Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Open Access

ACIG is fully open access, i.e. research articles and any other content are available free of charge. The articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). This means you are free to share, adapt, and redistribute the content, as long as you credit the original author(s) and license your new creations under the identical terms. Copyright of the papers belongs to the authors. However, please note that some rights are reserved. The layout and design elements of this journal, including images, graphics, and logos, are protected by copyright.

Archiving & Repository Policy

All articles published by ACIG are assigned a digital identifier object (DOI). Manuscripts are submitted to Crossref and are archived in Portico, which provides permanent digital archiving for scholarly journals. Authors may self-archive their manuscripts and/or archive them in an institutional repository without embargo time.

Publication Ethics Statement

ACIG enforces a rigorous peer review together with strict ethical policies and standards to ensure the highest quality scientific work. ACIG takes publishing ethics issues very seriously at all stages of manuscript review and publication. The Editors proceed with a zero-tolerance policy to enforce COPE’s Core Practices and Guidelines and swiftly handle complex cases of plagiarism, data falsification, authorship credit, and the like. Any allegations of research or publication misconduct are not tolerated, and further sanctions will be taken once the evidence of misconduct is confirmed, including retractions and corrections of published material. To verify the originality of content submitted to our journals, we use iThenticate to screen all submissions for plagiarism prior to publication.

ACIG is strict about data fabrication (i.e. intentional misrepresentation of research results), data falsification (i.e. the manipulation of research data with the intention of creating a false impression), and image manipulation. The authors of submitted manuscripts or published articles in which the results are found to have been fabricated, falsified, or subjected to image manipulation, will be sanctioned, and their published articles will be retracted immediately. ACIG will follow the flowcharts recommended by COPE on handling suspected cases:

Fabricated data in a submitted manuscript

Fabricated data in a published article

Image manipulation in a published article

ACIG is committed to observing the highest ethical standards in scientific research. All studies involving human subjects or human-related data or material must always adhere to the professional code of conduct as well as COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines. Experiments performed using animals, cell lines and plants must be conducted under strict ethical standards and rigorous protocols.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment or objectivity in the evaluation and publication process. Potential conflicts may include relationships such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, paid expert testimony, patent applications or registrations, and grants or funding. The disclosures should be made as early as possible in the submission process. If a conflict of interest arises, each case is individually reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief. In the event of a severe conflict, the article will not be published.

AI Policy

Applied Cybersecurity & Internet Governance recognises that generative AI, large language models and other AI-assisted technologies may support research and scholarly communication. However, these tools cannot replace human critical thinking, disciplinary expertise or editorial judgement. All uses of AI must therefore be guided by human oversight, transparency, accuracy, confidentiality and accountability.
This policy applies to authors, reviewers, editors and editorial staff.

1. AI-assisted use: no disclosure required

AI tools may be used for limited assistive purposes, including:

• spelling, grammar and punctuation checks;
• minor language improvement;
• formatting;
• reference-management functions;
• accessibility support, including generating draft alternative text for figures and images.

Disclosure is not required where the tool only corrects or improves the author’s or reviewer’s own text without generating substantive scholarly content. However, users remain responsible for checking the accuracy, clarity and integrity of the final text.
Where an AI tool substantially rewrites, reorganises or generates text, its use is no longer considered merely assistive and must be disclosed.

2. Generative AI use: disclosure required

Authors must disclose any use of AI that materially contributes to the manuscript, research process or presentation of findings.
Uses requiring disclosure include:

• generation or substantial rewriting of text, particularly the abstract, theoretical introduction, conclusions, and the description or discussion of research findings;
• AI-assisted identification, selection, classification, summarisation, synthesis or compilation of sources where the output materially influences the scope, structure, evidential basis or conclusions of the literature review;
• generation, correction or enhancement of computer code;
• calculations using large language models or other generative AI tools;
• support in data analysis or qualitative coding;
• preparation of data visualisations, figures, images or other visual materials;
• generation of synthetic data;
• compilation of references;
• any use that affects the methodology, analysis, results or conclusions.

The disclosure should identify:

• the name and version of the tool, where available;
• how and why it was used;
• the part of the manuscript or research process affected;
• how the output was checked and revised by the authors.

AI used as part of the research method must be described in sufficient detail in the Methods section to permit scholarly evaluation and, where possible, replication. Authors must independently verify all AI-assisted calculations using appropriate and reproducible analytical tools. Large language models should not be treated as reliable calculation engines or used as a substitute for statistical or mathematical software.
Disclosure does not remove the author’s responsibility for the correctness and reproducibility of the results.

Suggested disclosure statement

During the preparation of this manuscript, the author(s) used [NAME AND VERSION OF TOOL] for [PURPOSE]. The author(s) reviewed, verified and revised the resulting output and take full responsibility for the content of the manuscript.

Disclosure of responsible AI use will not, by itself, be grounds for rejection.

3. Authorship and responsibility

AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors and must not be cited as authors.
Authorship requires responsibility for the integrity of the work, approval of the final version and accountability for the accuracy and originality of the manuscript. These responsibilities can be assumed only by humans. AI tools may support selected tasks, but they must not replace the authors’ critical judgement, disciplinary expertise or independent evaluation.

Authors remain fully responsible for:

• originality and accuracy of the submission;
• the validity of the methods, data and conclusions;
• the accuracy of references, quotations and citations;
• compliance with copyright, research ethics and data-protection requirements;
• identifying and correcting inaccurate, biased or fabricated AI output;
• ensuring that the manuscript reflects their own analysis, interpretation and scholarly contribution;
• disclosing relevant uses of AI in accordance with this policy;
• ensuring that the terms and conditions of the AI tools used do not compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy or publication rights.

Authors must consult and cite original sources rather than treating an AI tool as a primary scholarly source. AI-generated references must be independently verified because they may be inaccurate or fabricated. Authors should also assess whether AI-generated output omits relevant evidence, misrepresents competing perspectives or reproduces biases present in its training data.

4. Prohibited uses

The following uses are prohibited:

• fabricating or falsifying data, findings, quotations, references or claims;
• generating synthetic data to replace missing empirical data without a justified and transparent methodology;
• conducting simulated interviews with AI systems as substitutes for human participants while presenting the results as empirical interview data;
• using AI-generated accounts of experiences, attitudes or themes as substitutes for genuine qualitative analysis;
• disguising plagiarism or failing to attribute prior work;
• presenting AI-generated images as original research images or empirical evidence;
• altering research images or data in a way that changes their meaning;
• uploading personal, confidential, copyrighted, classified or otherwise protected material to systems that do not provide appropriate safeguards;
• using AI to perform editorial decisions or peer review.

Authors must not use AI in ways that replace core scholarly responsibilities.

5. AI use in research design and methods

This policy does not prohibit the use of AI tools as part of a formal research design or research method. Such use may include, for example, AI-assisted data collection, classification, modelling, image analysis or interpretation of research data.
Where an AI tool forms part of the research process, authors must describe its use in the Methods section with sufficient detail to allow the procedure to be evaluated and, where reasonably possible, reproduced. The description should include:

• the name of the tool or model;
• the version used;
• the developer or provider, where applicable;
• the purpose of its use;
• the relevant settings, prompts or analytical procedures;
• the role of human researchers in reviewing and interpreting the output;
• the procedures used to verify the validity and reliability of the results.

Authors must also comply with the tool’s terms of use, protect confidential and personal data, and provide appropriate attribution where required. The use of AI as a research method must additionally be disclosed in accordance with this policy.

6. Images, figures and visual materials

The ACIG journal does not permit the use of generative AI to create or modify conceptual illustrations, flow diagrams, graphical abstracts, data visualisations or other visual materials submitted for publication.
A narrow exception applies where the use of AI is an integral part of the research design or research method, rather than a means of preparing the manuscript. This may include, for example, research that evaluates an AI image-generation system or uses a validated AI model to analyse or visualise underlying research data.
In such cases:

• the use of AI must be scientifically justified and described in the Methods section;
• the model, version, provider, settings and relevant procedures must be reported;
• the output must be directly derived from the underlying data and generated through a reproducible process;
• the use of AI must be disclosed in the figure caption;
• authors must retain and, upon request, provide the original data, source files and pre-AI versions of the material.

AI must not be used to fabricate, replace or alter research data or primary research images, or to add, remove, obscure or enhance features in a way that may affect their interpretation. The exception does not apply to decorative images, graphical abstracts or illustrations produced solely to improve the presentation of the manuscript.

7. Reviewers

Submitted manuscripts and related materials are confidential.
Reviewers should not upload manuscripts, figures, supplementary files, review forms or editorial correspondence to public or non-approved AI systems. Such use may breach confidentiality, intellectual-property rights and data-protection obligations.
Reviewers must not use AI to:

• analyse or summarise the manuscript in place of their own reading;
• generate the substantive content of a review;
• formulate the final recommendation.

Limited language editing of a reviewer’s own report may be permitted, provided that no confidential manuscript content is disclosed. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness and integrity of their reports.

8. Editors

Editors are responsible for safeguarding the quality and integrity of the publication process. They must therefore maintain the confidentiality of all submission and peer-review materials and must not upload unpublished manuscripts, reviews, correspondence or author information to unauthorised AI systems.
AI must not be used to:

• evaluate the scientific quality of a manuscript;
• generate editorial decisions or decision letters;
• summarise unpublished research for editorial assessment;
• make final decisions on acceptance, rejection or alleged misconduct;
• replace independent editorial judgement.

Only journal-approved systems that protect confidentiality, privacy and intellectual property may be used for limited administrative support. Human editors remain responsible for all editorial decisions. This reflects the broader principle that AI should augment rather than replace human judgement.

9. Undisclosed or inappropriate use

Reviewers should report concerns to the editor. The journal may request:

• an explanation of how AI was used;
• an amended disclosure statement;
• original data, code, sources, prompts or image files;
• evidence supporting the reported research process.

Minor failures of disclosure may be corrected. Material or deceptive use may result in rejection, correction, retraction or further investigation in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics procedures and relevant COPE guidance.

The journal reserves the right to update this policy as technologies, ethical standards and publishing practices evolve.

Data Sharing and Reproducibility

ACIG promotes transparency by encouraging authors to share data in publicly accessible repositories that follow FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles, unless restricted by legal or ethical concerns. A link to the data repository, along with a data availability statement, should be provided at the time of manuscript submission.
Authors are encouraged to provide detailed descriptions of their methodologies to ensure that experiments or studies can be replicated accurately by other researchers.

Authors' Responsibilities

• Authors are obliged to ensure that the manuscript is original and authentic. Authors are accountable for following discipline-specific guidelines;
• Two minimum requirements define authorship across all definitions – making a substantial contribution to the work and being accountable for the work and its published form. Any form of authorship or scientific misconduct is prohibited. Editors will take disciplinary action as per COPE recommendations if a case of misconduct has been reported;
• Authors need to declare that the submission is an original, unpublished work that does not infringe upon the copyrights of any third parties, and in whole or part, is not simultaneously under consideration elsewhere;
• Authors must list all sources of research support relevant to the manuscript. All grant funding agency abbreviations should be completely spelled out;
• All papers submitted for publication in ACIG are subject to double-blinded review performed by at least two independent academics appointed by the Editors;
• The corresponding author takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process. Furthermore, they ensure that all ACIG’s administrative requirements (i.e. providing details of authorship, ensuring ethical integrity of research) have been met;
• Should any errors be detected upon the paper publication, the Authors are obliged to immediately report them to the Editors. All corrections will be included in the journal’s electronic version with an appropriate disclaimer;
• Authors must not submit defamatory or confidential content, infringe proprietary rights, disclose state secrets, or violate the privacy or publicity rights of third parties, as well as breach any applicable laws, as this will result in the rejection of their manuscript;
• By submitting their work, authors confirm that it does not infringe any copyright, proprietary rights, or privacy, and does not contain libelous material. Authors also agree to indemnify and protect the journal from any damages, expenses, or costs arising from such violations.

The correspondence section enables post-publication discussion. Readers may submit concerns via letters to the editor, and errors can be addressed through errata, corrigenda, or retractions. Authors must promptly correct inaccuracies in their work, with editors managing updates. Approved corrections are revised online with a posted Correction notice. For quicker discussions, follow us on social media.

Editors’ Responsibility

ACIG upholds the right of authors to be treated fairly and professionally throughout the peer review process and beyond. To uphold this right, the Editors have the responsibilities detailed below.

Confidentiality

• Submitted manuscripts will be handled with due respect for the authors’ confidentiality. Information about manuscripts and their content will not be disclosed to anyone other than the authors and reviewers until a decision has been taken as to whether the manuscript is to be published;
• Confidentiality of the names and other details of reviewers is ensured. Reviewers can choose to voluntarily sign their comments to authors if they wish. See our policy on reviewer anonymity for more information;
• We are fully compliant with data protection regulations, as appropriate.

Professionalism

• Editors are responsible for ensuring the efficient, fair and timely assessment of submitted manuscripts. They are deeply committed to upholding the highest standards in the submission, review, and publication process;
• Editors shall make the final decision concerning the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript in a timely and efficient manner. The decision will be based upon the manuscript’s importance, originality, clarity, scientific value, and its relevance to the journal;
• Editors must not be a party to any conflict of interest with regard to the manuscript or the Author. A potential conflict of interest arises when Editors have financial or personal relationships that could inappropriately influence their actions. In cases where an editor is an author of a submitted manuscript, the manuscript must be passed to another editor for independent peer review;
• Editors must respect the intellectual independence of authors;
• Editors will consider the use of an Author's suggested reviewers for their submitted article. However, Editors have the right to invite reviewers of their own choice. Editors will not invite reviewers which an Author has requested not to be consulted, unless the Editor reasonably considers there to be a significant over-riding interest in so doing.

Editors will respond to any suggestions of scientific misconduct or to convincing evidence regarding the manuscript, usually through consultation with the Author. This may require the publication of a formal ‘retraction’ or correction. We follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Flowcharts as the basis for our best practice guidelines when investigating allegations of misconduct. An Author’s appeal against the rejection of a submitted manuscript will be fairly dealt with.

ACIG is committed to maintaining the highest publication ethics standards and takes all necessary actions to prevent publication malpractice. Scientific misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, ghostwriting, guest authorship, and other breaches of ethical research practices. If misconduct is suspected, the editors may reject or retract the manuscript and notify relevant authorities or institutions. ACIG is also prepared to issue corrections, clarifications, or retractions when required.

Complaints

Editors promptly address complaints. Complaints are handled by the Editor-in-Chief, with decisions communicated via email and recorded in the Editorial System. The process follows COPE's guidelines: https://publicationethics.org/node/19631.
Complaints may involve issues such as plagiarism, copyright violations, research fraud, conflicts of interest, biased reviews, delays in manuscript processing, unsatisfactory peer-review, or authorship disputes. Handling complaints against editors also adheres to COPE standards.
Process for dealing with complaints against the editors is in compliance with COPE guidelines: COPE’s Code of Conduct

Ethical Business/Marketing Practices

ACIG operates under a transparent, ethical business model, fully funded by the NASK-National Research Institute. ACIG does not engage in advertising or email marketing. Our funding sources do not influence editorial decisions, ensuring the integrity and academic independence of the publication process.

All manuscripts undergo professional proofreading and editing prior to publication. Editors hold the right to modify and shorten papers as part of the editing process. ACIG also reserves the right to withdraw acceptance of a paper if significant issues with its scientific content or violations of ACIG publishing policies are identified after acceptance.

The views expressed by the authors in this journal are their own and do not reflect the positions of NASK-National Research Institute, the editors, or ACIG, who assume no responsibility for them.

We welcome post-publication discussion on our fanpages or through letters to the editor, fostering academic dialogue. Nonetheless, offensive, inappropriate, or disrespectful remarks are not permitted. All interactions must maintain professionalism and respect, ensuring a constructive exchange of ideas.