Ethics and Malpractice


The publishing ethics and malpractice policies of TNH follow the relevant COPE guidelines ( and in case a malpractice is suspected, journal editor will act in accordance with them.

Privacy statement                                                                                                                                                                   The names and email addresses present on journal‘s website will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of the journals and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Submission, peer-review and editorial process                                                                                                             The double-blind peer-review and editorial process are facilitated through an online editorial system and a set of email notifications. TNH journal‘s website displays stepwise description of the editorial process and list all necessary instructions.

 General: Publication and authorship

  • All submitted papers are subject to double-blind rigorous peer-review process by at least two experts in the area of the particular paper.
  • The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
  • The journals allow a maximum of two rounds of review of a manuscript. The ultimate responsibility for editorial decisions lies with the Editor-in-Chief. The possible decisions include: (1) Accept, (2) Minor revisions, (2) Major revisions, (3) Reject, but re-submission encouraged, (5) Reject.
  • If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  • The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

 Responsibility of Authors

  • Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  • Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
  • Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
  • Authors should submit the manuscript in linguistically and grammatically correct English and formatted in accordance with journal’s Author Guidelines.
  • Authors must participate in the peer review process.
  • Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  • All Authors mentioned are expected to have significantly contributed to the research. 
  • Authors must notify editor of any conflicts of interest.
  • Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscripts.
  • Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to editor.
  • Authors should acknowledge all significant funders of the research pertaining to their article and list all relevant competing interests.
  • Other sources of support for publications should also be clearly identified in the manuscript, usually in an acknowledgement (e.g., funding support, language editing or editorial assistance).
  • The corresponding author should provide the declaration of any conflicts of interest on behalf of all the authors. Conflicts of interest may be associated with employment, sources of funding, personal financial interests, and membership of relevant organizations, or others.

 Responsibility of Reviewers

  • The manuscripts will generally be reviewed by two or three experts with the aim of reaching a first decision as soon as possible. Reviewers do not need to sign their reports but are welcome to do so. They are also asked to declare any conflicts of interests.
  • The reviewers are not expected to provide a thorough linguistic editing or copyediting of a manuscript, but to focus on its scientific quality, as well as for the overall style, which should correspond to the good practices in clear and concise academic writing. If reviewers recognize that a manuscript requires linguistic edits, they should inform both authors and editor in the report.
  • Reviewers are asked to check whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, how interesting it is and whether the quality of the writing is acceptable.
  • In cases of strong disagreement between the reviewers or between the authors and reviewers, the Chief Editor can judge these according to his/her expertise or seek advice from a member of the journal's Editorial Board.
  • During a second review round, the reviewers may be asked by editor to evaluate the revised version of the manuscript with regards to reviewer’s recommendations submitted during the first review round.
  • Reviewers are asked to be polite and constructive in their reports. Reports that may be insulting or uninformative will be rescinded.
  • The reviewers are asked to start their report with a very brief summary of the reviewed paper. This will help editor and authors see whether the reviewers correctly understood the paper or whether a report might be based on a misunderstanding.
  • Further, the reviewers are asked to comment on originality, structure and previous research
  • 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.
  • Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  • Reviewers should also call to editor ‘s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

 Responsibility of Chief Editor

  • The Chief Editor of TNH carries the main responsibility for the scientific quality of the published papers and base the decision solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.
  • Editor is expected to spot small errors in orthography or stylistic during the editing process and corrects them.
  • Editor should always consider the needs of the Authors and the Readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  • Editor should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  • Editor should preserve the anonymity of reviewers, unless the later decide to disclose their identities.
  • Editor should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accept ethical guidelines.
  • Editor should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
  • Editor should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
  • Editor should not allow any conflicts of interest between Authors, Reviewers and Board Members.


  • Research misconduct may include: (a) manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, (b) changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the article.
  • A special case of misconduct is the plagiarism, which is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
  • Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
  • If misconduct is suspected, journal editor will act in accordance with the relevant COPE guidelines:

Should a comment on potential misconduct be submitted by the reviewers or Editor, an explanation will be sought from the authors. If this is satisfactory and a mistake or misunderstanding has taken place, the matter can be resolved. If not, the manuscript will be rejected and editor will impose a ban on that individual's publication in the journals for a period of three years. In cases of published plagiarism or dual publication, an announcement will be made in both journals explaining the situation.