1. Editor Task

The editor of SKYHAWK is responsible for deciding whether to publish a manuscript in the journal. The editor may be guided by the policies of the editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair Play

Editors will evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

Editors and any editorial staff must not disclose information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, in accordance with applicable policy.

Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the written permission of the author.

2. Reviewer Task

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

The review process can help the editor in making editorial decisions, and through communication between the editor and the author, will help the author in improving the manuscript.

Speed

Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, or knows that timely review will be impossible, must notify the editor and inform himself/herself of the review process (The process from submission to publication is a maximum of 2 to 4 weeks).

Confidentiality

Every manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. It must not be shown to or discussed with others except with the permission of the editor.

Standard of Objectivity

Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is prohibited. Reviewers must clearly present the results of their assessment and supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Information Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any significant similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Conflict of Interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a manuscript must not be used for a reviewer's personal research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information and ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal purposes. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, or companies connected to the papers.

3. Author Task

Reporting Standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Primary data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to reproduce the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Duplicate, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Source Acknowledgement

Proper acknowledgment 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.

Writing the Author's Name

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. If others have participated in certain substantial aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantial conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

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 editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Return Withdrawal

Manuscripts published in SKYHAWK will be considered for retraction if:

1. They have clear evidence that the reported findings are unreliable, either as a result of ethical violations (e.g., data falsification) or deliberate misconduct (e.g., miscalculations or experimental errors).
2. The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or adequate justification (e.g., a case of over-publication).
3. They are plagiarism.
4. They reported unethical research.

The retraction mechanism follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Retraction Guidelines which can be accessed here.