PARADEIGMA follows the guidelines set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in all aspects of publication ethics, in particular, protocols of research and publication misconduct. PARADEIGMA adheres to the COPE guidelines that ensure a high-quality standard of ethics for authors, editors, and reviewers:

Authors

1. Authors attest that the material has not been previously published and that they have not transferred any rights to the article to another party.
2. Authors should ensure the originality of their work and must properly cite others' work in accordance with the format of the approved references.
3. Authors should not engage in plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
4. An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
5. Authors should make all data and details of their work available to the editors if there are suspicions of data falsification or fabrication.
6. Authors of the article should clarify any possible conflicts of interest such as their job role, research expenses, consultant expenses, and intellectual property.
7. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Editors

1. Editors are responsible for every article published in PARADEIGMA.
2. Editors should assist authors, where possible, to ensure their articles adhere to PARADEIGMA guidelines.
3. Editors may confer with other editors or reviewers when making final decisions regarding publication.
4. An editor must evaluate manuscripts objectively for publication; judging each on its merit without bias towards nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, religion, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the authors.
5. Editors should decline articles if there is a potential conflict of interest. 
6. Editors must ensure that documents sent to reviewers do not contain private information of the authors and vice versa. 
7. The editor's final decision should be relayed to authors in a timely fashion and will be accompanied by the reviewer's comments unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks. 
8. If authors have a well-reasoned objection to a certain individual reviewing their work, editors should respect this request. 
9. Editors and all staff should guarantee the confidentiality of the submitted manuscript.
10. Editors will be guided by the COPE guidelines if there is a suspected misconduct or disputed authorship.

 Reviewers

1. Reviewers are required to comment on possible research, ethical, and publication misconduct if they are suspected. 
2. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3. Reviewers must complete the work in a timely manner and should notify the editor immediately if they cannot complete the work.
4. Reviewers are to respect the confidentiality of the manuscript. 
5. Reviewers should not accept manuscripts for assessment if they believe there is a potential conflict of interest between them and any of the authors.
6. A reviewer should call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
7. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.