Modern Multidisciplinary Research Review is committed to maintaining integrity, transparency, accountability, fairness, and responsible conduct throughout the scholarly publication process.
Modern Multidisciplinary Research Review (MMRR) is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics and to protecting the accuracy, credibility, and reliability of the scholarly record. The journal expects authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial personnel to act honestly, responsibly, independently, and professionally.
The journal’s ethical practices are guided by recognized principles of scholarly publishing and the core practices developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics. Reference to these principles does not by itself represent or imply formal membership of any external organization.
Allegations of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate authorship, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, undisclosed competing interests, unethical research, or interference with peer review are examined carefully and fairly. Appropriate editorial action is taken according to the available evidence and the seriousness of the concern.
Authors must submit original work and clearly acknowledge all reused ideas, language, data, figures, tables, methods, and other intellectual contributions.
Creating false data, altering results, omitting material findings, or presenting manipulated records as authentic is prohibited.
Substantially similar work must not be submitted to or published in more than one journal without transparent disclosure and legitimate justification.
Authorship must be limited to individuals who made substantial contributions and accept responsibility for the submitted work.
Authors, reviewers, and editors must not request or add citations for the purpose of artificially increasing citation counts or benefiting particular individuals or publications.
Images may not be altered in a way that misrepresents, obscures, removes, fabricates, or selectively emphasizes research findings.
Research involving human participants or animals must comply with applicable ethical, institutional, and legal requirements.
Authors must obtain necessary permission before reproducing protected images, tables, questionnaires, instruments, or substantial text.
Submitted manuscripts may be examined using similarity-detection software and additional editorial checks. Similarity reports are interpreted by qualified editors and are not treated as automatic or conclusive evidence of plagiarism.
Legitimately quoted material, references, standard technical terminology, methodological descriptions, and an author’s properly disclosed previous work may produce textual similarity. The nature, source, extent, placement, and attribution of overlap are therefore considered before an editorial decision is made.
Manuscripts containing substantial unattributed copying, misleading paraphrasing, duplicate publication, concealed text recycling, or other serious misuse of sources may be rejected, returned for clarification, or investigated further.
Publication malpractice may include plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, data manipulation, image manipulation, duplicate publication, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed competing interests, citation manipulation, unethical research, fraudulent peer review, misrepresentation of qualifications, unauthorized use of confidential information, or deliberate interference with the editorial process.
An allegation does not automatically establish misconduct. The journal will seek relevant information, evaluate available evidence, and provide affected parties a reasonable opportunity to respond before taking proportionate action, except where immediate temporary action is necessary to protect participants, confidential information, or the scholarly record.
The journal records the allegation and conducts an initial confidential assessment to determine whether the concern falls within its editorial responsibility.
Editors examine the manuscript, published article, similarity report, correspondence, data, reviewer records, or other relevant evidence.
The concerned author, reviewer, editor, or contributor may be asked to provide an explanation, supporting records, original data, permissions, ethics approval, or other relevant information.
The journal may seek advice from independent experts, editorial board members, ethics advisers, institutions, or other appropriate authorities where specialist assessment is required.
A proportionate decision is taken according to the seriousness of the concern, strength of evidence, stage of publication, and effect on the reliability of the scholarly record.
| Stage or Situation | Possible Action |
|---|---|
| Before Peer Review | Request clarification, return the manuscript for correction, suspend processing, or reject the submission. |
| During Peer Review | Pause the review, seek supporting evidence, replace a reviewer, request revision, or reject the manuscript. |
| After Acceptance | Suspend production, withdraw acceptance, request an investigation, or reject the manuscript before publication. |
| After Publication | Publish a correction, retraction, expression of concern, clarification, or other appropriate editorial notice. |
| Serious or Repeated Misconduct | Contact the author’s institution, funder, ethics committee, regulatory authority, or another relevant organization when justified by the evidence and applicable procedures. |
All listed authors must have made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, execution, analysis, interpretation, or preparation of the work. Every author should approve the submitted version, agree to be accountable for their contribution, and cooperate in resolving questions concerning accuracy or integrity.
Individuals who provided administrative assistance, language editing, technical support, funding acquisition, general supervision, or other limited assistance should normally be acknowledged rather than listed as authors, unless their contribution satisfies the journal’s authorship requirements.
Changes to authorship after submission require a written explanation and the agreement of all affected authors. Authorship changes may be declined where the request appears misleading, disputed, or inconsistent with actual scholarly contributions.
Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose financial, professional, institutional, academic, collaborative, or personal interests that could influence—or reasonably appear to influence—the research, peer review, or editorial decision.
The existence of a competing interest does not automatically prevent publication or participation. However, relevant interests must be declared transparently and managed appropriately. Editors and reviewers must withdraw from assignments where impartial judgment cannot reasonably be maintained.
Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial personnel must not disclose manuscript content, unpublished findings, reviewer identities, author information, or editorial correspondence except where disclosure is necessary for legitimate editorial, ethical, legal, or institutional investigation.
Personal information obtained during submission and peer review is used only for journal management, scholarly communication, publication, indexing, preservation, and related legitimate publishing activities.
The journal may publish a correction when an error affects part of an article but does not invalidate its principal findings. A retraction may be issued where findings are unreliable because of serious error or misconduct, where publication is redundant, where plagiarism is substantial, or where unethical research has occurred.
An expression of concern may be published when credible doubts exist but an investigation remains incomplete, inconclusive, delayed, or outside the journal’s direct authority. Notices will be linked to the affected article and will explain the reason for the editorial action as clearly as legally and ethically possible.
Authors and other concerned parties may submit a reasoned complaint or appeal regarding editorial procedure, peer review, ethical handling, or publication decisions. Appeals should identify the specific decision being challenged and provide relevant evidence or explanation.
Disagreement with reviewer comments alone does not establish grounds for an appeal. Complaints and appeals are evaluated independently where reasonably possible, and the journal’s final decision is communicated after appropriate review.
Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance, methodological quality, ethical acceptability, clarity, and contribution to knowledge. Journal ownership, commercial relationships, author payments, advertising, sponsorship, institutional influence, or personal pressure must not determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.
MMRR will consider credible ethical concerns irrespective of whether the manuscript is under review, accepted, published, withdrawn, or rejected. Where appropriate, the journal may cooperate with authors, reviewers, institutions, research ethics committees, funders, publishers, or other responsible authorities to clarify and resolve integrity concerns.
Investigations are handled as confidentially as reasonably possible. However, confidentiality does not prevent the journal from making necessary disclosures when required to protect research participants, comply with law, investigate serious misconduct, or correct the scholarly record.
Modern Multidisciplinary Research Review is committed to promoting originality, accountability, transparency, editorial independence, fair peer review, accurate reporting, and responsible correction of the published record. Authors, reviewers, editors, and readers share a collective responsibility for maintaining trust in multidisciplinary scholarship.