Affiliations

All authors must provide a complete and accurate list of affiliations to acknowledge the institutions or organizations that approved, funded, or supported the research. If an author has moved to a different institution before publication, the affiliation associated with the research should be listed first, followed by a clear indication of the author’s current affiliation. Authors who do not have an institutional affiliation should state their independent status explicitly.

Acknowledgments

The Acknowledgments section should recognize individuals who contributed to the manuscript but do not meet the criteria for authorship. It should also identify organizations that provided financial support, technical assistance, or other forms of substantive resources that facilitated the completion of the study.

Authorship

All parties who have made a substantive contribution to the article should be listed as authors. Principal authorship, authorship order, and other publication credits should be based on the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their status. A student is usually listed as the principal author on any multiple-authored publication that substantially derives from the student’s dissertation or thesis.

To modify the authorship of a publication, whether prior to or subsequent to its release, it is imperative that unanimous consent is obtained from all authors involved, including those who are being added or deleted. The corresponding author bears the responsibility of acquiring confirmation from all co-authors and delivering a comprehensive rationale for the necessity of the modification. In the event that a modification in authorship becomes necessary subsequent to the publication of the article, it will be rectified by means of a post-publication notification. All modifications to the authorship must adhere to our established standards for authorship. If there are substantial alterations to the list of authors after the article has been accepted, such requests may be declined unless justifications and substantiating proof regarding the contributions of the authors are supplied.

Citations

Authors must support their arguments with citations drawn from relevant, current, and reliable literature, with preference for peer-reviewed sources. Excessive or inappropriate self-citation, as well as coordinated citation agreements among authors or research groups, is not permitted. These practices constitute citation manipulation and are considered a form of publication misconduct. Authors are encouraged to consult the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on citation integrity to ensure compliance.

Contribution Details

Authors must provide a detailed account of the specific contributions made by everyone involved in the development of the manuscript. Contributions should be described using appropriate categories such as concept development, study design, definition of intellectual content, literature review, data collection, laboratory or experimental procedures, data analysis, statistical analysis, manuscript drafting, manuscript revision, and final manuscript review.

Sample Contribution Statement

Author A developed the study concept, designed the methodology, and supervised data analysis. Author B conducted the literature review, collected the data, and contributed to data analysis. Author C performed the statistical analysis, drafted the initial manuscript, and prepared the figures and tables. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Competing Interests

JACCE requires all authors to disclose any competing interests related to their manuscript. Each submission must include a dedicated Competing Interests section at the end of the manuscript, specifying all interests that could influence the interpretation or presentation of the work. If no competing interests exist, authors must include the following statement: “The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.”

Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests. Individuals with identified conflicts may be removed from the peer review or editorial decision process to maintain fairness and transparency.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to JACCE are handled as confidential documents. The journal follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewers must uphold the confidentiality of the peer review process and may not disclose any information about the manuscript or its assessment, during or after the review, beyond what is formally communicated by the journal. Reviewers who wish to consult a colleague during the review must obtain prior permission from the Editor. However, upon doing so, the names of any individuals who contributed to the review need to be disclosed to the editor when the review report is submitted. JACCE does not share manuscripts with external parties except when potential misconduct is under investigation. Further details are available in the Misconduct Policy.

Corrections

When errors are identified in published articles that influence the accuracy of the content but do not alter the overall conclusions, the Editor may issue a formal Correction. The Correction will be indexed and linked to the original article, and the original article will be linked back to the Correction to ensure transparency and proper documentation.

Consent

For studies involving human participants, authors must obtain informed consent prior to data collection. A statement confirming that informed consent was obtained must be included in the manuscript.

Copyright

Upon acceptance of a manuscript for publication, authors are required to transfer copyright to JACCE. If a manuscript is not accepted, all rights remain with the author(s), and no copyright transfer is executed.

Corresponding Authors

The corresponding author is responsible for confirming that all listed authors have reviewed and approved the manuscript prior to submission. This author must ensure that the full author group is informed about and adheres to established publication practices within the discipline. The corresponding author must disclose any changes to authorship between earlier manuscript versions and the submitted version, including the addition or removal of authors, and must provide a clear explanation for such changes.

It is also the responsibility of the corresponding author to verify the accuracy of the author list and contribution statements. This includes ensuring that all individuals who meet the authorship criteria are included, that no individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria are listed, and that all contribution descriptions are precise. In large collaborative projects, this verification may require confirmation from group or laboratory leaders.

Data Availability

All manuscripts must include a section titled “Availability of Data and Materials.” This section must clearly indicate where the data supporting the study can be accessed. Authors should specify whether the data are openly accessible, available under controlled conditions, or not available due to justified restrictions. Any limitation on data access must be explained. Manuscripts with restrictions that are not well justified may not proceed to further review.

Sample Statements

1. Data openly available in a public repository

The dataset supporting the findings of this study is openly available in the Zenodo repository at: https://doi.org/xxxxxxx

2. Data available upon reasonable request

The data used in this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request due to institutional regulations governing data handling.

3. Data subject to confidentiality or legal protection

The data cannot be shared openly because it contains confidential information subject to contractual or legal restrictions. Access may be considered on a case-by-case basis, subject to approval by the hosting institution.

4. No data available for sharing

No datasets were generated or analysed during this study; therefore, no data are available for sharing.

Ethics

Research involving human participants, human material, or human data must receive approval from a recognized ethics committee prior to commencement. Manuscripts reporting such research must include a clear statement identifying the approving ethics committee and, where applicable, the corresponding approval reference number.

If the study received an exemption from ethics review, this must be stated explicitly, including the name of the ethics committee that granted the exemption. Authors must be prepared to provide additional documentation to the Editor upon request.

The Editor may decline a manuscript if the research appears to fall outside acceptable ethical standards. In exceptional situations, the Editor may contact the relevant ethics committee for clarification.

Misconduct

The journal addresses all forms of research and publication misconduct with the utmost seriousness. All cases are handled in accordance with the principles and procedures outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The primary objective is to preserve the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record.

· Plagiarism

Plagiarism occurs when an author presents another person’s ideas, text, or creative work as their own. This violates fundamental research ethics and may also infringe copyright law. All submissions undergo plagiarism screening. Manuscripts with clear evidence of plagiarism will be rejected, and the authors may be prohibited from submitting to the journal in the future. If plagiarism is identified after publication, the article will be retracted.

· Duplicate Submission

Manuscripts must not be submitted to more than one journal at the same time. If a manuscript is found to be under review elsewhere or previously published, it will be classified as a duplicate submission or a duplicate publication. Authors who draw on their own earlier work must cite that work appropriately and explain how the submitted manuscript provides new and substantive contributions beyond the earlier publication.

· Citation Manipulation

Manuscripts that include citations added primarily to increase the citation count of particular authors, research groups, or journals will be classified as engaging in citation manipulation. Such practices are unacceptable and will lead to manuscript rejection.

· Data Fabrication and Falsification

Submitting manuscripts that contain fabricated data, manipulated images, or falsified experimental results constitutes research misconduct. Any verified instance of fabrication or falsification will result in appropriate sanctions and may lead to rejection or retraction of the manuscript.

· Improper Author Contribution or Attribution

All listed authors must have made a meaningful scientific contribution to the research and must approve the final version of the manuscript. Individuals who have contributed significantly, such as students, research assistants, or laboratory personnel, must be credited appropriately. Omitting or misrepresenting contributor roles is considered misconduct.

· Redundant Publications

Redundant publication occurs when authors divide the outcomes of a single study into multiple manuscripts without a legitimate scholarly basis. This practice misrepresents the work's contribution, distorts the scientific record, and is not tolerated. Manuscripts found to involve redundant publication will be subject to desk rejection or retraction.

· Image Manipulation

Deliberate and inappropriate alteration of images, including adjustments intended to mislead or distort results, is considered a serious breach of research ethics. Image manipulation undermines the reliability of the scholarly record and may result in severe consequences, including retraction.

Peer Review Process

1. JACCE employs a rigorous peer review process to uphold the quality and credibility of all published work. All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their relevance, clarity, and alignment with the journal’s scope. Manuscripts that meet these criteria are then assigned to qualified reviewers with expertise in the subject area.


2. The journal uses a blind review process in which reviewers evaluate the manuscript without knowledge of the authors’ identities. This approach promotes fairness and reduces potential bias. Reviewers are selected based on their disciplinary competence and experience, ensuring that each manuscript receives a thorough and informed assessment.


3. During review, reviewers examine the scholarly content, methodological soundness, originality, coherence of the argument, validity of results, ethical considerations, and quality of presentation. They provide detailed feedback aimed at helping authors strengthen their manuscripts. Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision, or rejection based on the merits of the work. Their reports are advisory; final decisions rest with the Editor.


4. Manuscripts requiring revision must be revised in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. Authors are expected to address all points raised and provide a clear response document explaining the changes made. Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further assessment where necessary.


5. The journal expects reviewers and editors to adhere to high ethical standards, including confidentiality, impartiality, and responsible handling of manuscript content. Conflicts of interest must be declared, and individuals with such conflicts are not involved in the review or decision-making process.

Publication Decisions

The JACCE editorial board holds full responsibility for deciding which manuscripts are suitable for publication. Decisions are based on the manuscript’s scholarly merit, relevance to the journal’s scope, methodological soundness, and compliance with ethical and editorial standards.

Publication Frequency

JACCE publishes two issues each year. Manuscripts may be submitted at any time, and accepted papers will be placed in the next scheduled issue.

Removal of Published Content

JACCE may remove published material from its online platforms under limited and justified conditions. Removal may occur when:

1. The content is formally reported to contain defamatory statements, violate intellectual property rights, infringe privacy, or breach any applicable legal requirement.


2. A court or regulatory directive mandates, or is likely to mandate, its withdrawal; or


3. The content presents an immediate and serious risk to public health if relied upon.

The removal may be provisional or permanent. Essential bibliographic information, such as the title and authors, will remain accessible and will be accompanied by a concise statement indicating the grounds for removal.

Use of third-party material

Authors must secure permission to reuse any third-party material prior to submission. Such material may include text, images, photographs, tables, datasets, audio or video files, film stills, screenshots, or musical notation. Documentation of permissions must be provided when required.