TSUJCMS is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and academic integrity. All parties involved in the publication process: authors, editors, peer reviewers, and the publisher must agree upon and adhere to the strict standards of expected ethical behavior outlined below. This statement is governed by the core principles established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Duties of the Editorial Board

Publication Decisions and Fair Play

The Editorial Board bears ultimate responsibility for deciding which submitted manuscripts will be published. Decisions are guided solely by the manuscript's intellectual merit, original contribution, methodological validity, and structural clarity, completely independent of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality and Editorial Independence

Editors and editorial staff must treat all submitted manuscripts as strictly confidential documents. No information regarding a submission may be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, designated peer reviewers, potential reviewers, and the publisher. Editors will protect the integrity of the double-blind review process and ensure that potential commercial or institutional influences have zero impact on editorial determinations.

Disclosure and Misconduct Management

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the authors. If allegations of research misconduct, plagiarism, or data fabrication are raised, the editorial board will take active, timely measures to investigate the matter using COPE flowcharts, regardless of whether the paper is published or unpublished.

2. Duties of Peer Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists editors in making informed, objective editorial decisions and provides authors with constructive, professional feedback to improve the scientific quality of their manuscripts.

Confidentiality and Standards of Objectivity

Any manuscript received for evaluation must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers must not discuss, share, or expose unpublished manuscripts to outside parties. Reviews must be conducted objectively; personal criticism of the author is entirely inappropriate. Referees must express their critiques clearly, supporting their judgments with solid academic arguments and empirical evidence.

Promptness and Conflicts of Interest

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, or knows that its prompt completion within the 3 to 4-week window is impossible, must notify the editorial desk immediately to recuse themselves. Reviewers must decline to evaluate manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other professional connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the paper.

3. Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards and Data Integrity

Authors of original empirical research must present an accurate account of the work performed, followed by an objective discussion of its theoretical and practical significance. Underlying data must be represented accurately. Fraudulent, fabricated, or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are strictly unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors may be requested to provide the raw research data (including statistical correlation matrices, t-test readouts, regression outputs, or qualitative transcripts) for editorial review. Authors must be prepared to provide public access to such data where practicable and must retain it for a reasonable number of years post-publication to allow for scientific verification.

Originality, Plagiarism, and AI Disclosure

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works. If the work or words of others have been used, they must be appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms is unacceptable and results in an immediate desk rejection if the text-matching similarity index exceeds 20%.

Furthermore, the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) text must be handled responsibly:

· Any manuscript displaying an AI-generated text threshold exceeding 20% will be automatically desk-rejected.

· Authors must explicitly declare the use of generative AI tools within the text, specifying the exact model used (e.g., ChatGPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet) and its precise application.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Submission

Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is highly unethical. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not under active consideration or evaluation by any other journal or edited volume.

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship must be strictly limited to individuals who have made a significant intellectual contribution to the conception, design, execution, data collection, or statistical analysis of the study. All individuals who made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author ensures that all appropriate co-authors have viewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

4. Remedial Actions for Post-Publication Malpractice

In instances where research misconduct, pervasive plagiarism, data fabrication, or major systemic errors are discovered after publication:

· The publisher and editors will collaborate closely to investigate the allegations thoroughly.

· If a breach is proven, the journal will immediately publish a formal retraction notice, append a clear retraction water-mark to the online PDF archive, and update the global metadata indexing partners to reflect the change, ensuring the transparency and purity of the permanent scientific record.