Publication Ethics & Policies

American Impact Review (AIR) is an open-access, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary academic journal published by Global Talent Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. This Publication Ethics Statement establishes the ethical standards and responsibilities governing all parties involved in the publication process: editors, peer reviewers, authors, and the publisher.

These policies are informed by and aligned with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations, and the principles upheld by leading scholarly publishers including Nature, PLOS, and Elsevier. We are committed to upholding the integrity of the scholarly record and fostering a culture of ethical responsibility throughout the research communication process.

1.1 Publication Decisions

The Editor-in-Chief bears ultimate responsibility for deciding which manuscripts submitted to the journal are published. Publication decisions are based solely on the manuscript's scholarly merit, including its originality, significance, clarity, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal's scope. Editors must not allow personal, commercial, political, or institutional considerations to influence publication decisions.

Decisions to accept or reject a manuscript are guided by peer reviewer recommendations, editorial board input, and the journal's editorial policies. The Editor-in-Chief may consult with Associate Editors or members of the Editorial Board in reaching a decision.

1.2 Fair and Impartial Review

Editors evaluate manuscripts based on their intellectual and scientific content without regard to the race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, citizenship, disability, age, or political affiliation of the authors. Manuscripts are assessed on their merits, and all authors receive fair and equitable treatment throughout the editorial process.

1.3 Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff must treat all submitted manuscripts and associated correspondence as confidential documents. No information about a submitted manuscript may be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, designated reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

1.4 Conflicts of Interest and Recusal

Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest, whether financial, personal, professional, or institutional. When the Editor-in-Chief is an author on a submission or has a close relationship with an author, the manuscript is assigned to an Associate Editor or an independent Editorial Board member who manages the entire review process without involvement from the conflicted editor.

Editors must have systems in place for managing conflicts of interest among themselves, their editorial staff, authors, reviewers, and editorial board members, consistent with COPE guidelines.

1.5 Handling Allegations of Misconduct

Editors have a duty to act if they suspect or receive allegations of research or publication misconduct, whether or not the manuscript in question has been published. Editors must not simply reject manuscripts that raise concerns about possible misconduct; they are ethically obligated to investigate and pursue the matter. Editors will follow COPE flowcharts and guidelines in responding to suspected misconduct, which may include contacting the author's institution, issuing corrections or retractions, and imposing sanctions where appropriate.

1.6 Editorial Independence

The editorial decision-making process is independent of the publisher, Global Talent Foundation. The publisher does not interfere with editorial decisions regarding the selection, scheduling, or content of published articles. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the intellectual content of the journal.

2.1 Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Peer review assists editors in making publication decisions and, through editorial communication, helps authors improve their manuscripts. Peer review is a fundamental component of scholarly communication and an essential obligation of the academic community. Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, or who cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe, should notify the editor promptly and decline the invitation.

2.2 Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such. Reviewers must not share the manuscript or discuss its content with anyone outside of the review process unless authorized by the editor. This applies both during and after the review process. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for the reviewer's personal advantage.

2.3 Objectivity and Constructiveness

Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and constructive feedback. Comments should be formulated to help authors improve their work, regardless of whether the reviewer recommends acceptance or rejection. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited and alert the editor to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published work of which they have personal knowledge.

2.4 Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should alert the editor to any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper or manuscript under review of which they are aware.

2.5 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose to the editor any potential conflict of interest that could bias their review, including competitive, collaborative, familial, financial, or other relationships with the authors or institutions connected to the manuscript. Reviewers who believe they cannot provide a fair and unbiased review must decline the assignment. Reviewers should not review manuscripts authored by individuals with whom they have a recent publication, grant collaboration, institutional affiliation, or personal relationship.

2.6 Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the timeframe specified by the editor. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline, they should contact the editorial office as early as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made. Prompt reviews are essential to maintaining fair and efficient publication timelines for authors.

3.1 Reporting Standards and Originality

Authors of original research articles must present an accurate account of the work performed, the data collected, and an objective discussion of the significance of their findings. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. Manuscripts must contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to evaluate and replicate the work. Fraudulent, fabricated, or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Submitted manuscripts must be original works that have not been previously published in any form (including preprint servers, with the exception of recognized preprint repositories such as SSRN, arXiv, or OSF Preprints, which must be disclosed at submission). Work that has been published previously, even in a different language or in abbreviated form (such as in conference proceedings), should be identified and referenced.

3.2 Plagiarism

Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes a serious breach of publication ethics and is unacceptable. This includes, but is not limited to: presenting another person's work, ideas, data, text, or images as one's own without proper acknowledgment; copying or paraphrasing substantial portions of another's work without attribution; and claiming results from research conducted by others. Self-plagiarism (also known as text recycling), in which an author reuses substantial portions of their own previously published work without appropriate citation and disclosure, is also prohibited.

3.3 Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Submission

Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors must also not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. An author should not, in general, submit a previously published paper for consideration in another journal.

3.4 Authorship

Authorship should be limited to those individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All individuals who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author must ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included on the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

In accordance with ICMJE recommendations, authorship credit should be based on: (1) substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data; (2) drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; (3) final approval of the version to be published; and (4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All four criteria must be met.

Contributors who do not meet all four criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in an Acknowledgments section. Ghost authorship (where a person who meets authorship criteria is not listed) and gift authorship (where a person who does not meet authorship criteria is listed) are forms of misconduct.

3.5 Use of Artificial Intelligence

Authors who use artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including large language models, in the preparation of their manuscript must disclose this use transparently. AI tools may not be listed as authors, as they cannot fulfill the accountability requirements of authorship. Authors must disclose the specific AI tools used and the nature of their contribution (e.g., language editing, data analysis, literature search) in the Methods section or in a dedicated disclosure statement. Authors bear full responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of all content in their manuscript, including any content generated or assisted by AI.

3.6 Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to make data publicly available if practicable. Authors should retain such data for a reasonable period after publication to allow for verification of results. In all cases, authors must include a Data Availability Statement in their manuscript.

3.7 Disclosure of Financial Support

All sources of financial support for the research must be disclosed. Authors must identify all funding sources, specify which authors were supported by each source, and describe the role of the funder in the study design, data collection, analysis, manuscript preparation, and decision to submit for publication. If the funder had no role, this should be stated explicitly.

3.8 Fundamental Errors in Published Work

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal Editor-in-Chief and cooperate with the editor to publish an erratum, corrigendum, or, if necessary, to retract the paper. If the editor learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, the author is obligated to cooperate with the editor in the investigation and, where warranted, retract or correct the paper promptly.

4.1 Open Access Policy

American Impact Review is a fully Gold Open Access journal. All published articles are freely and immediately available to readers worldwide upon publication, with no subscription fees, paywalls, or registration barriers. We believe that unrestricted access to research is essential for the advancement of knowledge and the public good.

• All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)
• Anyone may read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full text of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself
• The only constraint on reproduction and distribution is that authors must be given proper attribution as the original creators of the work

4.2 Article Processing Charges

American Impact Review currently charges an article processing charge (APC) of $200 upon acceptance. This fee helps sustain the journal's operations, including editorial management, peer review coordination, digital preservation, and platform maintenance. The APC is only charged after a manuscript has been accepted following peer review; there are no submission fees. The APC amount and any future changes will be clearly communicated to authors at the time of submission.

Fee waivers or reductions may be considered on a case-by-case basis for authors demonstrating financial hardship or for authors from low-income countries. Requests for waivers should be directed to the editorial office at the time of submission.

4.3 Copyright and Licensing

Authors retain copyright of their published work. By submitting a manuscript to American Impact Review, authors grant the journal a non-exclusive license to publish the article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Authors retain the right to reuse, distribute, and reproduce their own work in any medium, provided the original publication in American Impact Review is properly cited.

• The journal does not claim exclusive ownership of published content
• Third parties may share, adapt, and build upon published work for any purpose, including commercially, with proper attribution
• Authors may deposit accepted manuscripts in institutional or subject repositories
• The CC BY 4.0 license is irrevocable once applied to a published article

All manuscripts submitted to American Impact Review undergo rigorous single-blind peer review by a minimum of two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. In single-blind review, the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors, while the identities of the authors are known to the reviewers.

• Reviewers are selected by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Associate Editor based on domain expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest
• Reviewers evaluate manuscripts for originality, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, significance of contribution, and adherence to ethical standards
• The Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial decision (accept, revise, or reject) based on reviewer recommendations, but is not bound by them
• Authors receive detailed, constructive feedback and are given the opportunity to revise and resubmit
• Typical review turnaround: 7-14 business days

American Impact Review does not tolerate manipulation of the peer review process, including but not limited to: suggesting fabricated reviewers, interfering with the review via third-party services, or providing fraudulent contact information for suggested reviewers. Such actions constitute serious misconduct and will result in immediate rejection and possible sanctions.

6.1 Detection

All submitted manuscripts are screened for originality using plagiarism-detection software prior to peer review. This screening compares submissions against a comprehensive database of published academic content, web content, and other manuscripts. While a similarity report alone does not constitute evidence of plagiarism, high similarity scores are investigated by the editorial team to determine whether proper attribution has been provided.

6.2 Response to Detected Plagiarism

In accordance with COPE guidelines, the journal's response to plagiarism depends on the extent and nature of the plagiarized content:

• Minor overlap (e.g., overlapping phrases in the methods or introduction with proper paraphrasing issues): the author may be asked to revise and properly attribute the content
• Substantial plagiarism (e.g., significant portions of text, data, or figures copied without attribution): the manuscript will be rejected immediately
• Plagiarism detected after publication: the article will be retracted, and a retraction notice will be published and linked to the original article
• In cases of confirmed plagiarism, the author's institution may be notified, and the author may be prohibited from submitting to the journal for a specified period

6.3 Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling

Authors must not reuse substantial portions of their own previously published work without proper citation and disclosure. While limited reuse of standardized methodological descriptions may be acceptable, authors must clearly indicate which portions of their submission have appeared in prior publications. Excessive text recycling without disclosure is treated as a form of misconduct.

A conflict of interest exists when an individual's judgment regarding a primary interest (such as the validity of research or the integrity of editorial decisions) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain, personal relationships, academic competition, or ideological beliefs). All participants in the publication process are required to disclose any relationships or activities that could be perceived as potential conflicts of interest.

7.1 Authors

Authors must disclose all financial and non-financial competing interests that could be perceived as influencing the research or its interpretation. This includes, but is not limited to: employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications or registrations, grants, and personal relationships. A Conflict of Interest statement must be included in all submitted manuscripts. If no conflicts exist, authors must state: "The authors declare no competing interests."

7.2 Reviewers

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest to the editor and decline to review if a conflict could compromise their objectivity. Conflicts include: recent co-authorship or collaboration with any of the authors, a competitive relationship, a financial interest in the outcome, or an institutional affiliation with the authors. Reviewers who are uncertain about whether a conflict exists should err on the side of disclosure.

7.3 Editors

Editors must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript in which they have a personal, financial, or professional conflict of interest. Such manuscripts are assigned to an independent editor or Editorial Board member. Editors must not use information obtained through the editorial process for personal or competitive advantage.

American Impact Review is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the published record. The purpose of corrections and retractions is to correct the scholarly record and inform readers, not to punish authors. Post-publication actions are guided by COPE Retraction Guidelines.

8.1 Erratum / Corrigendum

If errors are identified after publication that affect the accuracy or completeness of the article but do not substantially invalidate its findings or conclusions, the journal will publish a correction notice (erratum if the error originated with the journal; corrigendum if the error originated with the author). The correction is published as a separate, citable notice that is permanently linked to the original article.

8.2 Retraction

Retraction is reserved for articles in which the findings are unreliable to a degree that the conclusions cannot be trusted, whether as a result of honest error or research misconduct (including fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism). Retraction may also be warranted in cases of redundant publication, failure to disclose major conflicts of interest, ethical violations, or compromised peer review. Retraction notices clearly state the reason for retraction and are bidirectionally linked to the original article.

8.3 Expression of Concern

An Expression of Concern is published when the editors have well-founded concerns about the integrity of a published article but the investigation has not yet concluded or is inconclusive. This notice alerts readers to potential issues while an investigation is in progress. An Expression of Concern may later be resolved by a correction, a retraction, or a statement that no action is warranted.

8.4 Process

• All corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern are clearly labeled and permanently linked to the original article
• Retracted articles are not removed from the journal but are watermarked as retracted
• Authors are given an opportunity to respond before retraction, except in cases of clear misconduct requiring immediate action
• The journal follows COPE flowcharts for investigating allegations and determining appropriate post-publication actions

9.1 Human Subjects Research

All research involving human participants must have been conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible institutional and/or national research committee and with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki (as revised) and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Authors must include a statement in their manuscript that:

• The study protocol was approved by the relevant Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Ethics Committee, including the name of the approving body and the approval reference number
• Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants (or their legal guardians) included in the study, with a description of how consent was documented
• If the study was exempt from IRB approval, the reason for exemption must be stated
• For studies involving vulnerable populations or participants at risk of coercion, additional safeguards and their implementation must be described

Identifying information (names, initials, hospital numbers, photographs) must not be included in manuscripts unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient or legal guardian has given written informed consent for publication.

9.2 Animal Subjects Research

Research involving animal subjects must comply with institutional, national, and international guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals. Authors must state in their manuscript that:

• The study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or equivalent ethics committee
• The research complied with applicable national or international guidelines (e.g., ARRIVE guidelines, NIH Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, or EU Directive 2010/63/EU)
• All efforts were made to minimize animal suffering and to reduce the number of animals used

9.3 Research Not Involving Human or Animal Subjects

For studies that do not involve human or animal subjects (e.g., computational research, theoretical studies, textual analysis), authors should include a statement confirming that no ethical approval was required and explaining why.

American Impact Review supports and encourages the sharing of research data to promote transparency, reproducibility, and the advancement of knowledge. Our data policy is informed by COPE recommendations and the practices of leading open access publishers.

10.1 Data Availability Statement

All manuscripts must include a Data Availability Statement describing whether and how the data supporting the findings of the study can be accessed. This statement should include hyperlinks to publicly archived datasets where applicable, or an explanation of any restrictions on data access.

10.2 Data Sharing Expectations

• Authors are strongly encouraged to deposit research data in recognized, discipline-appropriate public repositories (e.g., Dryad, Figshare, Zenodo, Harvard Dataverse, ICPSR, or domain-specific repositories)
• When data cannot be publicly shared due to ethical, legal, privacy, or proprietary constraints, authors must clearly explain the restrictions and, where possible, describe how qualified researchers may request access
• Supplementary materials, analysis code, and software used to generate the findings should be shared when they support the reproducibility of the work
• Authors should retain research data for a minimum of five years following publication to allow for verification

10.3 Exceptions

The journal recognizes that not all data can or should be shared publicly. Legitimate reasons for restricting access include: participant confidentiality, legal restrictions, proprietary data, indigenous data sovereignty, and security concerns. In all cases, the reasons for restriction must be clearly stated in the Data Availability Statement.

11.1 Appeals of Editorial Decisions

Authors who believe that their manuscript was rejected in error or that the editorial decision was based on a misunderstanding or factual error may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief at egor@americanimpactreview.com. Appeals should include a detailed, point-by-point response to the reviewer comments and a clear rationale explaining why the decision should be reconsidered.

• The Editor-in-Chief will review the appeal and may seek additional opinions from the original reviewers, new reviewers, or Editorial Board members
• A decision on the appeal will be communicated within 14 business days
• The decision on an appeal is final unless new substantive evidence is presented

11.2 Complaints

Authors, reviewers, readers, and other stakeholders may raise complaints about any aspect of the journal's operations, including but not limited to: reviewer conduct, editorial decisions, ethical concerns, publication delays, or post-publication issues. Complaints should be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief.

• All complaints are acknowledged within five business days
• Complaints are investigated promptly, confidentially, and in accordance with COPE guidelines
• The complainant will receive a written response outlining the findings and any actions taken
• If the complainant is not satisfied with the response, they may escalate the matter to the publisher (Global Talent Foundation) or to COPE directly

11.3 Allegations of Misconduct

Anyone may report suspected research or publication misconduct to the Editor-in-Chief. Reports may be made anonymously. The journal will investigate all credible allegations following COPE flowcharts and guidelines, regardless of whether the manuscript or article in question was published by the journal. Informants are protected from retaliation.

Global Talent Foundation, as the publisher of American Impact Review, commits to the following responsibilities:

• Supporting the editorial independence of the Editor-in-Chief and not interfering with editorial decisions
• Ensuring the long-term digital preservation and accessibility of all published content through archival services (Internet Archive and planned LOCKSS participation)
• Maintaining the journal's website and publishing infrastructure to ensure uninterrupted access to published articles
• Cooperating with the editorial team in the investigation of ethical concerns and the publication of corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when warranted
• Assigning persistent identifiers (DOIs) to all published articles upon completion of Crossref registration
• Clearly communicating all fees, policies, and editorial processes to authors, reviewers, and readers
• Operating as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization with a commitment to advancing knowledge and the public good

American Impact Review is committed to the long-term preservation and perpetual accessibility of all published content. Digital preservation ensures that scholarship remains available to future researchers regardless of changes to the journal's operations or technology.

• Digital preservation through LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) is planned to ensure distributed, redundant archival
• Articles are archived through the Internet Archive to maintain publicly accessible copies of all published work
• All published articles remain freely accessible on the journal website indefinitely
• Persistent identifiers (DOIs) will be assigned to all articles upon completion of Crossref registration, ensuring permanent discoverability

This Publication Ethics Statement is effective as of February 2026 and will be reviewed and updated periodically to reflect evolving best practices in scholarly publishing ethics.

Questions, concerns, or reports related to publication ethics should be directed to:

• Editor-in-Chief: egor@americanimpactreview.com
• Publisher: Global Talent Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
• Website: americanimpactreview.com

This statement draws on guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the policies of Nature, PLOS, MDPI, and Elsevier.