Cement Based Composites

Ethics and Policies

ISSN 2717-9303  |  ACA Publishing

Cement Based Composites (CEBACOM) publishes original research, scientific reviews and short communications on cement, concrete and cement-based composite materials, including their properties, durability, numerical modelling and simulation. This policy defines the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors and the publisher, and explains how submissions, ethical concerns and changes to published articles are handled. It applies to regular submissions, invited contributions, special issues and conference-derived articles.

CEBACOM uses the COPE Core Practices and relevant COPE guidance to inform its editorial procedures. Scientific validity, a clear contribution to knowledge, appropriate ethical oversight and an accurate research record are the basis of publication decisions.

Peer Review and Publication

Initial assessment

The Editorial Office checks each submission for relevance to CEBACOM, completeness, readable English, required declarations and compliance with the author instructions. An editor assesses the research question, originality, methodological adequacy and support for the conclusions. A manuscript may be returned for technical corrections or rejected without external review when it falls outside the journal’s scope, lacks a sufficient scientific contribution or has defects that prevent a meaningful assessment.

Similarity screening forms part of this assessment. Editors examine the matched passages and their context, including attribution, quotations, methods terminology and overlap with the authors’ previous work. A similarity percentage is a screening signal, not a finding of plagiarism or a guarantee of originality.

External peer review

Research articles, reviews and short communications that pass editorial assessment undergo double-anonymised peer review: author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors. Editors and authorised editorial staff retain access to the information needed to administer the process. Reports are not published as a routine part of this model. At least two substantive reports from independent external reviewers are required before acceptance. Editors may obtain further reviews or specialist advice on statistics, numerical methods, data integrity or other aspects requiring additional expertise.

Authors must submit a separate title page and an anonymised manuscript, including anonymised supplementary files and file metadata where necessary. Self-citations should remain scientifically complete and use neutral wording. Preprints and recognisable subject matter can limit anonymity; a reviewer who recognises an author must disclose any resulting conflict to the editor. The office checks anonymisation before external review, while retaining complete authorship, funding and ethics records for editorial assessment and final publication.

Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise and freedom from conflicts of interest. The Editorial Office verifies reviewer identities and contact details independently; author suggestions do not determine reviewer appointments. Authors may explain why a particular person should not review their work, but the handling editor decides whether an exclusion is justified.

Decisions and revisions

The handling editor evaluates the manuscript and the reasoning in the reports, then decides whether to reject, request revision or accept the work. Recommendations are advisory; acceptance is not determined by a vote or by unanimous reviewer approval. The editor must resolve substantive disagreements and document the reasons for the decision. Payment, personal relationships and institutional prestige must not affect the outcome.

A revision must include a point-by-point response, identify the changes made and explain any reasoned disagreement ... Show all

Cement Based Composites

Ethics and Policies

ISSN 2717-9303  |  ACA Publishing

Cement Based Composites (CEBACOM) publishes original research, scientific reviews and short communications on cement, concrete and cement-based composite materials, including their properties, durability, numerical modelling and simulation. This policy defines the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors and the publisher, and explains how submissions, ethical concerns and changes to published articles are handled. It applies to regular submissions, invited contributions, special issues and conference-derived articles.

CEBACOM uses the COPE Core Practices and relevant COPE guidance to inform its editorial procedures. Scientific validity, a clear contribution to knowledge, appropriate ethical oversight and an accurate research record are the basis of publication decisions.

Peer Review and Publication

Initial assessment

The Editorial Office checks each submission for relevance to CEBACOM, completeness, readable English, required declarations and compliance with the author instructions. An editor assesses the research question, originality, methodological adequacy and support for the conclusions. A manuscript may be returned for technical corrections or rejected without external review when it falls outside the journal’s scope, lacks a sufficient scientific contribution or has defects that prevent a meaningful assessment.

Similarity screening forms part of this assessment. Editors examine the matched passages and their context, including attribution, quotations, methods terminology and overlap with the authors’ previous work. A similarity percentage is a screening signal, not a finding of plagiarism or a guarantee of originality.

External peer review

Research articles, reviews and short communications that pass editorial assessment undergo double-anonymised peer review: author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors. Editors and authorised editorial staff retain access to the information needed to administer the process. Reports are not published as a routine part of this model. At least two substantive reports from independent external reviewers are required before acceptance. Editors may obtain further reviews or specialist advice on statistics, numerical methods, data integrity or other aspects requiring additional expertise.

Authors must submit a separate title page and an anonymised manuscript, including anonymised supplementary files and file metadata where necessary. Self-citations should remain scientifically complete and use neutral wording. Preprints and recognisable subject matter can limit anonymity; a reviewer who recognises an author must disclose any resulting conflict to the editor. The office checks anonymisation before external review, while retaining complete authorship, funding and ethics records for editorial assessment and final publication.

Reviewers are selected for relevant expertise and freedom from conflicts of interest. The Editorial Office verifies reviewer identities and contact details independently; author suggestions do not determine reviewer appointments. Authors may explain why a particular person should not review their work, but the handling editor decides whether an exclusion is justified.

Decisions and revisions

The handling editor evaluates the manuscript and the reasoning in the reports, then decides whether to reject, request revision or accept the work. Recommendations are advisory; acceptance is not determined by a vote or by unanimous reviewer approval. The editor must resolve substantive disagreements and document the reasons for the decision. Payment, personal relationships and institutional prestige must not affect the outcome.

A revision must include a point-by-point response, identify the changes made and explain any reasoned disagreement with a comment. Revised manuscripts may return to the original reviewers or be assessed by additional specialists. Revision does not imply acceptance. Deadlines should reflect the work requested; authors may seek an extension. An inactive submission may be closed after notice to the corresponding author, without treating silence as evidence of misconduct.

Previously disseminated and conference-derived work

Posting a preprint, presenting an abstract or depositing an academic thesis does not by itself prevent consideration. Authors must disclose these versions and any related submissions, and provide links or copies when requested. A full conference paper must be cited and supplied to the editor. Its journal extension must provide a substantial, identifiable scientific contribution, such as new experiments, a materially developed analysis or independent validation. Rewording, additional background or a fixed percentage of new text does not establish that contribution. Authors must resolve permissions and overlapping publication rights before acceptance.

Rapid review

CEBACOM’s optional Rapid Review route follows the same scientific, ethical and reviewer-independence requirements as standard review, including at least two external reports before acceptance. Any estimated schedule depends on reviewer availability, the quality of the reports and the revisions needed. Authors cannot purchase a favourable decision, and accelerated handling never guarantees acceptance. The editor may extend the assessment or transfer the submission to the standard route when adequate scrutiny requires more time.

Production and publication

After acceptance, the corresponding author checks the proofs with the co-authors and confirms that the article is accurate and authorised for publication. Proof corrections normally address production errors. Changes to results, interpretations, authorship or other substantive content require editorial approval and may require further review. Published articles carry their publication history, persistent identifier and applicable rights information. An Online First article designated as the Version of Record is already published and is subject to the same correction and retraction procedures as an article assigned to an issue.

Editorials, announcements and editorial notices may be assessed by editors without external peer review. Such items must be labelled by article type and must not be presented as externally peer-reviewed research.

Complaints and Appeals

Complaints

Concerns about editorial procedures, reviewer conduct, publication ethics, published content or the publisher should be sent to info@acapublishing.com. The message should identify CEBACOM and the relevant manuscript or article, explain the issue, provide available evidence and describe the action sought. Evidence-based anonymous concerns will also be assessed. A person raising a concern in good faith must not be disadvantaged in future editorial dealings.

The Editorial Office aims to acknowledge complaints within seven working days and to provide a reasoned response within thirty calendar days. When an investigation requires more time, the complainant will receive a progress update and an expected timeframe. An editor who is independent of the matter assesses the complaint. A complaint about the Editor-in-Chief is assigned by the publisher to an independent senior editor or external adviser. A complaint involving the publisher or its owner is assessed by an external adviser with no relevant relationship to the parties. The person complained about does not decide the outcome.

Information is restricted to those who need it for a fair assessment, subject to applicable obligations. The journal cannot promise absolute anonymity where evidence must be examined with an institution or another competent authority. Findings and the reasons for any editorial action are communicated to the relevant parties.

Appeals against editorial decisions

Authors may appeal within thirty calendar days of a decision by identifying a material scientific error, an overlooked piece of evidence or a procedural failure. The appeal must include the manuscript identifier, the disputed decision, a reasoned response to the relevant comments and supporting documentation. Disagreement without a substantive explanation is insufficient.

An editor who did not make the original decision reviews the appeal and may obtain independent advice. The outcome may uphold the decision, reopen assessment or require further review. One appeal is normally considered for each decision; genuinely new evidence may justify further examination. An appeal does not guarantee publication. Authors who wish to submit elsewhere must first close any active reconsideration with CEBACOM to avoid concurrent review.

ORCID and Author Identification

Authors must provide accurate names, affiliations and contact details. ORCID iDs are required for all authors before publication, although their absence does not prevent initial submission or peer review. Each author must supply or authenticate their own identifier. An identifier must never be invented, borrowed or used as a substitute for verifying authorship and affiliation.

Open Access Copyright and Licensing

Access and publication rights

CEBACOM provides immediate, free online access to its published articles. Authors retain copyright and grant ACA Publishing a non-exclusive licence to publish, distribute, preserve and identify the article as first published in CEBACOM. These rights are recorded in the publication agreement before publication. The agreement must be consistent with the article’s public licence and any applicable third-party rights.

Creative Commons licence

Articles published under this policy use the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0). The licence permits copying, redistribution and adaptation for non-commercial purposes, with appropriate attribution, a licence link and an indication of changes. Reuse must not imply endorsement. Commercial reuse outside a legal exception requires permission from the relevant rights holder. The licence text governs; this summary does not replace it.

Licence: Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International

The copyright holder and licence must appear on the article landing page and in the published file. Earlier articles remain subject to the rights and licence granted for their publication; a later policy change does not retrospectively replace those terms.

Third-party material

Authors must identify material obtained from others, credit its source and establish a lawful basis for its use. Permission is required where the proposed reuse is not covered by a licence or applicable exception. Any figure, photograph, table, dataset or other item excluded from the article’s Creative Commons licence must carry a clear credit and rights statement. Permission to reproduce an item does not necessarily authorise its adaptation or wider distribution.

Self-archiving

Authors may deposit the submitted manuscript, accepted manuscript and published Version of Record in suitable repositories without an embargo. Deposits must identify the version accurately. After publication, authors should add the full citation, DOI and link to CEBACOM. Copies of the Version of Record must retain their copyright and licence notices; a modified derivative must be identified as such and must not be represented as the journal’s authoritative version. Sharing must respect the applicable article licence, permissions and any valid restrictions affecting third-party material.

Financial Model and Revenue Sources

CEBACOM is published by ACA Publishing, which manages the journal’s publishing operations. Manuscript submission, peer review and publication are free of charge. Readers may access and download published articles without payment. Editorial decisions are independent of financial support, commercial relationships and the availability of funds.

Any external funding, institutional support or sponsorship of the journal is subject to public disclosure, including conditions relevant to editorial independence. Financial support confers no role in selecting manuscripts or determining publication decisions. Any future publication charge will be announced on the journal’s website, with its amount, scope and waiver arrangements, before it applies to new submissions. Charges will not be introduced retrospectively for manuscripts already under evaluation.

Advertising Policy

CEBACOM does not accept paid commercial advertisements or sponsored editorial content. Notices about submissions, special issues and the journal’s own activities must be clearly identifiable as journal communications. They must not be presented as independent research or imply endorsement of a commercial product. No commercial partner or sponsor may select reviewers, influence decisions, alter conclusions or obtain access to confidential submissions.

Direct Marketing Policy

Invitations and other journal communications must identify CEBACOM and ACA Publishing accurately and be relevant to the recipient’s professional interests. Messages must state publication charges, if any, truthfully and must not promise acceptance, guaranteed indexing of an article or a favourable review. Claims about coverage, metrics and editorial services must be verifiable and current. Optional messages must provide a practicable way to decline further communications. Personal contact information must not be sold for commercial solicitation.

Ethics and Responsibilities

Authors

Every author must have made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of the work, participated in drafting or critically revising its intellectual content, approved the submitted version and accepted responsibility for their contribution. Authors must be able to identify who is responsible for other components and cooperate in resolving questions about the work’s integrity. Funding, routine supervision, administrative status or language editing alone does not establish authorship.

The manuscript must include an author contribution statement, preferably using the CRediT taxonomy. Contributors who do not meet the authorship requirements should be acknowledged with their permission. Gift authorship, concealed authorship, purchased authorship and false affiliations are unacceptable. The corresponding author coordinates communication and confirms agreement among the authors; this role does not remove the responsibilities of the other authors.

Requests to add, remove or reorder authors must explain the reason and include written agreement from all affected authors, including anyone being added or removed. The editor must approve the change. Unresolved disputes may suspend assessment and be referred to the authors’ institutions. A post-publication authorship amendment requires a transparent correction where justified; an authorship dispute alone does not automatically justify retraction.

Authors must report the work honestly, acknowledge prior contributions and submit it exclusively to CEBACOM while it is under active consideration. They must disclose related papers, funding sources and grant identifiers, and explain any funder’s role in study design, data access, analysis, writing or the decision to submit. A funding declaration and a competing interests declaration are required even when there is nothing to declare.

Reviewers

Reviewers should accept assignments only when their expertise and availability permit a competent assessment. They must disclose competing interests, protect confidentiality and base criticism on identifiable evidence. Reports should explain the consequences of methodological problems and distinguish essential revisions from optional improvements. Reviewers must not use unpublished material for their own benefit, contact authors directly about a confidential submission or require irrelevant citations. Assistance from another person requires prior editorial permission and appropriate acknowledgement.

Editors and Editorial Board members

Editors are accountable for the quality and integrity of the content they approve. They must select competent reviewers, assess the adequacy of the reports and explain decisions without discrimination based on personal characteristics, nationality or institutional prestige. Editors may question an unsupported report or commission further advice. They must not pressure reviewers to recommend a predetermined outcome or request citations for metric enhancement.

Editorial Board members must disclose relationships that could affect their work, keep their affiliations current and maintain submission confidentiality. Being an editor or board member confers no preference in manuscript evaluation. The Editor-in-Chief oversees consistency across regular articles, special issues and invited content.

Publisher

ACA Publishing is responsible for providing the administrative and technical support needed to implement these policies, protecting editorial independence and maintaining reliable publication records. It must support investigations and publication of justified notices even when an outcome is commercially or reputationally inconvenient. Business interests must not determine acceptance, rejection or the suppression of a correction.

Research Misconduct and Allegations

Prohibited conduct includes plagiarism, undisclosed redundant publication, fabrication or falsification of research records, deceptive image manipulation, citation manipulation, false authorship, concealed competing interests and interference with peer review. Purchased manuscripts and fabricated reviewer identities or reports are unacceptable. Similarity to another work, an unusual result or an automated flag requires examination; none establishes misconduct without assessment of the evidence.

Reports should identify the material concerned and explain the suspected problem as precisely as possible. The journal assesses credible concerns regardless of the reporter’s identity or the time elapsed since publication. An unconflicted editor examines the evidence and may pause review or production, request original records and explanations, consult specialists or refer the matter to the relevant institution, funder or ethics body. Authors normally have an opportunity to respond before a final decision.

CEBACOM determines what action is needed for its submission process and publication record. Institutions and other competent bodies remain responsible for formal investigations within their authority. Depending on the evidence, the journal may resume assessment, reject a manuscript, require clarification, issue a publication notice or refer the case for further investigation. Findings, correspondence and reasons for the action must be documented. A disagreement about interpretation should not be treated as misconduct unless there is evidence of a breach.

Ethical Oversight and Ethics Committee Approval

Research involving human participants, identifiable personal data, human materials or animals must have the approvals, permissions and consent required for the study before the relevant activities begin. This may include workplace exposure studies, interviews or surveys associated with materials research, and analyses of identifiable personal records. Authors must identify the approving body, decision reference and date, and explain consent procedures in the manuscript.

Where an exemption or waiver applies, authors must identify its basis and the authority that granted or confirmed it. Ethics committee approval is not required merely because an article concerns cement-based materials; conventional laboratory tests or simulations may have no human or animal ethics component. The declaration must reflect the actual study. A thesis origin, an old dataset or a statement accepting personal responsibility does not replace an approval that was required when the research was conducted.

Consent to participate and consent to publish identifiable information are distinct. Authors must obtain publication consent where necessary and minimise disclosure of personal information. Animal studies must report relevant approval and welfare arrangements, including measures to minimise harm. The journal may request supporting documentation and decline work with unresolved ethical deficiencies.

Authors must describe unusual hazards, safety precautions and relevant permits for laboratory testing, fieldwork and the use of hazardous materials or equipment. Where relevant, this includes handling alkaline solutions, respirable dust, nanomaterials or industrial wastes, and managing contaminated residues. Required permissions for material collection and access to industrial facilities or construction sites must be obtained. Restrictions on sensitive or proprietary information should be explained without concealing evidence essential to scientific assessment.

Data Sharing and Reproducibility

Availability and access

Each research article must contain a Data Availability Statement covering the evidence needed to examine its findings. The statement must identify the repository and persistent identifier, or explain the location, access procedure and specific restrictions. A review or theoretical article should state whether it created or analysed a dataset and describe access accordingly. A claim that no data were generated must not be used for a study that relies on experimental measurements or computational outputs.

Authors should deposit supporting data, code and documentation in a suitable repository. A request-based access arrangement must identify the responsible contact, explain why open deposit is impracticable and describe any access conditions. Ethical, contractual, security and intellectual property restrictions must be disclosed. De-identified or controlled access should be considered where appropriate. Editors may require confidential access sufficient to assess the work and may decline a study whose central evidence cannot be examined.

Materials research methods and verification

Experimental reports must identify material sources and relevant batch information, binder and aggregate characteristics, and mixture proportions with units and a clear mass or volume basis. Authors must define the water-to-binder ratio and explain the treatment of aggregate moisture and absorbed water. Admixture and fibre dosages, mixing sequence, specimen dimensions, compaction, curing conditions and testing ages must be reported where relevant. Control mixtures and comparison criteria must be described sufficiently to assess the effect attributed to a material or treatment.

Authors must report equipment, calibration, loading or measurement procedures, the number of independent batches and specimens, and the edition of each test standard with any deviations. Repeated readings must be distinguished from independent experimental replicates. Exclusions, variability and uncertainty must be explained, and reported values must be traceable to primary records. Microstructural and chemical interpretations must distinguish direct measurements from inferred mechanisms and explain how the analytical methods support the claims.

Computational studies must identify software and versions, governing assumptions, constitutive models, material parameters, input data, loading, boundary and initial conditions, discretisation, solver settings and stopping criteria. Numerical findings should be supported by appropriate convergence or sensitivity checks and validation against independent evidence where applicable. Parameter calibration must be distinguished from validation. Essential code, model files and processing scripts should be shared or their access limitations explained.

For machine learning and optimisation studies, authors must describe data partitioning, preprocessing, model selection, randomisation, evaluation metrics and the comparisons used. They must address leakage between training and evaluation data, disclose how tuning decisions were made and support generalisation claims with suitable evaluation. Performance differences should be interpreted in relation to variability, uncertainty and the application, without equating statistical significance with engineering usefulness.

Durability studies must report exposure conditions, conditioning procedures, test duration and the basis for comparisons. Extrapolation from accelerated tests to field performance or service life requires explicit assumptions and supporting evidence. Environmental or resource-efficiency claims must identify the comparison basis, data sources, functional unit and system boundaries where applicable, together with relevant uncertainty. A lower cement content or the inclusion of recycled material does not by itself establish lower life-cycle impacts or adequate durability.

Retention and material integrity

Authors must retain the primary records, original images, calculation files, relevant code and documentation for at least five years after publication, or longer if required by their institution, funder or applicable obligations. Records under an active inquiry must not be destroyed. Any loss of material needed to verify a published result must be disclosed to the editor.

Image adjustments must preserve the information in the original data. Authors must disclose processing that affects interpretation and identify composites, splices and reused images. Synthetic or simulated material must be labelled accurately. Data and software deposited separately require their own rights and licensing information; the article licence does not automatically govern them.

Corrections Retractions Expressions of Concern and Postpublication Discussion

Corrections

Authors must report errors that could affect understanding or use of their article. A correction is appropriate when the affected material can be repaired while the principal findings remain reliable. A substantive correction must explain what changed and why, identify the original article and be linked from it. The notice is publicly accessible and receives its own persistent identifier. Updated files must identify substantive changes and their date. Minor typographical repairs that do not change meaning need not receive a separate notice.

Retractions

Retraction is appropriate when the published work cannot be relied upon, or when a serious ethical or publication breach makes continued presentation as valid scholarship inappropriate. The editor assesses the evidence and the authors’ response; author agreement is not required. A notice must identify the article, state the reason and who is issuing it, and distinguish established findings from unresolved allegations. The notice is freely accessible, receives its own DOI and is linked to and from the article. The article normally remains accessible, prominently marked as retracted. An unconflicted editor makes the decision, with publisher support.

Expressions of concern

When a serious unresolved concern could affect readers’ reliance on an article, the editor may issue an expression of concern while further evidence or an institutional outcome is awaited. The notice must identify the uncertainty without presenting an allegation as a proven fact. A subsequent notice must explain the resolution and link to the earlier notice.

Withdrawal and exceptional removal

Authors may request withdrawal of a manuscript before publication, explaining the reason and confirming co-author agreement. Withdrawal does not halt an integrity inquiry. Publicly available early versions require a traceable notice when withdrawn. A published Version of Record, including an Online First Version of Record, must be addressed through correction or retraction rather than silently replaced or deleted.

Content removal is exceptional and requires a compelling basis, such as a binding legal obligation, a serious privacy breach or an immediate risk of harm. As far as permitted, bibliographic metadata and an explanation remain available. Removal must not be used to conceal an error, criticism or retraction.

Discussion after publication

Readers may send evidence-based comments and concerns to info@acapublishing.com. CEBACOM may invite an author response, commission independent assessment and publish a Discussion and Reply or other notice. Criticism must address the work and be supported by evidence. Authors have an opportunity to respond but cannot veto justified criticism. Disputes and appeals are handled under the Complaints and Appeals policy.

Specific Conflict of Interest Policies

Relevant interests include employment, consultancy, equity, paid testimony, patents, grants, close personal relationships and professional dependencies or rivalries. Disclosure enables assessment; it does not automatically establish bias or misconduct. Authors must disclose relevant interests at submission and update them when circumstances change. Editors and reviewers must disclose interests before accepting an assignment.

Reviewers must decline when they share an institution with an author or have a material financial or close personal connection. Recent collaboration, co-authorship or a supervisory relationship within the preceding three years normally also precludes review. Other relationships must be disclosed so the editor can assess whether independent evaluation is possible.

An editor must not handle a manuscript they authored, a submission from their own institution, or work involving a close personal relationship or a material financial interest. Recent co-authorship, collaboration or a supervisory relationship within the preceding three years normally also requires recusal; older or ongoing relationships must be considered where they remain relevant. An independent editor assumes reviewer selection, correspondence and the final decision. The conflicted person has no access to confidential editorial deliberations beyond the information available to an ordinary author.

The same safeguards apply to submissions involving Editorial Board members, the publisher, its owner or their close associates. If an independent internal editor is unavailable, an external editor must be appointed. Published articles authored by journal decision-makers must disclose the relationship and explain that independent editorial handling was used. Previous assessment for another journal must be disclosed to the assigning editor, who determines whether recusal is necessary without requesting another journal’s confidential records.

Generative AI Policy

Use by authors

Authors may use generative AI as an aid, provided they retain responsibility for the scientific work and verify the output. Such systems cannot be authors. Any substantive use in drafting, translation, coding, analysis or preparation of illustrations must be disclosed in an AI use statement identifying the tool, available version and purpose. Use that affects the research method or results must also be documented in the Methods with sufficient detail to assess it. Ordinary non-generative spelling and formatting tools do not require a declaration.

Authors must check references against the original sources and verify factual statements, calculations and code. AI-generated text or images must not be represented as observed evidence. Legitimate synthetic data or generated material used as part of a research method must be labelled and described, including how it was evaluated. AI tools must not be used to invent measurements, conceal image alterations or supply fictitious citations. Confidential, personal or proprietary material may be entered into an external service only when authorised and adequately protected.

Use by reviewers and editors

Reviewers and editors must not upload unpublished submissions, identifiable data or review correspondence to public or unauthorised AI services. Any permitted assistance must operate within publisher-approved confidentiality safeguards, be disclosed to the responsible editor and leave the scientific assessment to the named human reviewer or editor. Automated output cannot replace reading the manuscript, checking the evidence or taking responsibility for a decision.

An AI-detection score alone must not determine rejection or a misconduct finding. Concerns are assessed from the content, disclosures, provenance and supporting records, with an opportunity for the authors to respond. The same evidence-based procedures apply to AI-assisted work and other submissions.

Special Issues and Guest Editors

Special issues, invited collections and conference-linked submissions follow CEBACOM’s ordinary acceptance criteria and peer-review requirements. Calls must identify the topic and responsible editors accurately. Guest editors must disclose competing interests and complete the same integrity checks as regular editors. The Editor-in-Chief retains oversight and may reassign manuscripts or discontinue a collection when its handling is inadequate. A guest editor’s own submission must be handled independently. An invitation or conference presentation does not constitute acceptance.

Digital Archiving and Preservation

CEBACOM’s published articles are accessible through the journal’s online issue archive. Authors may also deposit their manuscripts and published articles in repositories under the self-archiving provisions of this policy. ACA Publishing is responsible for maintaining the integrity and accessibility of the journal’s publication record, including supplementary material and editorial notices.

Preservation planning must support content recovery and continued access if the journal changes platform or publisher, or ceases publication. Article identifiers and links to corrections, expressions of concern and retractions must remain traceable through any transfer. Participation in an independent preservation service will be announced with its verified coverage. A website archive or DOI alone does not establish independent long-term preservation.

Policy Governance and Contact

ACA Publishing and the Editor-in-Chief review these policies periodically, publish effective dates for revisions and retain earlier versions. Authors are notified of changes affecting active submissions. Membership, indexing and metric claims require current verification. Using COPE guidance does not establish COPE membership.

Contact: info@acapublishing.com. Include CEBACOM and the manuscript number or article DOI.

Guidance used for editorial practice: COPE Core Practices; Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing; Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers; Retraction Guidelines; Authorship and AI Tools; CRediT contributor roles.

Show less