Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

TK TechForum Journal (formerly known as ThyssenKrupp Techforum)

Our ethical guidelines are informed by COPE’s best-practice guidance for journals. We expect all parties involved in publishing—authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher—to uphold high standards of integrity, transparency, and professional conduct.

Publishing in TK TechForum Journal is a contribution to the scientific and technical record. We therefore apply consistent policies to protect research quality, ensure fair peer review, and correct the literature when needed.

1. Core principles

We apply the following principles across all editorial decisions and publication activities:

  • integrity and honesty in research reporting

  • originality and proper attribution

  • transparency in methods, data sources, and funding

  • fair and unbiased editorial handling

  • confidentiality of submissions and peer review

  • accountability to correct the record when errors or misconduct occur

2. Responsibilities of authors

2.1 Reporting standards

Authors must present an accurate account of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Manuscripts should contain sufficient methodological detail and appropriate references to allow others to understand, assess, and where feasible replicate the work. Knowingly false or misleading statements are unacceptable.

2.2 Data access, availability, and retention

Authors may be asked to provide supporting materials (e.g., raw data, code, calculation sheets, lab logs, model parameters, or original images) for editorial assessment. Authors should retain underlying research materials for a reasonable period after publication and be prepared to provide them if questions arise.

If data/code cannot be shared (e.g., confidentiality, security, contractual restrictions), authors must clearly state the reason and describe what can be shared and under what conditions.

2.3 Originality and plagiarism

Submissions must be original. Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable, including:

  • verbatim copying without quotation and citation

  • close paraphrasing without attribution

  • appropriation of ideas, figures, or results

  • undisclosed reuse of the authors’ previously published text (self-plagiarism)

Proper citation is required for all reused content, including figures, tables, and datasets.

2.4 Duplicate, redundant, or concurrent submission

Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time. Duplicate or redundant publication is not acceptable. If related versions exist (e.g., preprint, conference paper, technical report), authors must disclose this at submission and clearly explain what is new.

2.5 Authorship and contributorship

Authorship must reflect substantial intellectual contribution (e.g., conception, design, analysis, interpretation, drafting or critical revision). The corresponding author must ensure:

  • all co-authors approve the final manuscript

  • all authors agree to submission

  • contributors who do not qualify for authorship are acknowledged appropriately (with permission)

Authorship changes after submission (add/remove/reorder) require editorial approval and written confirmation from all authors.

2.6 Acknowledgement of sources and permissions

Authors must cite all sources that influenced the work. Any third-party copyrighted material (figures, images, large text excerpts) must be used only with permission where required, and appropriate credit lines must be included.

2.7 Conflicts of interest and funding disclosure

Authors must disclose any financial or non-financial competing interests that could be perceived to influence the work (employment, consulting, stock ownership, patents, grants, paid testimony, etc.). Funding sources and sponsor roles must be stated clearly.

2.8 Hazards, safety, and compliance (human/animal/field work where applicable)

If the work involves unusual hazards (chemicals, high voltage, biological agents, hazardous equipment), authors must describe risks and safety precautions.

If research involves human participants or identifiable personal data, authors must comply with relevant laws and institutional requirements and report appropriate approvals/consent. If approval was not required, authors must state why and describe safeguards.

2.9 Image, figure, and results integrity

Figures, images, and plots must not be manipulated in ways that mislead. Any necessary processing (contrast adjustments, filtering, composites) must be applied transparently and described when relevant. Fabrication or falsification of images, data, or results is a serious breach.

2.10 Corrections after publication

If authors discover a material error in their published work, they must promptly inform the editorial office and cooperate on a correction, retraction, or other notice as appropriate.

3. Plagiarism policy

3.1 What we consider plagiarism

TK TechForum Journal treats plagiarism as a serious breach of publication ethics. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

  • copying text, figures, tables, or ideas from other sources without proper citation

  • close paraphrasing of another work without attribution

  • presenting another person’s results, data, or methods as one’s own

  • translation plagiarism (translating a work and presenting it as original without citation)

  • undisclosed reuse of one’s own previously published text or content (self-plagiarism/text recycling) when it misleads readers about originality

3.2 Similarity screening

Submissions may be screened using similarity-checking tools and editorial review. Similarity reports are interpreted by editors with context in mind. Legitimate overlap may occur in:

  • standard method descriptions

  • references and bibliographies

  • properly quoted material

  • technical terminology and commonly used phrases

3.3 How we handle suspected plagiarism

If potentially inappropriate overlap is identified, the journal may:

  • request clarification and/or a revised manuscript with proper citation and quotation

  • reject the manuscript prior to peer review

  • retract a published article if plagiarism is confirmed after publication

  • notify relevant institutions or funders in serious cases, where appropriate

3.4 Author responsibilities

Authors are responsible for ensuring originality and correct citation practices before submission. Any reused material must be clearly identified, properly cited, and used with permission where required.

4. Responsibilities of reviewers

4.1 Confidentiality

Manuscripts and review communications are confidential. Reviewers must not share manuscripts or discuss them with others without explicit permission from the editor.

4.2 Objectivity and constructive feedback

Reviews must be fair, evidence-based, and professional. Personal criticism is inappropriate. Reviewers should provide clear reasoning and actionable suggestions.

4.3 Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest and decline review when impartiality could be compromised (recent collaboration, direct competition, close relationships, financial interests, etc.).

4.4 Timeliness

Reviewers should accept invitations only if they can meet the deadline. If delays occur, reviewers should inform the editor promptly.

4.5 Integrity checks

Reviewers should alert editors to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, image manipulation, or major methodological flaws, and suggest relevant missing citations when appropriate.

5. Responsibilities of editors

5.1 Editorial independence and fair decisions

Editors evaluate manuscripts based on scholarly merit, relevance, rigor, and clarity—without discrimination. Editorial decisions must not be influenced by commercial considerations or external pressure.

5.2 Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must protect the confidentiality of submissions, reviewer identities (where applicable), reviewer reports, and editorial discussions.

5.3 Conflicts of interest

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts exist and ensure independent reassignment.

5.4 Managing peer review

Editors select qualified independent reviewers, monitor timelines, and ensure that reviews remain constructive and relevant.

5.5 Responding to ethical concerns

Editors act promptly on allegations of misconduct. Actions may include requesting clarification, seeking expert input, contacting institutions when appropriate, and issuing corrections/retractions/expressions of concern to maintain the integrity of the record.

6. Misconduct, complaints, and appeals

6.1 What constitutes misconduct

Examples include plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated/falsified data, unethical research practices, undisclosed conflicts of interest, authorship manipulation, and peer-review manipulation.

6.2 How concerns are handled

When concerns arise, the journal typically:

  • conducts an initial assessment

  • contacts authors for explanation and supporting evidence

  • consults reviewers/editors or external experts if needed

  • decides outcomes based on evidence and fairness

Possible outcomes include rejection, revision requests, publication of a correction, expression of concern, retraction, and restrictions on future submissions for serious or repeated misconduct.

6.3 Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a reasoned, evidence-based appeal to the editorial office. Appeals are reviewed fairly, but do not guarantee reversal.

7. Post-publication updates: corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern

To maintain the scholarly record, the journal may publish:

  • corrections (errata/corrigenda) when errors materially affect understanding

  • expressions of concern when an investigation is ongoing or unresolved

  • retractions when findings cannot be relied upon due to major error or misconduct

Retracted articles remain accessible for record-keeping but are clearly marked as retracted.

8. Generative AI policy (authors, reviewers, editors)

8.1 General principle

AI tools may assist workflows, but they do not replace human responsibility. Authors, reviewers, and editors remain accountable for accuracy, originality, and confidentiality.

8.2 AI use by authors

Authors may use AI tools for limited support (e.g., language improvement, outlining, coding assistance) only with careful verification. Authors must ensure:

  • no fabricated citations or unverifiable claims are introduced

  • all results and references are checked

  • AI tools are not listed as authors

Disclosure is required when AI tools materially contributed to content creation or transformation (text, images, code, analysis, tables). A disclosure should include:

  • tool name (and version if available)

  • what it was used for

  • which parts of the manuscript were affected

  • confirmation that authors verified the output

Suggested disclosure text:
“We used [tool name] to assist with [purpose]. All outputs were reviewed and verified by the authors, who take full responsibility for the content.”

8.3 AI-generated images and visual content

AI-generated visuals must not be presented as real experimental/field evidence. If AI visuals are used for conceptual illustration, they must be clearly labeled as AI-generated, and the method/tool must be disclosed.

8.4 AI use by reviewers

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts (or substantial parts of them) into AI tools or external platforms that could compromise confidentiality. Reviewers remain responsible for the content of their review.

8.5 AI use by editors and staff

Editors and staff must not upload confidential manuscript content, reviewer reports, or correspondence into external AI tools. If AI is used for administrative drafting (e.g., improving the language of a decision letter without including manuscript content), editors must fully review and approve the final text.

9. Contact

For ethics questions, allegations, complaints, or appeals, contact the editorial office: editor@techforumjournal.com