Publication Ethics

Tekinfo Transactions on Software Engineering (InfoSE) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. The journal adheres to the principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and expects all parties involved in the publication process — authors, reviewers, and editors — to comply with these standards. Submissions to InfoSE imply that the work described has not been published previously, is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, and that all authors have approved the manuscript and its submission to this journal.

Duties of Authors

Originality and plagiarism
Authors must ensure that their submitted manuscript is entirely original and that any work or words of other researchers have been appropriately cited or quoted. Submitting work that has been previously published — whether in full or in substantial part — constitutes duplicate publication and is prohibited. Self-plagiarism, the reuse of significant portions of the authors' own previously published work without proper attribution, is equally unacceptable. All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software prior to peer review, and submissions with a similarity index that suggests unreasonable overlap will be desk-rejected.

Authorship and contributorship
Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. All individuals who meet these criteria should be listed as authors. Individuals who have participated in the project but whose contributions do not qualify for authorship — such as those who provided purely technical assistance, language editing, or funding — should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section rather than listed as authors. All listed authors must have approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. The practice of guest authorship, gift authorship, and ghost authorship is considered a serious ethical violation.

Data integrity and reproducibility
Authors are expected to present their data accurately and to retain the raw data underlying their published work for a reasonable period after publication. Fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting of data are serious forms of research misconduct. Where research involves datasets, code, or experimental artefacts, authors are strongly encouraged to make these available in a publicly accessible repository and to provide the relevant links or access information in the manuscript. Manuscripts that report on experiments involving human participants or animals must confirm that the appropriate ethical approvals were obtained and must include the relevant approval reference numbers.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest
Authors must disclose any financial or personal relationships that could inappropriately influence or be perceived to influence their work. This includes funding from commercial entities, employment relationships, stock ownership, consultancies, and personal relationships with individuals who may benefit from the publication of the work. The absence of any conflict of interest must also be explicitly stated in the submitted manuscript. Failure to disclose a relevant conflict of interest is considered a form of misconduct and may result in retraction if discovered after publication.

Errors in published work
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they are obligated to promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief and to cooperate in the correction or retraction of the paper as appropriate. Authors should not attempt to conceal errors or misrepresent the significance of findings post-publication. Corrections that do not affect the conclusions of the work are published as Errata. Corrections that affect the integrity of the findings may require a formal retraction.

Use of artificial intelligence tools
Authors who use artificial intelligence language tools (such as large language models) in the preparation of their manuscript must disclose this in the Methods section or in an appropriate place in the manuscript. AI tools may not be listed as authors, as authorship implies accountability that AI systems cannot assume. Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of all AI-assisted content. The use of AI tools to generate data, fabricate citations, or produce results without genuine research activity constitutes research misconduct.

Duties of Reviewers

Confidentiality
All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose any part of the manuscript to third parties without the express permission of the Editor-in-Chief. Manuscripts under review must not be used for any purpose other than the evaluation for which they were assigned. This obligation continues after the review has been completed and the editorial decision has been communicated.

Objectivity and constructive feedback
Reviews must be conducted objectively and with scientific rigour. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate and unacceptable. Reviewers are expected to articulate their assessments clearly, providing specific and evidence-based reasoning for their recommendations. Reviewer reports should be constructive in tone and should provide guidance that authors can act upon, regardless of the overall recommendation. Vague or dismissive reviews that do not help the authors improve their work are contrary to the standards of InfoSE.

Conflicts of interest
Reviewers who identify a conflict of interest — including a close personal or professional relationship with any of the authors, a competitive relationship, a shared institutional affiliation, or a financial interest in the outcome of the review — must immediately notify the Managing Editor and decline to review the manuscript. A reviewer who suspects they know the identity of any author should also consider whether this knowledge could compromise the objectivity of their assessment.

Timeliness
Reviewers are expected to complete and submit their evaluation within the agreed timeframe, ordinarily four weeks from acceptance of the review invitation. Reviewers who are unable to meet the deadline should notify the editorial office as promptly as possible so that an alternative arrangement can be made. Prolonged delays in peer review impose a significant burden on authors and undermine the journal's commitment to timely publication.

Identification of misconduct
Reviewers who identify substantial similarities between the manuscript under review and another published or submitted work, or who have reason to suspect that data have been fabricated or results misrepresented, must report their concerns to the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers should not attempt to investigate or adjudicate such matters independently but should alert the editorial team with a clear account of the grounds for their concern.

Duties of Editors

Fair and impartial decision-making
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts solely on the basis of their academic merit — originality, methodological rigour, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal's scope — without regard to the authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, or any other characteristic unrelated to the quality of the work. The editorial team is committed to ensuring that every manuscript receives a fair and thorough evaluation throughout the editorial process.

Confidentiality
Editors must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript — including its existence, content, review status, or editorial decision — to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and other editorial personnel directly involved in the processing of that manuscript. Information gained through peer review is strictly privileged and must not be used for any purpose other than the evaluation of the manuscript in question.

Conflicts of interest
Editors must recuse themselves from decisions involving manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest, including manuscripts authored or co-authored by colleagues at their institution, collaborators, or individuals with whom they have a personal relationship. In such cases, editorial responsibility for the affected manuscript is transferred to another member of the editorial team. Editors must not use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without the explicit written consent of the authors.

Handling allegations of misconduct
When editors are presented with credible evidence of misconduct — whether in a submitted or published manuscript — they are obligated to act in accordance with the COPE guidelines. This may include contacting the authors' institutions, issuing expressions of concern, publishing corrections, or retracting articles where the integrity of the published record has been compromised. Editors will take reasonable steps to investigate allegations promptly and to protect the integrity of the peer review process, while also ensuring that authors are afforded the opportunity to respond to any specific allegations made against them.

Misconduct, Retraction, and Corrections

Research misconduct
InfoSE treats research misconduct with the utmost seriousness. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to, fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, duplicate submission, undisclosed conflicts of interest, manipulation of authorship, and the misrepresentation of research findings. Allegations of misconduct are investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines. Depending on the severity and nature of the misconduct, the journal may issue a formal rejection, an expression of concern, a correction, or a retraction. Where institutional involvement is appropriate, the editorial team will contact the authors' employing institutions.

Retraction policy
Published articles may be retracted if they are found to contain errors severe enough to invalidate the conclusions, if they contain evidence of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, if they report unethical research, or if they have been duplicated in another publication. Retracted articles remain on the journal's website with a clear retraction notice linked to the original article, in accordance with the principle that the scholarly record should be corrected but not deleted. The retraction notice will state the reason for retraction and will identify which authors agreed to the retraction, where applicable.

Corrections and errata
When authors or editors identify errors in a published article that do not invalidate the conclusions, a formal correction (Erratum) will be published. The Erratum will describe the nature of the error, the corrected content, and its location in the original article, and will be linked bidirectionally to the original publication. Corrections that affect only the metadata of a published article — such as a misspelling of an author's name or an incorrect affiliation — will be resolved through a Corrigendum.

Human and Animal Research Ethics

Research involving human participants must have been conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and must have received prior approval from an appropriate institutional ethics review board or committee. Authors must include a statement in the Methods section confirming that ethical approval was obtained, naming the approving body and providing the approval reference number. Studies involving identifiable participants must also include a statement confirming that informed consent was obtained. Research involving animals must comply with applicable national and institutional guidelines for the humane care and use of laboratory animals, and the relevant approval must be documented in the manuscript.

Reporting Concerns

Anyone who has reason to suspect that a submitted or published article in InfoSE involves misconduct is encouraged to contact the Editor-in-Chief through the journal's official contact channel. All reports will be treated in strict confidence, and the identity of the person raising the concern will be protected to the greatest extent possible. The editorial team is committed to following the COPE flowcharts for handling allegations of misconduct and will communicate the outcome of any investigation to the person who raised the concern, where appropriate and permitted by applicable confidentiality obligations.

InfoSE follows the guidelines and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For further information, visit publicationethics.org.