Tentang Jurnal Ini

Journal title Journal of Integrated Local Wisdom and Science Education
Initials JILWSE
Abbreviation J. Integr. Local Wisdom Sci. Educ.
Frequency 4 issues per year
DOI -
ISSN -
Editor-in-chief Dr. Riwayani, M.Pd
Publisher Nusantara Advance Scholarly Resources
Citation -


The Journal of Integrated Local Wisdom and Science Education (JILWSE) is an international, open-access, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to advancing the integration of indigenous knowledge, local wisdom, cultural values, and regional potential into modern science education. The journal serves as a critical platform for bridging formal school science with the lived realities of students encompassing traditional technologies, local ecosystems, and socio-cultural contexts.

JILWSE publishes high-quality empirical research (qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods) as well as systematic literature reviews that contribute theoretical and practical insights into culturally responsive science education. The journal aspires to foster a global dialogue on how local wisdom can enrich scientific literacy, environmental awareness, and character formation in educational settings. 

 

FOCUS AND SCOPE

The Journal of Integrated Local Wisdom and Science Education (JILWSE) is an open-access, peer-reviewed academic journal committed to publishing high-quality research on the integration of local wisdom, regional potential, cultural values, and indigenous knowledge into contemporary science education. The journal seeks to bridge the gap between formal school science and the cultural, technological, and environmental realities of students’ communities. We welcome empirical studies (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods) as well as systematic literature reviews that advance theoretical and practical understanding in this interdisciplinary field.

JILWSE invites submissions addressing, but not limited to, the following areas:

  1. Ethnoscience and Indigenous Knowledge in Education – Transforming culturally embedded scientific phenomena (e.g., herbal medicine, local agriculture, traditional astronomy) into core school science content (Biology, Physics, Chemistry).

  2. Exploration of Local Potential in Science – Scientific investigation of natural resources (flora, fauna, ecosystems), social assets, and physical features of a region as relevant learning resources.

  3. Local Technology and Innovation – Analysis of the scientific principles underlying traditional technologies (farming tools, food processing, vernacular architecture) and their integration into engineering and science instruction.

  4. Integrated Curriculum and Lesson Study – Design, development, and implementation of science curricula, lesson plans, and instructional materials explicitly grounded in local wisdom and regional contexts.

  5. Instructional Models and Locally Based Media – Development of pedagogical models (e.g., culture-based learning, place-based education), modules, hands-on teaching aids, and digital media that incorporate local elements and materials.

  6. Teacher Professional Development – Studies on teachers’ perceptions, competencies, and challenges in integrating local knowledge into science classrooms.

  7. Assessment and Evaluation – Development of assessment instruments to measure scientific literacy, process skills, or character development through a local-wisdom lens.

  8. Socio-Scientific Issues (SSI) and the Environment – Discussions of local environmental issues (e.g., customary forest conservation, regional waste management, locally based disaster mitigation) and traditional health practices from a modern scientific perspective.

  9. Character and Value Integration – Inculcation of local ethical values, cultural virtues, and character formation (including the Pancasila student profile) through scientific inquiry processes.

 

 

 COMMUNICATE WITH RESPECT

At Nusantara Advanced Scholarly Resources (NASR), we believe that mutual respect is the foundation for building trust and delivering high-quality publishing products and services to the communities we serve. Our staff are expected to engage professionally and respectfully at all times when interacting with authors, reviewers, and readers. In turn, we expect the same standard of conduct from the academic community and the public in their communications with our staff. Aggressive behavior, as well as any form of harassment, bullying, or discrimination directed toward NASR staff, will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to refer serious violations to employers or local authorities when necessary, and may decline to engage or do business with individuals who repeatedly or seriously breach this policy.

 

AUTHORSHIP

Authorship Definition

These guidelines outline the principles and best practices of authorship that prospective authors are expected to follow.

Clarification of Authorship

Nusantara Advanced Scholarly Resources (NASR) assumes that all listed authors have agreed to the content, have given explicit consent to submit the manuscript, and have obtained approval from the responsible authorities at the institution or organization where the work was carried out prior to submission.

NASR does not prescribe specific types of contributions that qualify for authorship. Authors are encouraged to follow the authorship guidelines applicable to their respective research fields. In the absence of such field-specific guidelines, the following criteria are recommended (a, b):

Each author whose name appears on the submitted manuscript must:

  • Have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; or to the creation of new software used in the work;

  • Have drafted the work or substantively revised it for important intellectual content;

  • Have approved the version to be published; and

  • Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, ensuring that any questions regarding the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

NASR journals encourage collaboration with colleagues located where the research was conducted and expect their inclusion as co-authors if they fulfill all the above authorship criteria. Individuals who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section

Disclosures and Declarations

All authors are required to include information regarding sources of funding, financial or non-financial interests, study-specific approval from the appropriate ethics committee for research involving human and/or animal subjects, informed consent when human participants are involved, and a statement on animal welfare when the research involves animals (as applicable). The necessity of including such information depends not only on the journal's scope but also on the scope of the article. Work submitted for publication may have implications for public health or general welfare; in such cases, all authors are responsible for including the appropriate disclosures and declarations.

Data Transparency

All authors must ensure that all data, materials, software applications, and custom code supporting their published claims conform to field-specific standards. NASR journals may adopt individual policies on research data sharing in alignment with disciplinary norms and expectations. Authors should consult the Instructions for Authors of the specific journal to which they are submitting for detailed guidance.

Role of the Corresponding Author

One author is designated as the Corresponding Author, acting on behalf of all co-authors, and is responsible for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are properly addressed. The Corresponding Author is responsible for:

  • Ensuring that all listed authors have approved the manuscript prior to submission, including the names and order of authors;

  • Managing all communication between the journal and all co-authors, both before and after publication*;

  • Providing transparency regarding reuse of material and mentioning any unpublished material (e.g., manuscripts in press) included in the submission in a cover letter to the Editor;

  • Ensuring that disclosures, declarations, and data transparency statements from all authors are included in the manuscript as appropriate (see above).

*The task of managing communication between the journal and all co-authors during submission and proofing may be delegated to a Contact or Submitting Author. In such cases, the Corresponding Author must be clearly indicated in the manuscript.

Author Contributions

Authors should consult the Instructions for Authors of the journal to which they are submitting for specific instructions regarding contribution statements. NASR journals encourage transparency by publishing author contribution statements. Authors are required to include a statement of responsibility in the manuscript (including review articles) that specifies each author's contribution. The level of detail may vary across disciplines; some fields produce manuscripts comprising discrete efforts that can be described in detail, while others operate as group efforts at all stages. Author contribution statements will be published with the paper. For further details, refer to the editorial policy describing this practice.

NASR journals also allow one set of co-authors to be designated as having contributed equally to the work and one set as having jointly supervised the work. Other equal contributions are best described in the author contribution statements.

Affiliation

The primary affiliation for each author should be the institution where the majority of their work was conducted. If an author has subsequently moved, their current address may be provided additionally. Affiliations will not be updated or changed after publication of the article.

Changes to Authorship

Authors are strongly advised to determine the correct author group, Corresponding Author, and order of authors at the time of submission. Any changes to the author list after submission (e.g., change in author order, deletion, or addition of authors) must be approved by every author. Changes to authorship—including adding or deleting authors, changing the Corresponding Author, or altering the sequence of authors—are not permitted after acceptance of a manuscript. Please note that author names will be published exactly as they appear on the accepted submission. Authors must ensure that all names are present, correctly spelled, and that affiliations are current.

Adding or deleting authors at the revision stage is generally not permitted, though exceptions may be warranted in some cases. Any such changes must be explained, and approval for the change during revision is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. Authors should be aware that individual journals may have specific policies regarding adding or deleting authors during the revision stage.

Author Name Change

An author who has changed their name for reasons such as gender transition or religious conversion may request that their name, pronouns, and other relevant biographical information be corrected on papers published prior to the change. The author may choose for this correction to be made silently (i.e., no note indicating the change will appear on the PDF or HTML of the paper) or via a formal public Author Correction. For authors who have changed their name and wish to correct it on their published works, please refer to the Inclusive Name Change Policy available via the NASR support contact form.

Author Identification

Authors are strongly encouraged to use their ORCID iD when submitting an article for consideration or to obtain an ORCID iD through the submission process.

Deceased or Incapacitated Authors

In cases where a co-author dies or becomes incapacitated during the writing, submission, or peer-review process, and the remaining co-authors believe it is appropriate to include that individual as an author, approval must be obtained from a legal representative (e.g., a direct relative).

Confidentiality

Authors must treat all communication with the journal as confidential. This includes correspondence with direct journal representatives (such as Editors-in-Chief and Handling Editors) as well as reviewers' reports, unless explicit consent has been given to share such information.

Authorship Issues or Disputes

In the event of an authorship dispute during peer review or after acceptance and publication, the journal will not investigate or adjudicate the matter. Authors will be asked to resolve the dispute themselves. If they are unable to do so, the journal reserves the right to withdraw the manuscript from the editorial process. For already published papers, the journal may raise the issue with the authors' institutions and abide by their guidelines.

 

COMPETING INTEREST

Authors are required to disclose any interests—directly or indirectly related to the submitted work—that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research or its interpretation. Interests arising within the three years prior to the commencement of the work (including research conduct and manuscript preparation) must be reported. Interests outside this three-year window should also be disclosed if they could reasonably be viewed as affecting the submitted work. Full disclosure ensures a complete and transparent process, enabling readers to form their own judgments about potential bias. Such disclosure does not imply that financial relationships with sponsoring organizations or compensation for consultancy are inappropriate.

Interests to be considered and disclosed include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Funding: Research grants from funding agencies (including grant numbers) and/or research support (e.g., salaries, equipment, supplies, reimbursement for symposia, and other expenses) from organizations that may gain or lose financially through publication of the manuscript.

  • Employment: Recent (during the research project), current, or anticipated employment by any organization that may gain or lose financially as a result of publication. This includes multiple affiliations where applicable.

  • Financial interests: Stocks or shares in companies (including holdings of spouse and/or children) that may gain or lose financially; consultation fees or other remuneration from such organizations; patents or patent applications whose value may be affected by publication. As no fixed threshold determines when a financial interest becomes significant, a practical guideline is: "Any undeclared financial interest that could embarrass the author were it to become publicly known after publication."

  • Non-financial interests: Interests beyond financial ones that could introduce bias, such as professional interests, personal relationships, personal beliefs, editorial or advisory board positions, management roles, writing or consulting for educational purposes, expert witness activities, mentoring relationships, and similar.

Disclosure Requirements by Article Type

Primary research articles and review articles (which present expert syntheses of evidence) both require a disclosure statement. Other article types—such as editorials, book reviews, and comments—may also require a disclosure statement depending on their content. If uncertain, authors should consult the Editor-in-Chief.

Additionally, funding information (as a potential conflict of interest) must be disclosed upon submission via the peer review system. This information will automatically be added to the CrossMark record but will not appear in the manuscript itself. Under the "Summary of Requirements" below, funding should be included in the "Declarations" section.

Summary of Requirements

The above information must be summarized in a statement and included in a section titled "Declarations" placed before the reference list. Other declarations to be included in this section are: Funding, Conflicts of interest/Competing interests, Ethics approval, Consent, Data and/or Code availability, and Author contributions.

If any of this information already appears elsewhere in the manuscript (e.g., in Materials and Methods), it should be repeated in the Declarations section.

Sample Statements

Below are examples of wording that authors may revise and customize as needed. When all authors share the same conflicts (or none) and funding, a single blanket statement is sufficient.

Funding (heading)

  • Partial financial support was received from [...]

  • The research leading to these results received funding from [...] under Grant Agreement No. [...]

  • This study was funded by [...]

  • This work was supported by [...] (Grant numbers [...] and [...])

If no funding:

  • The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

  • No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

  • No funding was received for conducting this study.

  • No funds, grants, or other support was received.

Conflicts of interest / Competing interests (heading)

  • Financial interests: Author A has received research support from Company A. Author B has received a speaker honorarium from Company W and owns stock in Company X. Author C is a consultant to Company Y.
    Non-financial interests: Author C is an unpaid member of committee Z.

  • Financial interests: The authors declare they have no financial interests.
    Non-financial interests: Author A is on the board of directors of Y and receives no compensation.

  • Financial interests: Author A received a speaking fee from Y for Z. Author B receives a salary from association X, where s/he serves as Executive Director.
    Non-financial interests: none.

  • Financial interests: Authors A and B declare no financial interests. Author C has received speaker and consultant honoraria from Company M and Company N. Dr. C has also received speaker honorarium and research funding from Company M and Company O. Author D has received travel support from Company O.
    Non-financial interests: Author D has served on advisory boards for Company M, Company N, and Company O.

When authors have nothing to declare, the following statements may be used:

  • The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

  • The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

  • All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

  • The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Responsibility and Editorial Authority

Authors are responsible for the accuracy of the statements provided in the manuscript (see also Authorship Principles). The Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject submissions that do not comply with the guidelines described in this section. Nusantara Advanced Scholarly Resources (NASR) expects full adherence to these disclosure standards as part of its commitment to publication integrity. 

 

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS

Nusantara Advanced Scholarly Resources (NASR) is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record. Authors must avoid misrepresenting research results, as doing so undermines trust in the journal, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and the entire scientific enterprise. Adherence to good scientific practice helps maintain integrity in research and its presentation. Key principles include:

  • Multiple or simultaneous submissions: The manuscript should not be submitted to more than one publication for concurrent consideration.

  • Originality: The submitted work must be original and not have been published elsewhere in any form or language (partially or in full), unless the new work represents a genuine expansion of previous work. Transparency on reuse of material is required to avoid concerns about text recycling ("self-plagiarism").

  • No salami slicing: A single study should not be split into several parts to increase submission quantity across publications or over time.

  • Concurrent or secondary publication: This is sometimes justifiable under specific conditions (e.g., translations or manuscripts intended for a different audience).

  • Data presentation: Results must be presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation (including image-based manipulation). Authors must follow discipline-specific rules for acquiring, selecting, and processing data.

  • Plagiarism: No data, text, or theories by others should be presented as the author's own. Proper acknowledgements must be given for closely copied, summarized, or paraphrased material. Quotation marks indicate verbatim copying, and permissions must be secured for copyrighted material.

    • Note: The journal may use plagiarism detection software.

  • Permissions: Authors must ensure they have permissions for the use of software, questionnaires, web surveys, and scales in their studies where appropriate.

  • Citation practices: Research and non-research articles (e.g., opinion, review, commentary) must cite appropriate and relevant literature. Excessive and inappropriate self-citation or coordinated group self-citation is strongly discouraged.

  • Statements about entities or persons: Authors should avoid untrue statements about any entity (individual or company) or descriptions that could be seen as personal attacks or allegations.

  • Dual-use research: Research that may be misapplied to pose a threat to public health or national security (e.g., harmful biological agents, vaccine immunity disruption, chemical hazards, weaponization of research) must be clearly identified in the manuscript.

  • Authorship accuracy: Authors are strongly advised to ensure the author group, Corresponding Author, and order of authors are correct at submission. Adding or deleting authors during revision is generally not permitted but may be warranted in some cases; reasons must be explained in detail. Changes cannot be made after acceptance (see also Authorship Principles).

  • Data availability: Upon request, authors should be prepared to provide relevant documentation or data (e.g., raw data, samples, records) to verify the validity of the results, excluding confidential or proprietary information.

  • Third-party rights: Authors must respect third-party rights, including copyright and moral rights.

Investigation of Misconduct

If misconduct or alleged fraud is suspected, the Journal and/or Publisher (NASR) will conduct an investigation following COPE guidelines. If valid concerns are confirmed, the author(s) will be contacted via their provided email address and given an opportunity to address the issue. Depending on the situation, the following measures may be implemented, including but not limited to:

  • If the manuscript is under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.

  • If the article has already been published online, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction:

    • An erratum/correction may be placed with the article.

    • An editorial expression of concern may be placed with the article.

    • In severe cases, retraction of the article may occur.

  • The reason will be provided in the published erratum/correction, expression of concern, or retraction note. Retraction means the article remains on the platform, watermarked "retracted," with an explanation linked to the watermarked article.

  • The author's institution may be informed.

  • A notice of suspected transgression of ethical standards in the peer review system may be included in the author's and article's bibliographic record.

Fundamental Errors

Authors have an obligation to correct significant errors or inaccuracies discovered in their published article. The author(s) must contact the journal, explaining how the error impacts the article. The decision on how to correct the literature (correction or retraction) depends on the nature of the error. The retraction note must provide transparency regarding which parts of the article are affected.

Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers

Authors are welcome to suggest suitable reviewers and/or request the exclusion of certain individuals upon submission. Suggested reviewers must be totally independent and not connected to the work in any way. It is strongly recommended to suggest a mix of reviewers from different countries and institutions. The Corresponding Author must provide an institutional email address for each suggested reviewer or, if not possible, include other means of verifying identity (e.g., link to a personal homepage, publication record, or researcher/author ID) in the submission letter. Please note that the journal may not use the suggestions, although they are appreciated and may facilitate the peer review process.

 

CITATIONS

Authors are responsible for identifying and documenting relevant citations to support their work. Unethical citation practices constitute a breach of the NASR Act with Integrity policy (see Editorial Policies for journals) and may result in rejection of the manuscript or retraction after publication. Such violations may also be reported to the authors' institutions.

Unethical practices include, but are not limited to:

  • Citation manipulation – e.g., excessive self-citation, gratuitous and unnecessary citation of content published in the journal or book series to which the manuscript has been submitted.

  • Unreliable citations – e.g., irrelevant citations, non-existent or hallucinated references generated by artificial intelligence (AI) tools, improper citations to retracted works.

  • Encouragement of unethical practices – Any attempts by peer reviewers, editors, or other parties to request irrelevant or unnecessary citations should be reported by authors to the publisher.

When preparing a manuscript, authors should:

  • Use a citation to support any statement that relies on external sources of information (i.e., not the authors' own new ideas, findings, or general knowledge).

  • Have read all cited sources and ensure they are accurate and relevant to the statement made in the manuscript.

  • Cite the original work rather than a derivative (e.g., a review article that cites an original work) unless necessary.

  • Aim to include citations from a diverse range of sources, avoiding reliance on a single source (e.g., only from peers, their institution, or a single country).

  • Avoid using an excessive number of citations to support one point unless necessary.

  • Cite sources that have undergone peer review whenever possible.

  • Avoid citing advertisements or advertorial material (e.g., promotional or marketing materials) where possible.

  • Carefully review citations following any use of AI in manuscript preparation, including copy-editing and translation, as AI tools may alter citation text. Using AI to generate citations can lead to non-existent or hallucinated references.

  • Include the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the cited source whenever possible.

 

CORRECTIONS, RETRACTIONS, AND MATTERS ARISING

Corrections and Retractions

On rare occasions, it may be necessary to publish corrections to or retractions of articles previously published in NASR journals to preserve the integrity of the academic record.

Corrections or retractions will be made by publishing a Correction or Retraction note that is bidirectionally linked to the original article. The note will describe any alterations made to the original article. The original article remains in the public domain, and the subsequent Correction or Retraction will be widely indexed. In the exceptional event that material is found to infringe certain rights or is defamatory, NASR may remove that material from its website and archive sites.

Authors, readers, or organizations who become aware of errors or ethical issues in a published article are encouraged to contact the relevant journal directly using the contact information provided on the journal’s website. All reports will be considered by the Editors; additional expert advice may be sought when determining the most appropriate course of action. The NASR Research Integrity Group provides support to Editors in addressing publication ethics issues in a manner consistent with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.

Corrections

Errors in published articles that affect the accuracy of the work but do not substantially invalidate its conclusions will, at the Editor(s)’ discretion, be corrected through the publication of a Correction note. This note will be indexed and bidirectionally linked to the original article.

Retractions

On rare occasions when the interpretation or conclusion of an article is substantially undermined, it may be necessary to retract the published article. Editorial decisions to retract are based on the reliability of the article and whether the Editor retains confidence in the interpretation and conclusions presented. NASR follows COPE guidelines in such cases. Retractions are designed as a neutral tool to correct the literature and should not be viewed as punitive. Retraction notices are indexed and bidirectionally linked to the original article. The original article is watermarked as "retracted," and its title is amended with the prefix "Retracted article:".

Editorial Expressions of Concern and Editor’s Notes

  • Editor’s Note: An Editor’s Note is a notification alerting readers that the journal has initiated an inquiry in response to concerns raised about a published article. It is an online-only update made solely to the HTML version of record and is not indexed.

  • Editorial Expression of Concern (EEoC): An EEoC is a statement from the editors alerting readers to serious concerns affecting the integrity of the published paper. EEoCs are published online, bidirectionally linked to the published paper, assigned a DOI, and indexed in major scholarly databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. An EEoC may be an interim measure or may be final.

Publishing an Editor’s Note or EEoC is recommended by COPE as a means of keeping readers updated while a potentially lengthy research integrity investigation is underway. Editor’s Notes and EEoCs are typically (but not always) superseded by the publication of another amendment—such as a correction or retraction—once the investigation is complete.

Removal of Published Content

In exceptional circumstances, NASR reserves the right to remove an article, chapter, book, or other content from its online platforms. Such action may be taken when:

  1. NASR has been advised that the content is defamatory, infringes a third party’s intellectual property rights, right to privacy, or other legal rights, or is otherwise unlawful;

  2. A court or government order has been issued (or is likely to be issued) requiring removal of such content; or

  3. The content, if acted upon, would pose an immediate and serious risk to health.

Removal may be temporary or permanent. Bibliographic metadata (e.g., title and authors) will be retained and accompanied by a statement explaining why the content has been removed.

Matters Arising

NASR journals recognize the importance of post-publication commentary on published research as necessary for advancing scientific discourse. Formal post-publication commentary on published papers may include challenges, clarifications, or, in some cases, replication of the published work. Such commentary should reflect the knowledge available at the time the original paper was written, rather than later scientific developments.

At the Editor’s discretion and depending on the nature of the piece, post-publication comment or discussion will be evaluated, peer-reviewed, and, after peer review, may be published online as Matters Arising. The authors of the original work will be invited to reply, and their response may also be published alongside the post-publication commentary.

 

APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS

Policy and Process

The following procedure applies to:

  • Appeals against editorial decisions;

  • Complaints about process failures (e.g., undue delays in manuscript handling);

  • Complaints regarding publication ethics.

Complaints should initially be directed to the Editor-in-Chief responsible for the journal or the Editor who handled the paper. If the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor themselves, please contact the in-house publishing contact (refer to the journal homepage's contacts page).

Complaint about Scientific Content (e.g., an Appeal against Rejection)

The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor will consider the authors' arguments and the reviewer reports, then decide whether:

  • The decision to reject should stand;

  • Another independent opinion is required; or

  • The appeal should be reconsidered.

The complainant will be informed of the decision with an explanation where appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final, and new submissions take priority over appeals.

Complaint about Processes (e.g., Time Taken to Review)

The Editor-in-Chief, together with the Handling Editor (where applicable) and/or the in-house contact (where applicable), will investigate the matter. The complainant will receive appropriate feedback. Feedback is also provided to relevant stakeholders to improve processes and procedures.

Complaint about Publication Ethics (e.g., Author, Reviewer, or Researcher Conduct)

The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor will follow guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). For difficult or complicated cases, the Editor may seek advice from the publisher via the in-house contact. The Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor will determine a course of action and provide feedback to the complainant. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, they may submit the complaint to COPE for further review. 

 

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

NASR is closely monitoring ongoing developments in the field of artificial intelligence and will review and update this policy as appropriate.

AI Authorship

Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, do not currently meet NASR’s authorship criteria. Attribution of authorship carries accountability for the work, which cannot be effectively applied to LLMs. Any use of an LLM must be properly documented in the Methods section (or, if a Methods section is not available, in a suitable alternative part) of the manuscript. The use of an LLM or other AI tool for "AI-assisted copy editing" purposes does not need to be declared. In this context, "AI-assisted copy editing" refers to AI-supported improvements to human-generated texts for readability, style, grammar, spelling, punctuation, and tone. Such improvements may include wording and formatting changes but do not include generative editorial work or autonomous content creation. In all cases, human accountability for the final version of the text is required, along with author confirmation that the edits reflect their original work.

Generative AI Images

The rapidly evolving area of generative AI image creation has introduced novel legal copyright and research integrity issues. As a publisher, NASR strictly adheres to existing copyright law and best practices in publication ethics. Given that legal issues surrounding AI-generated images and videos remain largely unresolved, NASR journals are currently unable to permit their use for publication.

Exceptions:

  • Images or artwork obtained from agencies with which NASR has contractual relationships, provided those images have been created in a legally acceptable manner.

  • Images and videos directly referenced in a piece specifically focused on AI; such cases will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

  • The use of generative AI tools developed with specific, attributable sets of scientific data that can be checked and verified for accuracy, provided that ethics, copyright, and terms of use restrictions are adhered to.

All exceptions must be clearly labeled as generated by AI within the image field.

Given the rapid evolution of this field, NASR will review this policy regularly and adapt it as necessary.

NOTE: Image types covered by this policy include video and animation (including video stills), photography, illustrations such as scientific diagrams, photo-illustrations and other collages, and editorial illustrations such as drawings, cartoons, or other 2D or 3D visual representations. Not covered are text-based and numerical display items such as tables, flow charts, and other simple graphs that do not contain images. Please note that not all AI tools are generative. The use of non-generative machine learning tools to manipulate, combine, or enhance existing images or figures should be disclosed in the relevant caption upon submission to allow case-by-case review.

AI Use by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations and recommendations guide editorial decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Reviewers are selected primarily for their in-depth knowledge of the subject matter or methods of the work they are asked to evaluate expertise that is invaluable and irreplaceable. Peer reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and views expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on a principle of mutual trust among authors, reviewers, and editors. Despite rapid progress, generative AI tools have considerable limitations: they may lack up-to-date knowledge and can produce nonsensical, biased, or false information. Manuscripts may also contain sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons, NASR asks that—while we explore providing reviewers with access to safe AI tools—peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.

If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was supported by an AI tool, peer reviewers are asked to transparently declare the use of such tools in the peer review report. 

 

ETHICS AND BIOSECURITY

Informed Consent

Every individual has rights that must not be infringed. Research participants have the right to decide what happens to their identifiable personal data, their spoken or written statements during a study or interview, and any photographs taken. This is especially important for images of vulnerable people (e.g., minors, patients, refugees) or images used in sensitive contexts. In many cases, authors must obtain written consent before including such images.

Identifying details (names, dates of birth, identity numbers, biometric characteristics, and other information) should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, or genetic profiles unless the information is essential for scholarly purposes and the participant (or parent/guardian/legal representative) has given written informed consent for publication. Complete anonymity can be difficult to achieve; detailed descriptions may lead to identification. If identifying characteristics are altered to protect anonymity (e.g., in genetic profiles), authors must confirm that such alterations do not distort meaning.

Exceptions where consent is not necessary:

  • Images such as X-rays, laparoscopic images, ultrasound scans, brain scans, and pathology slides, unless identifying information is a concern.

  • Reused images from prior publications (the publisher assumes the original publication obtained consent; proper attribution is required).

Consent for Already Available Data and/or Biological Material

Regardless of whether material is collected from living or deceased patients, prior written consent must be obtained from the patient (or family/guardian if the deceased did not make a pre‑mortem decision). Confidentiality and any wishes of the deceased must be respected.

Data Protection, Confidentiality, and Privacy

When biological material is donated or data is generated as part of a research project, authors must ensure, through the informed consent process, that participants are aware of what personal data will be processed, how it will be used, and for what purpose. For data acquired from a biobank or biorepository, broad consent may be acceptable if it meets the standards of research ethics committees. Authors should always verify the specific policies of the biobank or data provider.

Consent to Participate

For all research involving human subjects, freely given informed consent to participate must be obtained from participants (or their parent/legal guardian for children under 16). A statement to this effect must appear in the manuscript.

For articles describing human transplantation studies, authors must state that no organs/tissues were obtained from prisoners and name the institution(s)/clinic(s)/department(s) through which organs/tissues were obtained.

Consent to Publish

Individuals may consent to participate in a study but object to having their data published. Authors must seek consent to publish data before submitting a paper, particularly for case studies.

Summary of Requirements for Consent Statements

These declarations should be included in a section titled "Declarations" before the reference list, under headings such as "Consent to participate" and "Consent to publish." Sample statements:

  • Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

  • Written informed consent was obtained from the parents.

  • The participant has consented to the submission of the case report to the journal.

  • Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.

If a section is not relevant, include the heading and write "Not applicable." Authors are responsible for the correctness of these statements. The Editor‑in‑Chief may reject submissions that do not comply.

Images will be removed if informed consent was not obtained; the paper may be removed and replaced with a notice explaining the reason.

Sex and Gender in Research

Use the terms sex (biological attribute) and gender (socially and culturally shaped) carefully. Article titles/abstracts should clearly indicate the sex(es) to which the study applies. Authors should describe expected sex/gender differences, report how sex/gender were accounted for in study design, provide disaggregated data where appropriate, and discuss results. If no sex/gender analysis was conducted, a rationale should be given in the Discussion. These guidelines apply to studies involving humans, vertebrate animals, and cell lines.

Research Involving Human Participants, Their Data, or Biological Material

Ethics Approval

Authors must include a statement confirming that the study was approved (or granted exemption) by the appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee (including the committee’s name) and that the study was performed in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. If a study was exempt from ethics approval, this must be detailed with reasons.

Retrospective Ethics Approval

If a study did not receive ethics approval prior to commencement, retrospective approval is usually impossible, and the manuscript may not be considered for peer review. The Editor has discretion in such cases.

Ethics Approval for Retrospective Studies

Retrospective studies on already available data or biological material may still require ethics approval depending on national laws and guidelines. Authors should check with their institution.

Ethics Approval for Case Studies

Case reports require ethics approval. Authors should follow their institution’s policies and obtain approval where needed. Informed consent from the individual (or parent/guardian) is also required.

Cell Lines

If human cells are used, authors must declare: the source of the cell line, when and where it was obtained, whether it has been recently authenticated, and by what method. For purchased cells, provide the company name, cell type, line number, and batch. Authors are encouraged to check the NCBI database for misidentification and contamination. A statement confirming ethics approval and informed consent from the donor or next of kin is required.

Declarations Summary for Human Research

Include a section titled "Declarations" with subheading "Ethics approval." Sample statements:

  • *All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration. The study was approved by the Bioethics Committee of University A (No. ...).*

  • Ethical approval was waived by the local Ethics Committee of University A due to the retrospective nature of the study.

  • No ethical approval was required because this was an observational study using de‑identified samples.

If a section is not relevant, write "Not applicable."

 

PEER REVIEW

Introduction

All research articles, and most other article types, published in NASR journals undergo peer review. This typically involves review by at least two independent expert peer reviewers. Individual journals may differ in their peer review processes (e.g., open or anonymized); authors should refer to the specific journal for details.

Peer Review Policy

All submissions to NASR journals are first checked for completeness before being assessed by an Editor, who determines whether they are suitable for peer review. If an Editor is listed as an author or has any other competing interest regarding a manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee the peer review process. Editors consider peer review reports when making decisions but are not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. A concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor alone may result in rejection. Authors receive peer review reports together with the editorial decision.

Proceedings papers are reviewed by Programme Chairs and Programme Committee members of the respective conference, with assistance from external reviewers selected by them.

AI Use by Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations guide editorial decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Reviewers are selected primarily for their in-depth subject matter or methodological expertise—knowledge that is invaluable and irreplaceable. Reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and views expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on mutual trust among authors, reviewers, and editors. Despite rapid advances, generative AI tools have significant limitations: they may lack up‑to‑date knowledge and can produce nonsensical, biased, or false information. Manuscripts may also contain sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons, NASR asks that—while we explore providing reviewers with access to safe AI tools—peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.

If any part of the evaluation of the manuscript was supported by an AI tool, reviewers are asked to transparently declare the use of such tools in their peer review report.

Peer Reviewer Selection

Reviewer selection is critical to the publication process and is based on multiple factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, conflict of interest, and prior performance. Speed, thoroughness, sound reasoning, and collegiality are highly valued.

Editor Responsibilities (adapted from the NASR Code of Conduct for Editors)

  • Editors are expected to obtain at least two peer reviewers for manuscripts reporting primary research or secondary analysis of primary research. In exceptional circumstances (e.g., niche or emerging fields) where two independent reviewers cannot be secured, Editors may make a decision based on a single peer review report, provided that report meets the standards described below.

  • Peer review reports should be in English and provide constructive critical evaluations, particularly regarding the appropriateness of methods, accuracy of results, and whether conclusions are supported by the data. Editorial decisions should be based on reports meeting these criteria, not on short, superficial reports lacking rationale.

  • Editors must independently verify the contact details of reviewers suggested by authors or other third parties. Institutional email addresses should be used wherever possible. Each manuscript should be reviewed by at least one reviewer not suggested by the author.

  • Manuscripts that do not report primary research (e.g., Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries, Opinion articles) may be accepted without peer review. Such manuscripts should be assessed by the Editor(s) if within their expertise; if not, they should be assessed by at least one independent expert reviewer or Editorial Board Member.

  • In rare cases when two independent reviewers cannot be secured, an Editor may act as a second reviewer or decide using only one report. In such cases: the Editor must have sufficient knowledge in the area; the Editor should sign the review for transparency; the single report must be detailed and thorough; the first reviewer should be senior, on topic, and have published recently on the subject.

Potential peer reviewers must inform the Editor of any possible conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation. Communications between Editors and reviewers contain confidential information that should not be shared with third parties.

Some journals allow authors to suggest potential reviewers and to request exclusion of certain individuals (usually a maximum of two people/research groups). Editors will consider these requests but are not obliged to fulfill them. The Editor’s decision on reviewer selection is final. Authors should not recommend recent collaborators or colleagues from the same institution. Suggested reviewers should be accompanied by information to verify identity and expertise, such as an institutional email address and ORCID or Scopus ID.

Peer Reviewer Diversity

NASR is committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Editors are strongly encouraged to consider geographical regions, gender identities, racial/ethnic groups, and other dimensions of diversity when inviting peer reviewers.

Peer Reviewer Misconduct

Providing false or misleading information—for example, identity theft or suggesting fake reviewers—will result in rejection of the manuscript, further investigation in accordance with NASR’s misconduct policy, and notification to the authors’ institutions or employers. NASR journals are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Peer Review Models

  • Open peer review: Reviewer names are included on the reports. If the manuscript is published, reports with reviewer names are published online alongside the article. Authors know reviewer identities during the review process and vice versa, but direct correspondence between authors and reviewers is not permitted (communication is mediated by the Editor).

  • Transparent peer review: If the manuscript is published, the peer review reports appear online alongside the article, but reviewer names are not published.

  • Anonymized peer review: Most NASR journals use a single‑anonymized process (author identities known to reviewers, but reviewer identities not revealed to authors). In double‑anonymized peer review, neither authors’ nor reviewers’ identities are disclosed. The pre‑publication history of articles is not made available online.

Peer Reviewer Guidance

The primary purpose of peer review is to provide the Editor with information needed to reach a fair, evidence‑based decision that adheres to the journal’s editorial criteria. Reports should also help authors revise their paper for potential acceptance. Reports accompanying a recommendation to reject should explain the major weaknesses of the research.

Reviewers should adhere to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Confidential comments to the Editor are welcome but must not contradict the main points in the report for the authors. Reviewers should assess papers exclusively against the journal’s criteria for publication.

The following conventions must be respected:

  • Review the journal’s peer review policy before accepting a review role.

  • Conduct reviews objectively; personal criticism, defamatory, or libelous remarks are inappropriate.

  • Express views clearly with supporting arguments and references.

  • Declare any potential competing interests; decline to review manuscripts where a competing interest exists.

  • Respect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts; do not discuss them with colleagues or use the information in one’s own work.

  • If a reviewer wishes to pass an invitation to a colleague, they must first contact the journal.

  • Raise any concerns with the editorial team.

Key Questions for Reviewers

Reviewers are asked to assess the following aspects:

  • Key results: Summarize the outstanding features of the work.

  • Validity: Are there flaws that should prohibit publication?

  • Originality and significance: Are the conclusions original? Provide relevant references if not.

  • Data & methodology: Comment on the validity of the approach, quality of data, and presentation. Is the reporting sufficiently detailed to enable reproduction of results?

  • Statistics and uncertainties: Are error bars defined, statistical tests appropriate, and probability values accurately described?

  • Conclusions: Are the conclusions and data interpretation robust, valid, and reliable?

  • Inflammatory material: Does the manuscript contain inappropriate or potentially libelous language?

  • Suggested improvements: List changes that could strengthen the work.

  • References: Is prior literature cited appropriately? (Attempts at coerced citation will be noted.)

  • Clarity and context: Is the abstract clear and accessible? Are the introduction and conclusions appropriate?

  • Scope of expertise: Indicate any part of the manuscript or analyses you were unable to assess fully.

  • SAGER guidelines: Check whether sex and gender considerations have been addressed appropriately.

  • Misconduct allegations: Alert the Editor or NASR if you suspect plagiarism, image manipulation, or other research misconduct.

Before submitting a report, reviewers should consider the tone: Is it courteous and professional? Does it avoid unnecessary personal remarks or antagonistic comments? The Editor reserves the right to remove inappropriate language from a report.

Reports do not need to follow a specific order but should document the reviewer’s thought process. Some journals have specific questions to address. All statements should be justified with facts and references. Not every aspect may apply to every paper due to discipline‑specific standards; when in doubt, reviewers may contact the Editor for guidance.

NASR remains neutral regarding jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Reviewers should not request changes to such unless critical to the academic clarity of the manuscript.

NASR journals are committed to rapid editorial decisions. Reviewers are asked to respond promptly within the agreed timeframe. If a delay is anticipated, reviewers should inform the journal so that authors can be kept updated and alternatives can be found if necessary.

Peer Reviewer Recognition

NASR is committed to recognizing the invaluable service of peer reviewers. As part of our appreciation program, reviewers may credit their ORCID profile with verified peer review data transmitted directly from the submission system at the time of report submission.