Orapuh Journal is committed to the highest standards of publication ethics, research transparency, and accurate reporting. This policy outlines the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors, and describes the procedures our journal uses to maintain integrity and transparency throughout all stages of submission, peer review, and post-publication. The policy is informed by COPE international standards and by reporting-guideline frameworks promoted by the EQUATOR Network, and is implemented under journal ownership and oversight. 

Editorial Oversight

Structure and Decision-Making
The journal is managed by an Editor-in-Chief, supported by an Editorial Board and Handling Editors. Final decisions regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection are made exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult Handling Editors and peer reviewers.

The Editor-in-Chief ensures all editorial decisions are fair, transparent, and compliant with ethical standards. Editors recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest.

Transparency of Roles
1. Editor-in-Chief: ultimate decision authority on all manuscripts
2. Handling Editors: provide recommendations based on peer review
3. Editorial Board: advises on journal policy and review standards

Timeliness and Publication Volume
Orapuh Journal operates a continuous publication model with one volume per calendar year. Each volume is organized into sequential issues, with an issue closed upon reaching ten (10) published articles. Articles are published online immediately upon acceptance and production completion.

Because issues are closed based on article count, the number of issues per volume may vary. This does not affect timely publication. All volumes, issues, and publication dates are clearly displayed on the website and in archives.

See full policy on Timeliness and Publication Volume.

Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions
Orapuh Journal maintains a journal-owned corrections and retractions policy in accordance with COPE guidelines.

1. Corrections are published promptly and linked to the original article.
2. Retractions are issued for proven misconduct, plagiarism, ethical violations, or invalid results, with the reason clearly stated.
3. Expressions of Concern may be published during ongoing investigations.
4. All notices remain permanently accessible and linked to the original article.

Peer Review, Portability, and Confidentiality
1. Orapuh uses double-blind peer review. Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest and maintain confidentiality.
2. Editors and reviewers must not use unpublished material for personal research.
3. Portable peer reviews from other journals are accepted only if documentation is complete, reviewer identities are verified, and final editorial oversight remains with the Editor-in-Chief. Additional review may be requested as needed.
4. Anonymous and named reviewers are accepted, with editorial verification of independence and validity of reports.

Core principles
1. Honesty and accuracy in reporting.
2. Full disclosure of competing interests and funding.
3. Responsible authorship and contributorship.
4. Appropriate ethical approval and participant consent.
5. Transparent availability of data, code, and materials where possible.
6. Use of appropriate reporting guidelines for different study types.

Authorship, contributorship, and acknowledgements

Authorship criteria
Authorship must accurately reflect individuals who made substantial intellectual contributions to the work and who approve the final version for publication. See COPE’s International standards for authors. 

Contributorship statement (required)
Authors should use the CRediT taxonomy to describe each contributor’s role.

Corresponding author responsibilities
The corresponding author must ensure all authors meet authorship criteria, consent to submission, and that ethical approvals and disclosures are correct.

Acknowledgements
Non-author contributors should be acknowledged with permission. Editorial or medical-writing support must be disclosed along with funding sources.

Originality, plagiarism, and redundant publication
Manuscripts must report original work not previously published in full. Authors must disclose related prior or concurrent publications (including preprints). Plagiarism and redundant publication are not acceptable and will be handled according to COPE flowcharts.

Conflicts of interest and funding transparency
All authors must declare financial and non-financial conflicts of interest. See COPE guidance on competing interests. Funding sources and the role of funders must be disclosed.

Ethical approval, participant consent, and animal welfare

1. Human studies require Research Ethics Committee/IRB approval and participant consent. They must state the approving Research Ethics Committee/IRB and confirm participant consent.
2. Clinical trials must be prospectively registered in a public registry such as ClinicalTrials.gov or ISRCTN.
3. Animal studies must follow recognised animal research guidelines.
4. Research involving vulnerable populations must describe additional safeguards.

Data, code, and materials availability
Every submission must include a Data Availability Statement. Examples:

• “Data are available in Zenodo, Dryad, or Figshare at [DOI].”

• “Data are not publicly available due to confidentiality but may be requested from the corresponding author.”

Authors are encouraged to deposit data in repositories such as Dryad, Figshare, or institutional repositories. Guidance on good data reporting can be found at the EQUATOR Network.

Reporting standards and checklists
Authors must submit the relevant reporting checklist from the EQUATOR Library, for example:

CONSORT for randomised trials
STROBE for observational studies
PRISMA for systematic reviews
CARE for case reports
STARD for diagnostic studies

The completed checklist must indicate page numbers where each item is addressed.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions
Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions will follow COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Handling allegations of misconduct
Allegations of misconduct will be investigated according to COPE flowcharts and may involve contacting authors’ institutions.

Editorial independence and conflicts for editors
Editors must act independently of commercial or political influence and follow COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and Editors. 

Use of AI and large-language models
Authors must disclose any use of AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) in the preparation of manuscripts, as per COPE’s guidance on AI tools. AI cannot be listed as an author. See Orapuh's Responsible AI policy. and Orap J's Gen AI policy. 

Required submission items
At submission, authors must upload:

1. EQUATOR checklist (appropriate to study type)
2. Authorship declaration (using CRediT taxonomy)
3. Data Availability Statement
4. Ethics approval/consent statements
5. Trial registration (if applicable)
6. Conflict of interest and funding disclosures
7. Patient consent (for identifiable data/images)

Author support
Orapuh maintains an Author Resource Centre  (ARC) to help authors with reporting guidelines, ethical publishing, and manuscript preparation.