Publication Ethics Statement

Journal of Maritime Logistics (JML) is dedicated to following the best practices on ethical matters, errors, and retractions. The prevention of publication malpractice is one of the important responsibilities of the Editorial Board. Any kind of unethical behaviour is not acceptable and the Editorial Board of this journal does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors submitting articles to the JML affirm that manuscript contents are original.

 

Publication Malpractice Statement

  1. When the publisher receives complaint or customer feedback from other parties including readers or external stakeholders—regarding unethical conduct, misconduct, or plagiarism in a published or submitted manuscript, the publisher will execute a fair and transparent process.
  2. The publisher will investigate if there are any unethical, misconduct, plagiarism cases, and authorship fraud are suspected.
  3. Publisher and editorial team work together to detect and prevent misconduct from occurring.
  4. If there are any issues, the publisher and editorial team will consult the UMT Journal Technical Committee Meeting for early advice. If the issues cannot be resolved at this stage, the matter will be raised to the top management for further decision.
  5. The publisher and editorial team will not tolerate any kind of unethical behaviour and the case will be taken seriously.
  6. The publisher will immediately retract the published article upon confirming that the article has been published elsewhere and notify the involved parties.
  7. Manuscripts which contain plagiarized content will be rejected upon early screening and processing by the editorial team.
  8. Manuscript with high similarity index (Turnitin more than 35%) will be returned to the author for revisions until the Turnitin percentage has been reduced.
  9. If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they must promptly notify the publisher and cooperate with them to retract or correct the article.

The following duties outlined for the editors, reviewers, authors, and publishers are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) codes of conduct.

 

Duties of Editorial Advisor

  1. Provide advice and bring this journal to be indexed in MyCite and Scopus within the specified timeline.
  2. Assist in highlighting the role of JML in logistics and transportation.
  3. Boost research collaboration among local and global researchers while bolstering UMT's prestige as a Public University at the forefront of logistics and maritime management.

 

Duties of Editors

  1. The Editors are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
  2. The Editors may discuss with other editors or reviewers in making a decision.
  3. The Editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  4. The Editors must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  5. The Editors should ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process.
  6. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.
  7. The Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.

 

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information.
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  3. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
  4. Reviewers should request to the Editors attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  5. In case, any reviewer feels that it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time, then, the same must be communicated to the editors, so that the same could be sent to any other reviewer.
  6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

 

Duties of Authors

  1. The authors should submit papers only on work that has been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and that complies with all relevant legislation.
  2. The authors present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation.
  3. The authors should endeavour to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by others.
  4. The authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original, is not plagiarized, and has not been published elsewhere.
  5. The authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
  6. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited.
  7. The authors should take collective responsibility for submitted and published work.
  8. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Duplicitous or expressively inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
  9. Proper acknowledgements of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
  10. The authors should ensure that the authorship accurately reflects individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting; and where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged.
  11. The authors should disclose relevant funding sources and any existing or potential conflicts of interest. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  12. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editors and the editor to retract or correct the paper.

 

Duties of Publishers

  1. Publisher ensures that members of the Advisory Board, Editorial Board, authors, reviewers, and editors adhere to the best publishing practices and procedures including UMT Publication Policy.
  2. Publisher handles the production process after the article has been accepted for publication by the Chief Editor. The production tasks involve payment requests, language editing, layout, proofreading, Galley Proof, publishing on the website, and activating the DOI number.
  3. Publisher handles the Copyright Form/Publishing Agreement before publication.
  4. Publisher ensures that the layout of the articles follows the standard publisher house style and international editorial conventions.
  5. Publisher is responsible for ensuring that the editorial team meets production schedules and has no delays/interruptions in the publication.
  6. Publisher submits journals to national and international indexing databases.
  7. Publisher is responsible for reviewing and updating the journal's policies regularly when required.
  8. Publisher is responsible for investigating any misconduct and resolving any related issues based on the journal policy.
  9. Publisher working closely with the editorial team to ensure ultimate success of the journal.
  10. Publisher helps in promoting the journal for visibility purposes.

 

Ethics Guidelines

Journal of Maritime Logistics (JML) is dedicated to following best ethical practices in publishing. The prevention of publication malpractice is one of the important responsibilities of the Editorial Board. Any kind of unethical behaviour is not acceptable, and the Editorial Board does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors submitting articles to JML affirm that manuscript contents are original. JML strictly adhere to the guidelines in Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) codes of conduct.

To ensure publication ethics, authors are to:

1. Affirm Exclusivity

Manuscript must be ensured of its exclusivity, meaning that it is not published, or considered for publication, elsewhere. Authors are responsible to ensure that the manuscript is free from plagiarism, duplication, and redundancy. Work involving recycled text and translation need to be ensured for exclusivity, by adhering to the requirements of JML. 

2. Declare Authors’ Contribution

All authors must meet the authorship criteria with clear contributions to the manuscript. Those who do not meet the authorship criteria, but need to be acknowledged, can be disclosed in the Acknowledgement section. Details on the authors who have contributed to the work and the capacity of work that justify their contributions must be disclosed in the manuscript. 

3. Declare Funding

Any sources of financial support for the research and manuscript preparation need to be disclosed. The official names of funding agencies should be used, and grant numbers should be provided where applicable. If applicable, authors should also describe the role of the funder(s) beyond providing financial support—for example, whether the funder was involved in research process, manuscript preparation, or the decision to submit the article. Details of funding must be disclosed as Acknowledgement in the manuscript.

4. Declare Conflicts

A conflict of interest, whether actual or perceived, can affect professional judgement in publications, such as on the ability to present objectively. It could arise from various interests such as financial, personal, or political. Nevertheless, a clear declaration of any conflicts of interest can assist authors with conflict of interest to publish and encourage them to disclose the potential interests. Details on conflict of interest must be disclosed in the manuscript.

5. Adhere to Guidelines for Ethical Conduct in Research

Authors must adhere to the guidelines applicable for the Ethical Conduct of Human and Animal Research in the research process and provides the details in the manuscript. Ethical Conduct Statements (including when no such requirement is needed) must be disclosed in the manuscript.

Ethical Conduct Statements for Human Research

Studies involving human participants, data, or tissue must comply with international ethical standards such as the Declaration of Helsinki or equivalent national and institutional guidelines. Manuscripts must include:

  • the name of the approving ethics committee or institutional review board with the approval/reference number, or justification if approval was waived;
  • confirmation that informed consent was obtained from all participants;
  • explicit consent for the publication of identifiable data, images, or voices; and
  • additional safeguards applied during the consent process for research involving vulnerable populations (e.g., children, elderly persons, individuals with disabilities, refugees, or minority groups)

Consent forms are not submitted but must be retained by the authors and provided upon request. All identifiers must be anonymised, and technical images must exclude identifying features.

All clinical trials must be prospectively registered in a publicly accessible trials registry, in line with the World Health Organization and the Declaration of Helsinki. The trial registration number must be reported in the methodology section of the manuscript. Randomised controlled trials must comply with CONSORT guidelines, and submissions must include a completed checklist and flow diagram.

Ethical Conduct Statements for Animal Research

Animal studies must adhere to the highest ethical standards and comply with relevant national, institutional, and international legislation. Authors must confirm prior approval from an appropriate animal care and use committee (or equivalent) and state the approving authority in the manuscript. Manuscripts must include:

  • the name of the approving ethics committee or institutional animal care and use committee, together with the approval/reference number; or justification if approval was waived.

Animal experiments must comply with ARRIVE guidelines. Manuscripts should include sufficient details of study design, procedures, animal characteristics, and housing/husbandry conditions to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and adherence to ethical best practice. Research must follow the principles of the 3Rs: Replacement (seek alternatives to animal use), Reduction (use the fewest animals necessary), and Refinement (minimise discomfort, pain, and distress).

6. Describe Usage of AI Tools or Technologies

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools or technologies need to be used responsibly. It can be used as a companion to the research process, rather than a replacement, with full responsibility for the accuracy of all content. Any use of AI is to be made in a manner that aligns with privacy, confidentiality, and compliance obligations, such as on the ownership of the content. Details on the use of AI in the research can be disclosed in the manuscript.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policies

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policies for Journals

For Authors 

The Use of Generative AI and AI-assisted Technologies in Scientific Writing 

Please note this policy only refers to the writing process and not to the use of AI tools to analyse and draw insights from data as part of the research process. Where authors use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process, these technologies should only be used to improve readability and language of the work. Applying the technology should be done with human oversight and control and authors should carefully review and edit the result, because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased. The authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work. 

Authors should disclose in their manuscript the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies and a statement will appear in the published work. Declaring the use of these technologies supports transparency and trust between authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and contributors and facilitates compliance with the terms of use of the relevant tool or technology. Authors should not list AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans. Each (co-) author is accountable for ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved and authorship requires the ability to approve the final version of the work and agree to its submission. Authors are also responsible for ensuring that the work is original, that the stated authors qualify for authorship, and the work does not infringe third party rights, and should familiarise themselves with our Publication Ethics before they submit. 

The Use of Generative AI and AI-assisted Tools in Figures, Images, and Artwork 

We do not permit the use of Generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create or alter images in submitted manuscripts. This may include enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or introducing a specific feature within an image or figure. Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or colour balance are acceptable if and as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. Image forensics tools or specialized software might be applied to submitted manuscripts to identify suspected image irregularities.

The only exception is if the use of AI or AI-assisted tools is part of the research design or research methods (such as in AI-assisted imaging approaches to generate or interpret the underlying research data, for example in the field of biomedical imaging). If this is done, such use must be described in a reproducible manner in the methods section. This should include an explanation of how the AI or AI-assisted tools were used in the image creation or alteration process, and the name of the model or tool, version and extension numbers, and manufacturer. Authors should adhere to the AI software’s specific usage policies and ensure correct content attribution. Where applicable, authors could be asked to provide pre-AI-adjusted versions of images and/or the composite raw images used to create the final submitted versions, for editorial assessment. 

The use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools in the production of artwork such as for graphical abstracts is not permitted. The use of generative AI in the production of cover art may in some cases be allowed, if the author obtains prior permission from the journal editor and publisher, can demonstrate that all necessary rights have been cleared for the use of the relevant material, and ensures that there is correct content attribution. 

For Reviewers 

The Use of Generative AI and AI-assisted Technologies in the Journal Peer-Review Process 

When a researcher is invited to review another researcher’s paper, the manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights. 

This confidentiality requirement extends to the peer-review report, as it may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, reviewers should not upload their peer-review report into an AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability. 

Peer-review is at the heart of the scientific ecosystem, and Elsevier abides by the highest standards of integrity in this process. Reviewing a scientific manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by reviewers to assist in the scientific review of a paper, as the critical thinking and original assessment needed for peer-review are outside of the scope of this technology, and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The reviewer is responsible and accountable for the content of the review report. 

Elsevier’s AI author policy states that authors are allowed to use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process before submission, but only to improve the language and readability of their paper and with the appropriate disclosure, as per our instructions in Elsevier’s Guide for Authors opens in new tab/window. Reviewers can find such disclosure at the bottom of the paper in a separate section before the list of references. 

Please note that Elsevier owns identity protected AI-assisted technologies, which conform to the RELX Responsible AI Principles opens in new tab/window, such as those used during the screening process to conduct completeness and plagiarism checks and identify suitable reviewers. These in-house or licensed technologies respect author confidentiality. Our programs are subject to rigorous evaluation of bias and are compliant with data privacy and data security requirements. Elsevier embraces new AI-driven technologies that support reviewers and editors in the editorial process, and we continue to develop and adopt in-house or licensed technologies that respect authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ confidentiality and data privacy rights. 

For Reviewers 

The Use of Generative AI and AI-assisted Technologies in the Journal Editorial Process

A submitted manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Editors should not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool as this may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights and, where the paper contains personally identifiable information, may breach data privacy rights.  

This confidentiality requirement extends to all communication about the manuscript, including any notification or decision letters, as they may contain confidential information about the manuscript and/or the authors. For this reason, editors should not upload their letters into an AI tool, even if it is just for the purpose of improving language and readability.  

Peer-review is at the heart of the scientific ecosystem and Elsevier abides by the highest standards of integrity in this process. Managing the editorial evaluation of a scientific manuscript implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by editors to assist in the evaluation or decision-making process of a manuscript as the critical thinking and original assessment needed for this work is outside of the scope of this technology and there is a risk that the technology will generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased conclusions about the manuscript. The editor is responsible and accountable for the editorial process, the final decision and the communication thereof to the authors.  

Elsevier’s AI author policy states that authors are allowed to use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process before submission, but only to improve the language and readability of their paper and with the appropriate disclosure, as per our instructions in Elsevier’s Guide for Authors opens in new tab/window. Editors can find such disclosure at the bottom of the paper in a separate section before the list of references. If an editor suspects that an author or a reviewer has violated our AI policies, they should inform the publisher.  

Please note that Elsevier owns identity protected AI-assisted technologies, which conform to the RELX Responsible AI Principles opens in new tab/window, such as those used during the screening process to conduct completeness and plagiarism checks and identify suitable reviewers. These in-house or licensed technologies respect author confidentiality. Our programs are subject to rigorous evaluation of bias and are compliant with data privacy and data security requirements.  

Elsevier embraces new AI-driven technologies that support reviewers and editors in the editorial process, and we continue to develop and adopt in-house or licensed technologies that respect authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ confidentiality and data privacy rights. 

7. Avoid Bias

Manuscript must be ensured to be free from bias, through careful screening made by the authors in its preparation. In terms of bias-free language, manuscript needs to be free from incitation of negative behaviour like hate, vulgarity, extreme language, intentional harm, unrest, discrimination, and disapproval. Such mentions and its relevance to gender, age, racial and ethnic background, sexual orientation, disability status, and socioeconomic status are to be avoided.

In terms of publication bias, which refers to the systematic underrepresentation in the publication, authors are to duly rectify the presence of bias. Examples are as follows:

  • Selection Bias: Authors should refrain being selective. This includes their decision on the direction of their findings, such as in favouring positive results over negative ones.
  • Reporting Bias: Authors may be involved with selective reporting based on the perceived impacts or relevance to hot news, which may become obsolete as the matter resolves. Authors intending to submit such work need to be cautious on tones and approach to avoid misleading information.
  • Citation Bias: Authors are advised to cite freely and appropriately but must be cautious not to cite with bias. For example, authors should not omit studies with negative findings or those that do not align with their research agenda. This practice ensures clarity where authors are aware about studies that have been carried out. The ability to declare comparable works is a transparent practice that indicate their understanding of the research topic.

8. Report Errors

The publication process undertakes various stages of error checking, beginning from the plagiarism check to the peer-review process to ensure manuscripts do not contain incomplete, insufficient, misleading, or inaccurate reporting. Nonetheless, error reporting is a practice that should be adopted by authors so that the manuscripts are presented in the highest quality possible.

In the production stage, authors are requested to check the Galley Proof. Authors may also want to update for a minor editorial, especially if doing so would make the manuscript more accurate.

In post-production, authors must consult the publisher’s reporting process for any errors identified. Consultation must be carried out with the publisher for guidelines on reporting errors.