The Integrated Design Research (IDR) Journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all necessary measures to prevent publication malpractice. All parties involved in the publication process—authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher—are expected to adhere to ethical principles and professional standards.
The journal’s ethical framework is informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices.
‘Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement’ for clarity
Fair and Impartial Decision Making
The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team are responsible for making publication decisions based solely on the academic merit, originality, and relevance of the manuscript. Decisions must not be influenced by the authors’ race, gender, ethnicity, citizenship, or political or religious beliefs.
Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents. Information about submissions must not be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and relevant editorial advisors.
Conflict of Interest
Editors must not use unpublished material from submitted manuscripts for their own research without the explicit written consent of the author. Any conflicts of interest must be declared, and appropriate steps must be taken to ensure unbiased decision-making.
Role of Peer Review
Peer review supports editorial decision-making and contributes to improving the quality, clarity, and rigour of submitted work.
Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential and must not share or discuss them without editorial approval.
Objectivity and Constructive Feedback
Reviews should be conducted objectively and professionally. Comments should be clearly articulated, supported by reasoned arguments, and free from personal criticism.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant work that has not been cited and alert editors to any substantial overlap or similarity with other published work.
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and decline to review manuscripts where such conflicts exist. Unpublished material must not be used for personal advantage.
Timeliness
Reviewers should provide feedback within the agreed timeframe. If unable to do so, they should inform the editor promptly.
Originality and Reporting Standards
Authors must present accurate, original, and clearly articulated research. Data should be represented honestly, and sufficient detail must be provided to allow replication or verification of the study.
Authorship and Contributions
Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the research. All co-authors must approve the final manuscript and consent to submission.
Acknowledgement of Sources
All sources must be properly cited. Any use of others’ work must be appropriately acknowledged.
Multiple or Redundant Publication
Authors must not submit the same manuscript to multiple journals simultaneously or publish substantially similar work in more than one venue without proper acknowledgment.
Data Access and Retention
Authors may be required to provide underlying data for editorial review and should ensure accessibility of such data where appropriate.
Conflict of Interest Disclosure
Authors must disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that may influence the research or its interpretation.
Corrections and Retractions
If significant errors are identified after publication, authors must promptly notify the journal and cooperate in issuing corrections or retractions.
Research involving human participants, sensitive data, or other ethical considerations must comply with relevant institutional and national guidelines. Authors may be required to provide evidence of ethical approval.
The IDR Journal does not tolerate:
- Plagiarism
- Data fabrication or falsification
- Duplicate or redundant publication
Misrepresentation of authorship
All submissions are subject to evaluation for originality. Cases of suspected misconduct will be investigated, and appropriate actions—including rejection or retraction—will be taken.
All participants in the publication process—authors, reviewers, and editors—must disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence their work or decisions. Transparency is essential to maintaining trust in the scholarly record.
The journal will take appropriate action when ethical issues arise, including:
- Publishing corrections or errata
- Issuing retractions where necessary
- Providing expressions of concern where appropriate
These actions ensure the integrity and reliability of the published record.
The Integrated Design Research (IDR) Journal recognises the growing role of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI assisted technologies in research and scholarly communication. The journal supports their responsible use, provided they are applied with transparency, critical oversight, and ethical consideration.
Authors may use AI tools to assist with tasks such as language refinement, content organisation, or preliminary exploration. However, AI tools must not replace human intellectual contribution, critical analysis, or scholarly judgement.
Authors are required to ensure that:
- All AI generated content is carefully reviewed, verified, and edited
- The manuscript reflects the authors’ original thinking, interpretation, and contribution
- Any use of AI tools is clearly disclosed at the time of submission
- Sources and references generated with AI are checked for accuracy and validity
- The use of AI tools complies with data privacy, confidentiality, and intellectual property requirements
AI tools must not be listed as authors or co-authors, as authorship implies responsibility and accountability that can only be attributed to human contributors.
Failure to disclose the use of AI tools, where applicable, may be considered a breach of publication ethics.
The Integrated Design Research (IDR) Journal is committed to a fair, transparent, and accountable editorial process. Authors who wish to raise concerns regarding editorial decisions or the peer review process may submit a formal complaint or appeal.
Appeals
Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe:
- There has been a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the manuscript
- The review process was not conducted fairly or objectively
- Significant aspects of the submission were overlooked
Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief, clearly outlining the grounds for appeal and providing supporting justification. The editorial team will review the appeal, which may involve consultation with independent reviewers or editorial board members. The decision following an appeal will be considered final.
Complaints
Complaints relating to editorial conduct, ethical concerns, or the publication process should be submitted to the journal via email:
All complaints will be handled confidentially and investigated in accordance with the journal’s ethical policies and COPE guidelines. Appropriate actions will be taken where necessary to address the issue.