarifications, or retractions as needed. Transparent communication from authors supports the trustworthiness and integrity of the scholarly record and demonstrates accountability.

Decision-Making Process

All decisions related to corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions will be made by the Editor-in-Chief, following best practices outlined in COPE Retraction Guidelines. The process involves careful review, consultation with authors, peer reviewers, and relevant institutions, when necessary. Each case will be handled with due diligence, emphasizing transparency, fairness, and accountability. Documentation of all decisions and their rationale will be maintained to ensure integrity and facilitate future accountability.

{ top }

Confidentiality

Protection of Manuscript Content

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as strictly confidential documents. Their content is protected to ensure that details such as the research data, methodologies, authorship, and related information remain private throughout the entire submission, review, and publication process. Access to the submitted manuscripts and related reviewer reports is limited to authorized personnel involved in the editorial workflow, including editors, peer reviewers, and staff responsible for managing the peer review system. Unauthorized sharing or disclosure of manuscript content is strictly prohibited, ensuring the integrity of the review process and respecting the privacy of the authors.

Protecting the Privacy of All Parties

Everyone involved in the handling of a manuscript—be it editors, reviewers, or editorial staff—has an ethical obligation to maintain confidentiality. This obligation extends beyond the review phase and continues until the final publication decision is made. All parties must refrain from discussing manuscript details outside the review process, sharing confidential information, or using unpublished data for personal gain. Maintaining confidentiality safeguards the integrity of the peer review system, promotes honest and unbiased assessments, and ensures that authors’ intellectual property rights are protected.

Handling Confidentiality During Investigations

In cases where concerns regarding misconduct, ethical violations, or conflicts of interest arise, the journal commits to handling all related information with the utmost discretion. During such investigations, confidential information concerning the manuscript, authorship, or review details will only be shared with individuals directly involved in resolving the issue, such as ethics committees, institutional review boards, or authorized personnel at the authors' institutions. The journal will adhere to all relevant data protection laws and privacy regulations to ensure that sensitive information is managed responsibly and that privacy rights are maintained throughout the process.

{ top }

Data sharing policy

The journal emphasizes the importance of transparency, openness, and reproducibility in scientific research. It recognizes that sharing research data greatly enhances the credibility, verifiability, and impact of scholarly work. Promoting data sharing encourages collaborative efforts, facilitates validation of results, and accelerates scientific progress across disciplines, contributing to the overall integrity of the scholarly record.

While data sharing is strongly recommended, the journal acknowledges that there are instances where it may not be possible or appropriate. Factors such as confidentiality agreements, participant privacy concerns, proprietary information, or intellectual property rights may restrict the accessibility of datasets. Therefore, providing a specific data availability statement is not a mandatory requirement for publication. Nevertheless, authors are encouraged to discuss the availability of their data within their manuscript and, where feasible, to provide access to datasets upon reasonable request, ensuring compliance with ethical standards and legal obligations.

Authors are advised to manage their data responsibly, including proper documentation and anonymization when necessary, to enable data sharing without compromising confidentiality or legal restrictions. The goal is to support open science while respecting the rights of research participants, data owners, and intellectual property rights.

The journal aims to foster a culture of responsible data sharing, ensuring that scientific transparency advances knowledge while safeguarding ethical and legal considerations.

{ top }

Funding

Authors must transparently disclose all financial support related to their research or manuscript in a dedicated section titled “Funding”. This section should specify any grants, sponsorships, institutional funding, or other forms of financial assistance that potentially influenced the conduct, analysis, or presentation of the research. Clear and detailed acknowledgments of funding sources help ensure transparency and enable proper assessment of potential conflicts of interest.

In cases where no external or internal funding was received, authors are required to explicitly state that the work was conducted without financial support. Such a declaration might read: “The authors received no funding for this work.”

{ top }

Images and figures

Visual elements such as photographs, diagrams, charts, graphs, and other graphical representations should be utilized purposefully to strengthen the presentation of research findings. Well-designed images can clarify complex data, highlight important trends, and enhance the overall clarity and impact of the manuscript. Authors are encouraged to submit images that are directly relevant to the research, clearly communicate the scientific message, and effectively support the narrative of the paper.

Quality and Technical Standards

Authors are responsible for ensuring that all submitted images and figures meet high technical standards. This includes providing images with adequate resolution and sufficient detail to support the data, facilitate peer review, and ensure clarity in both electronic and print formats. Visuals should be designed to avoid pixelation or distortion upon resizing. High-quality figures not only improve readability but also contribute to the professionalism and credibility of the publication.

Originality and Proper Attribution

All visual content must be original or properly credited if sourced from external creators. When reproducing or adapting figures from other sources, authors must obtain explicit permission from the copyright holders or ensure the material is licensed under terms that permit reuse. Proper attribution must be provided for all reused images.

Ethical Image Manipulation

Manipulation of digital images should be conducted ethically and transparently. Adjustments such as cropping, brightness, contrast, or color correction are acceptable if they do not misrepresent or alter the scientific data. Any enhancements or modifications must be disclosed within the manuscript, and images should be presented in a way that maintains the integrity of the original data. Misleading or deceptive edits are considered unethical and may result in rejection or correction.

{ top }

Misconduct

The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity, honesty, and transparency in scholarly publishing. Following the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), any breaches of research or publication ethics will be thoroughly investigated and addressed appropriately. All individuals involved—authors, reviewers, and editors—are expected to act responsibly to protect the credibility of the scientific record and maintain public trust in research.

Data Fabrication and Data Falsification

Any act of fabricating or falsifying research data represents a serious breach of ethical conduct. This includes making up data that never existed, altering research results, manipulating figures or images to mislead, or selectively omitting data to support desired conclusions. Such misconduct not only damages the trustworthiness of the research but also undermines the scientific process, leading to potential rejection, retraction of the published work, and disciplinary sanctions. The journal strictly prohibits any form of data fabrication or falsification, emphasizing the importance of accurate, truthful reporting.

Image Manipulation

All visual representations—such as photographs, graphs, charts, and diagrams—must accurately reflect the underlying data. Minor adjustments like brightness, contrast, or cropping are permissible if they do not distort or mislead the viewer and are properly disclosed within the manuscript. Fabrication or manipulation that alters the scientific meaning of images is considered misconduct and will be subject to investigation. The journal expects authors to maintain the integrity of their data presentation, ensuring that images are authentic, unaltered in a way that could mislead, and fully transparent about any modifications made.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism involves presenting someone else’s work, ideas, words, or data as your own, whether intentionally or unintentionally. This includes copying text or figures without proper citation, paraphrasing without acknowledgment, or reproducing content from other sources without permission. Self-plagiarism—reusing one’s own previously published work without disclosure—is also prohibited.

The journal requires that all submissions be original and properly cite prior work to uphold scholarly integrity. To assist in identifying potential instances of plagiarism, the journal may utilize plagiarism detection software such as iThenticate or similar tools during the review process. Any detected plagiarism or unethical practice will lead to rejection, retraction, or sanctions, reflecting the journal’s commitment to maintaining the highest standards of academic honesty and integrity.

Multiple Submissions and Duplicate Publication

Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical, wastes editorial resources, and can lead to redundant publications. Authors must ensure that their manuscript is submitted exclusively to this journal until a definitive decision is reached. Additionally, publishing substantially overlapping content in multiple outlets—without proper disclosure—is considered misconduct. Such duplicate or redundant publication can artificially inflate an author’s publication record and distort the scientific literature. Authors are responsible for declaring related submissions or previous publications at the time of submission.

Salami Slicing (Fragmentation of Research)

Dividing one comprehensive study into several smaller parts to increase the number of publications—without transparent disclosure—is unethical. This practice, known as "salami slicing," can mislead readers and inflate the apparent productivity of the researchers. The journal expects authors to present their research findings as a single, coherent study whenever possible. If separate publications are justified, authors must disclose the overlap and clearly explain how each manuscript differs from the others.

Citation Manipulation and Impact Inflation

Citations should be relevant, accurate, and serve to substantiate the content of the manuscript. Manipulative citation practices—such as excessive self-citation, mutual citation stacking among authors, or referencing unrelated articles purely to boost citation metrics—are unethical. Such practices distort the scholarly record and can artificially inflate impact measures. Authors should cite literature solely based on its relevance and contribution to the research, not as a means of manipulating citation counts or impact factors.

Authorship malpractices

Authorship must be limited to individuals who have made significant intellectual contributions to the research, including in designing experiments, analyzing data, or drafting the manuscript. Ghost authorship—failing to credit those who contributed—is unethical, as is honorary authorship—adding individuals who did not contribute substantially. All authors are expected to meet the established authorship criteria, approve the final manuscript, and accept responsibility for the content. Clear communication about contributions and author roles is essential to ensure accountability and transparency.

{ top }

Post-Publication Discussions

The journal values the ongoing engagement of the academic community and provides a formal avenue for post-publication discussion through direct contact with the editorial team. Readers, researchers, and interested parties are invited to share comments, insights, or concerns related to published articles. Such discussions are intended to promote transparency, clarify issues, and improve the overall quality of the scholarly record.

All feedback received will be carefully evaluated by the editors. Based on their assessment, appropriate actions will be taken, which may include issuing a formal response, publishing correction notices, or, when necessary, issuing retractions or expressions of concern. These decisions will align with the guidelines and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)., ensuring ethical and consistent handling of post-publication commentary.

{ top }

Publication Ethics

The journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of ethical conduct in scholarly publishing. We strictly adhere to the ethical guidelines and principles set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All members of the editorial team, reviewers, and authors are expected to act responsibly, honestly, and transparently throughout the publication process to uphold the integrity of the scientific record.

Duties of Editors

  • Fairness and Impartiality: Editors should evaluate manuscripts solely based on their academic quality, originality, and relevance, without discrimination or bias related to the authors' gender, race, nationality, or institutional affiliation.
  • Confidentiality: All submissions, reviews, and editorial discussions are confidential. Editors must safeguard the privacy of authors, reviewers, and other involved parties and should not disclose any information about a manuscript outside the review process.
  • Integrity and Transparency: Editors are responsible for making unbiased decisions based on expert reviews and ensuring the integrity of the publication process. They should disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment and ensure that errors or misconduct are addressed appropriately.
  • Handling of Allegations and Misconduct: When allegations of misconduct are raised, editors must investigate promptly and thoroughly, consulting COPE guidelines. If misconduct is confirmed, they should take appropriate actions, including corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern.
  • Maintaining Academic Standards: Editors should ensure that published content meets high academic standards, encouraging quality, originality, and scientific rigor.

Duties of Reviewers

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers are required to treat all manuscript information as confidential. They must not share or discuss manuscripts outside the review process or disclose any details of the review.
  • Objectivity and Fairness: Reviews should be conducted objectively, based solely on scientific merit, relevance, and quality. Personal biases or conflicts of interest should be disclosed and, if relevant, recused from reviewing.
  • Timeliness: Reviewers should complete assessments within the agreed timeframe, contributing to the efficient publication process and ensuring authors receive constructive feedback promptly.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviews should be thorough, respectful, and constructive, offering specific suggestions for improvement. Reviewers should avoid hostile, inflammatory, or unsubstantiated comments.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any potential conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality and abstain from reviewing manuscripts where conflicts exist.

Duties of Authors

  • Originality and Accurate Reporting: Authors must submit original work and ensure their research is conducted and reported honestly, accurately, and transparently. Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism are strictly forbidden.
  • Proper Citation and Acknowledgment: All sources, data, and prior work used must be properly cited, and authors should give appropriate acknowledgment to contributors who do not meet authorship criteria.
  • Data Integrity: Authors should retain and share raw data when requested, ensure that data is accurately represented, and avoid manipulating or misrepresenting results or images.
  • Disclosure of Conflicts and Funding: Potential conflicts of interest and sources of funding related to the work must be clearly disclosed during submission.
  • Authorship Responsibility: All listed authors must have made a significant contribution to the research and manuscript preparation, approve the final version, and accept responsibility for the content.
  • Ethical Standards: Research involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data must have received appropriate ethical approval, and authors must declare compliance with relevant ethical standards and guidelines.

{ top }

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to AUIQ Humanities and Social Sciences (AHSS) will undergo a comprehensive peer review process designed to assess the scientific quality, originality, and relevance. The review process is conducted by at least two qualified external experts, ensuring independent and rigorous evaluation.

Type of Peer Review

AHSS employs a double-blind peer review system. Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process. Reviewers do not know the authors’ identities, and authors are unaware of the reviewers’ identities. This system promotes impartial, unbiased evaluation while maintaining confidentiality.

Reviewer identities are kept confidential throughout and after the review process. Review comments are shared only with the authors and editors. Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if necessary to maintain fairness and objectivity.

Workflow and Stages

  • Initial Screening: Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to verify that the manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope, formatting standards, scientific rigor, and ethical guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk rejected without external review.
  • Assignment of Reviewers: If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The editorial team manages reviewer selection to ensure impartiality and expertise.
  • Review Rounds: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript, providing detailed comments on its originality, methodology, data integrity, clarity, and contribution. Based on their assessment, they recommend one of the following:
    • Accept as is
    • Minor revisions
    • Major revisions
    • Reject
  • Author Revisions: Authors receive reviewers’ comments and are invited to revise their manuscript accordingly. They must submit a detailed response to reviewer comments, explaining how each point has been addressed. The revised manuscript may undergo additional review rounds if necessary.
  • Final Evaluation: The editors review all reviews and author responses. They may consult additional experts if needed, and then make a final decision based on the review reports and their own assessment.

Decision Types

  • Acceptance: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further changes.
  • Acceptance with minor revisions: The manuscript requires small clarifications or corrections.
  • Major revisions required: Significant changes are needed before the manuscript can be accepted. The authors are allowed to revise and resubmit.
  • Rejection: The manuscript is not suitable for publication based on its quality, originality, or relevance.

Supplementary Materials

Authors may submit supplementary files (e.g., data, multimedia) alongside the manuscript. These will be shared with reviewers and may be evaluated at their discretion. However, supplementary files are not subject to the same detailed peer review as the main manuscript. Authors retain full responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of all supplementary content.

Editorial Oversight

Decisions on whether to accept, request revisions, or reject a manuscript are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriate subject expert from the editorial team, under the supervision and ultimate responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief. These decisions are based on the reviews received and are made with the aim of maintaining the high standards of the journal. The editorial process is designed to be fair, transparent, and consistent, ensuring that all submissions are evaluated impartially and in accordance with ethical and academic criteria. The Editor-in-Chief supervises this process to ensure the integrity, quality, and scholarly rigor of all published content.

Desk Rejection Policy

The journal reserves the right to reject manuscripts without proceeding to peer review during the initial screening process. This step is designed to optimize editorial resources and provide early guidance to authors about the suitability of their work. Manuscripts that fail to meet basic submission standards or fall outside the scope of the journal are subject to desk rejection.

Common reasons for desk rejection include, but are not limited to:

  • Manuscripts that are not aligned with the journal’s scope and objectives.
  • Submissions that are incomplete, improperly formatted, or do not comply with the journal’s author guidelines.
  • Lack of originality, significant overlap with previously published material, or duplicated content.
  • Manuscripts with inadequate scientific rigor, methodological flaws, or data issues that cannot be remediated through revision.
  • Failure to meet ethical standards, including concerns about research ethics, consent, or data integrity.
  • Content that is primarily commercial, promotional, or contains advertising material.

Plagiarism Screening: Prior to any editorial assessment, all submissions are subjected to plagiarism screening using software such as iThenticate. Manuscripts containing substantial unoriginal content or copied material will be rejected or returned for correction. Authors are responsible for ensuring the originality of their work and appropriate citation of all sources.

Decisions about rejection at this stage are made solely on the basis of relevance, quality, integrity, and compliance with submission requirements. Authors will be notified promptly if their manuscript is rejected, along with relevant feedback or recommendations for improvement if applicable. This process enables authors to revise and submit their work to other journals as appropriate.

Submission of Manuscripts by Editors

Editors of the journal are permitted to submit their own work for publication. To prevent conflicts of interest and maintain the fairness of the review process, specific procedures are followed. When an editor submits a manuscript, they are formally required to abstain from any involvement in the review or editorial decisions related to that submission.

The handling and evaluation of manuscripts authored or co-authored by editors are assigned to an impartial, independent member of the editorial board. This designated editor will oversee the entire review process and make an unbiased recommendation based on reviewers’ feedback, following the same standards and procedures applied to all submissions.

To further safeguard the integrity of the publication process, the journal has a policy that limits the proportion of articles in any issue that can be authored or co-authored by editors to no more than 25%. This ensures a balanced and transparent publication environment, free from undue influence.

{ top }

Repository and Self-Archiving Policy

AUIQ Humanities and Social Sciences (AHSS) is committed to maximizing the accessibility and dissemination of scholarly work. In accordance with the journal’s licensing and copyright policies, and aligned with recognized best practices in open access publishing, we strongly encourage authors to deposit various versions of their manuscripts into repositories of their choice without embargo. This policy supports open access initiatives and complies with institutional and funder mandates.

Versions Permitted for Deposit

  • Preprint (Submitted Manuscript): The version prior to peer review, submitted for initial evaluation.
  • Accepted Manuscript (Post-peer review, Pre-production): The version after peer review has been completed, but before final journal formatting or layout.
  • Final Published Version (Version of Record): The definitive, publisher-formatted version as it appears on the journal’s website.

Conditions for Deposit

Preprints:

  • Authors are free to upload preprints at any stage, before or during the submission process.
  • These preprints must be clearly labeled as “Preprint” and should state that they have not undergone peer review.
  • The uploaded file must not include publisher logos, formatting, or branding that could suggest it is the final, peer-reviewed version.
  • Once the article is formally published, authors are encouraged to update the preprint with full citation details, including the DOI, and link to the final Version of Record.

Accepted Manuscripts:

  • Authors can deposit the accepted manuscript version after peer review but prior to publisher formatting.
  • The deposited manuscript must be clearly marked as the “Accepted Manuscript” or the “Post-peer review Version.”
  • Authors are allowed to deposit the Accepted Manuscript under the same license terms as the published article (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), as granted by the journal.
  • The deposit must attribute the work to the authors and the journal, including citation details and DOI when available.
  • The Accepted Manuscript must not contain publisher-specific formatting, logos, or layout features.
  • No modifications or derivative works are allowed in accordance with the license (ND).

Version of Record (VoR):

  • The officially published, final version of the article can be deposited with full attribution, including proper citation and DOI.
  • The VoR must be shared under the same license as the original publication (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
  • The deposit should clearly specify that it’s the Version of Record, ensuring transparency about the authoritative version.

{ top }

Research Ethics and Consents

Research Involving Humans

Research involving human participants should be conducted in accordance with recognized ethical standards in the social sciences and humanities. Authors are responsible for obtaining approval from an appropriate ethics review board or equivalent committee before beginning the study, where such approval is required. Exceptions may be appropriate where prior approval is not feasible or necessary, such as studies using publicly available sources, archival materials, or fully anonymized datasets, provided that the research poses minimal risk to individuals. Authors must also comply with relevant laws and regulations in their jurisdiction. The journal may request confirmation of ethics approval or supporting documentation. Failure to adhere to accepted ethical practices may lead to rejection or retraction of the manuscript.

Research Involving Animals

Where research involves animals—for example, in fields such as anthropology, archaeology, or cognitive studies—authors should ensure that it is conducted in accordance with internationally recognized standards of animal welfare and any applicable national or institutional guidelines. Authors are responsible for obtaining the necessary approvals or licenses, if required. In cases where formal approval is not applicable (e.g., analysis of previously collected samples or data), authors must still demonstrate that animal welfare considerations were respected. The journal reserves the right to request documentation of ethical compliance.

Consent for Participation

All research involving human participants must be based on voluntary and informed consent. Participants should be provided with clear and accessible information about the aims, methods, potential risks, and benefits of the research, and should be free to withdraw at any stage without consequence. Consent may be obtained in writing, electronically, or verbally, depending on the cultural, disciplinary, or practical context, but must be properly documented by the researcher. Authors must retain these consent records; they should not be submitted with manuscripts but may be requested by the journal for verification. Exceptions to obtaining consent may be justified in cases where data are anonymized, drawn from publicly available sources, or where seeking consent would compromise the integrity of the research. In such cases, authors should provide an explanation in their manuscript.

Consent for Publication

When a manuscript contains information, images, or case details that could directly or indirectly identify an individual, authors must obtain explicit consent for publication. This includes photographs, interview transcripts, or personal narratives where identification is possible. Consent should be obtained from the participant, or where relevant, from a parent, guardian, or legal representative. If the individual is deceased, consent should be sought from their next of kin or representative. Authors must confirm in their manuscript that such consent for publication has been obtained and retained. Consent forms must be securely archived by the authors and made available to the journal upon request.

{ top }

Special Issues

Purpose and Thematic Focus

Special issues serve as focused collections dedicated to addressing cutting-edge or highly topical research areas within the humanities and social sciences. These issues aim to highlight innovative ideas, significant developments, or under-explored themes that align with the journal’s mission. Special issue themes may be proposed either by the editorial team or by guest editors. All proposals submitted by guest editors are subject to review and must be formally approved by the editorial team, ensuring that each special issue remains relevant and of interest to both contributors and the wider academic community.

Call for Submissions

The journal will publicly announce calls for papers for each special issue, detailing the scope, objectives, and submission guidelines. These calls will be disseminated via the journal’s website, mailing lists, and other channels to reach a broad audience of potential contributors. Authors interested in submitting to the special issue should ensure their work aligns closely with the outlined theme and adheres to the journal’s general submission criteria.

Role of Guest Editors

Guest editors may be invited to coordinate special issues when their expertise and networks are particularly relevant to the chosen theme. The use of guest editors is optional, and the journal reserves the right to manage special issues exclusively through its editorial board.

When appointed, guest editors are responsible for:

  • Developing the theme and scope of the special issue in consultation with the editorial team.
  • Promoting the call for papers within the academic community to encourage high-quality submissions.
  • Managing the peer review process, including identifying suitable reviewers and overseeing revisions.

Guest editors do not have independent decision-making authority regarding acceptance or rejection of manuscripts. All editorial decisions remain under the authority of the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board, ensuring impartiality and adherence to the journal’s editorial standards. This ensures benefiting from the subject-specific expertise of guest editors while maintaining the journal’s editorial integrity and compliance with best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s guidelines on guest edited collection.

Manuscript Submission and Peer Review

Submissions to special issues are handled through the same online system used for regular issues. All manuscripts will undergo rigorous peer review, including initial editorial screening, followed by peer review, ensuring compliance with the journal’s standards for quality, originality, and ethical integrity. Special issues are subject to the same high standards of scholarly review as regular issues. Guest Editors or designated editorial members will oversee the review process and recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection. Final publication decisions rest with Editor-in-Chief or the designated subject expert from the editorial team in accordance with the journal’s peer review policy.

Publication and Promotion

Upon acceptance, the special issue will be published according to the journal’s standard schedule. It will be prominently labeled as a special issue for transparency and ease of citation. The journal will actively promote the issue through its established channels, including social media, email campaigns, and academic networks, to maximize its visibility and impact. The journal will also monitor engagement metrics to evaluate the influence and success of each special collection, with insights used to inform future thematic editions.

{ top }

Use of Third-Party Material

It is the responsibility of authors to ensure that all third-party content included in their submissions—such as text, images, figures, tables, data, audio, or video—has been used legally and ethically. Authors must secure all necessary rights, permissions, and licenses before including any external material in their work.

Third-party materials can be used in the following ways:

  • If the material is in the public domain and free of copyright restrictions, such as items with expired rights or those explicitly released under Creative Commons CC0 or similar licenses.
  • If the material is licensed under a reuse license that allows sharing and adaptation under the same or similar terms as the journal’s license, and the license terms are fully adhered to.
  • When explicit, written permission has been obtained from the copyright holder, granting permission for the material to be used and published under the journal’s license.

In cases where the licensing conditions don't permit broad or unrestricted reuse, a limited excerpt or quote for purposes such as criticism, review, or discussion may be included without permission. These uses must be limited in scope, properly attributed to the original source, and comply with applicable ethical and legal standards.

Authors must fully respect and comply with the specific licensing and copyright terms of any third-party content they include. If there is any doubt about whether rights have been adequately secured or if there is uncertainty about the licensing conditions, it is the authors’ responsibility to consult with the rights holder. The journal does not provide legal advice regarding copyright or licensing, and authors are solely responsible for acquiring the appropriate rights.

By submitting a manuscript, authors affirm that they have obtained all necessary permissions for any third-party materials included and that they will provide proof of such permissions if requested. The journal disclaims any liability or legal responsibility for unauthorized use of third-party material and will not be liable for damages arising from copyright infringements or licensing violations.

{ top }

Use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies

Authors’ Use of AI in Manuscript Preparation

Authors are permitted to utilize AI and AI-based tools to assist in editing, polishing language, improving readability, and formatting their manuscripts. Such tools can be valuable for addressing language barriers or enhancing clarity. However, the core scientific content—such as research design, data analysis, interpretation, and conclusions—must be generated by the authors themselves and not solely by AI. All AI-assisted contributions should be reviewed thoroughly by the authors to confirm that the information presented is accurate, reliable, and original. Authors are solely responsible for ensuring that AI-generated or AI-assisted content does not introduce inaccuracies, biases, or omissions.

Additionally, authors are expected to disclose any use of AI tools during the submission process, specifying how the tools impacted their manuscript. Full transparency about AI involvement supports ethical standards, maintains trust, and allows reviewers and editors to better understand the contribution of these tools to the research and writing process.

Use of AI in the Peer Review Process

While AI technology is increasingly used to facilitate various stages of manuscript handling, the journal explicitly prohibits reviewers from employing AI or AI tools during the review process. Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as strictly confidential, and the utilization of AI to analyze, summarize, or critique submissions is considered unethical and inappropriate. Using AI could risk compromising reviewer anonymity, violate data privacy laws, and undermine the fairness and impartiality of the peer review system.

Peer review is a task that requires expert human judgment. The evaluation of scientific validity, originality, and rigor should always be conducted through critical thinking and professional expertise, rather than reliance on automated, AI-generated assessments. Reviewers are responsible for providing fair, thorough, and unbiased evaluations based solely on their expert analysis.

Policy Evolution and Future Monitoring

The journal is committed to keeping pace with technological developments in AI and will revise this policy as new standards and best practices emerge. The goal is to promote responsible, transparent, and ethical use of AI in scholarly publishing, ensuring the integrity of the review process and the reliability of published research are maintained in accordance with evolving scientific norms.

{ top }