The Code of Best Practices stipulates the following:

1. Manuscripts must provide sufficient detail regarding the methods and materials used in the study to ensure methodological coherence, reproducibility, or replicability by others. If possible, evidence of how the methodology was applied should be included not only in the correspondence with the journal but also in the article itself.
2. When analytical equipment is used, authors must provide complete information about the equipment, including the manufacturer’s name and the place of manufacture, to ensure reproducibility and transparency.
3. Manuscripts reporting on qualitative research must demonstrate adherence to the concept of trustworthiness, including credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
4. AI tools:
   1. Reference the use of AI tools or techniques, where applicable.
   2. Note that AI tools do not qualify for authorship.
   3. The JSR should outline how AI tools can be used to support the peer review process, such as assisting in initial screenings and plagiarism detection, while ensuring that final decisions are made by human reviewers and editors.
5. To ensure transparency, authors must describe their individual contributions at the time of their manuscript submission, thus helping to avoid authorship disputes.
6. The input of other contributors (administrative relationship, acquisition of funding, collection of data, general supervision of a research group alone, as well as language editing) must be duly acknowledged, but does not warrant authorship.
7. Posthumous authorship is permissible where a deceased contributor met the criteria for authorship before their death. In such a case, the corresponding author should affirm the deceased individual’s contributions and include a note indicating the date of their death in the manuscript.
8. No more than 25% of the contributions should originate from the same institution and at least 75% from different institutions. For authors with multiple affiliations, the first-listed institution will be considered their primary affiliation for institutional representation unless otherwise specified.
9. The JSR should, at a minimum, describe or outline
   1. a clear policy on the use of generative AI in the research and publication process, including guidelines on how AI tools should be acknowledged and any relevant ethical considerations;
   2. guidelines and policies for disclosing and managing potential conflicts;
   3. procedures for handling confidential information;
   4. procedures for issuing errata, corrigenda, and retractions; and
   5. policies for handling preprints and ensuring digital archiving and preservation of articles.
10. There should be clear terms for the use of published content, including permissions for reproduction and distribution.
11. It is recommended that journals consider implementing a reasonable limit on the number of submissions per author and per editor acting as an author per year.
12. All images, tables, figures, and multimedia content must be properly labelled and credited. Appropriate permissions must be obtained for any content that is not original.
13. Authors must provide comprehensive details of the statistical methods used, ensuring transparency and reproducibility. This includes specifying the statistical software or tools used, the rationale behind the choice of statistical tests, any assumptions made during the analysis, and a description of the steps followed.
14. For empirical or quantitative studies, authors should ensure that ethics clearance, as required in section 10.1, is obtained and properly documented, if applicable.
15. All manuscripts and substantive correspondence relating to published papers should be properly and accessibly stored (for editors’ reference), preferably in a well-designed record and document-handling system for both editors’ and audit reference. This should be done for as long as possible and practicable, but at least for five years.
16. In addition to maintaining manuscript and correspondence records, the Editorial Team should periodically review and report on the journal’s performance, challenges, policy issues, and achievements. While the frequency of these reports may vary, it is recommended that an annual or biannual report be compiled and submitted. These reports should be submitted to relevant governing bodies such as the journal’s association, publishing institution, or any overseeing entity.
17. For journals published online, the journal’s website must consistently reflect the most recent and accurate information, including a description of the journal and its scope, affiliations, and details of the Editorial Team, such as editors and key contacts. Additionally, the editorial office’s contact details must be displayed on the journal’s website to ensure clear and accessible communication channels for authors, reviewers, and readers.
18. To ensure transparency, the journal must list the full names and affiliations of its editors on its website or the cover (preferably on the inside front cover) for print-only journals.
19. The journal’s ISSN and e-ISSN numbers should be indicated on the website.
20. If research has to be divided into multiple parts due to methodological constraints, each part should be self-contained and written in a manner that allows it to be peer-reviewed independently. Each segment should substantively address a specific aspect of the research problem and not merely serve as a fragment of a larger study.
21. Peer reviewers should preferably be scholars who have not co-published with the author(s) in the past two to three years and are not employees of the authors’ host institutions. It is also advisable to avoid selecting supervisors as reviewers.
22. All peer-review reports and substantive correspondence must be retained within a well-designed record system for at least five years from the date of publication.
23. When a part of a postgraduate thesis or dissertation is submitted for publication in a scholarly journal, it is subjected to the same peer review procedures as all other manuscripts. Any such submission must be reworked into a suitable article format that can stand on its own substantively. Additionally, authors should clearly reference the original thesis or dissertation, indicating the extent to which it has been used in the article.
24. The task of a peer reviewer includes the following:

• Scrutinize the research methodology and results in terms of appropriateness to the stated aims of the study, consistency, quality of interpretation, and reproducibility. Reviewers should thoroughly read the manuscript and evaluate the scientific content.
• Identify gaps that could be explored to enhance the interpretability and strength of the findings and/or insights.
• Assess appropriateness of references to previously published studies and ensure that the work under review is accurately and firmly placed in the relevant context.
• Avoid suggesting the addition of their own publications to the reference list unless there is a strong justification to do so, as this practice can undermine the integrity of the review process.
• Contest conclusions when they are not justified by the results or arguments presented.
• Comment on the relevance and novelty of the work, including whether the topic of the study is of current interest.
• Suggest how the manuscript can be improved. Reviewers should always report their findings in writing, providing clear recommendations for the acceptance of the paper in question, with or without revision (minor, moderate, or major), or rejection, as appropriate.
• Acknowledge that peer reviewing is part of academic citizenship and there should be no expectation of payment for reviews.

(URL: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.assaf.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NSEF-Code-of-Best-Practice-March-2018.pdf)