Original scholarship belongs to those who conceive and execute it. Inquisra does not claim ownership of manuscripts, datasets, software, figures, or underlying research ideas submitted to or published through the platform. Researchers select licenses that govern how others may reuse their work, and those licenses are displayed on published records.

Copyright and licensing choices are presented before publication. Authors understand what they grant to readers, institutions, and the platform. Attribution requirements travel with the work. Derivative use, commercial reuse, and redistribution rights are defined by the license — not by hidden terms.

Platform tools support — but never replace — institutional agreements, funder mandates, and publisher contracts. When conflicts arise between policies, Inquisra documents the applicable license and review status so readers and institutions can make informed judgments.

Attribution is a moral and professional obligation, not a courtesy. Inquisra supports CRediT-style contributor roles, corresponding author designation, equal contribution markers, and transparent author ordering. Ghost, guest, and gift authorship undermine science; the platform requires contributor declarations and encourages institutions to enforce authorship standards.

Persistent identifiers — including ORCID and other registered IDs — link people to their work across time and systems. Author records on published works remain tied to verified identity where available. Changes to authorship after publication follow documented correction procedures.

Contributors who perform peer review, editorial screening, data curation, or community service may receive platform recognition distinct from authorship, so that labor is not invisible.

Researchers are entitled to know what is expected before they submit, what criteria will be applied during review, and what outcomes are possible. Editorial screening, peer review, revision requests, acceptance, rejection, and publication each follow documented pathways. Arbitrary standards erode trust in science.

Editors and reviewers are expected to conduct themselves professionally. Personal bias, retaliation, and discriminatory treatment have no place in scholarly evaluation. Inquisra records editorial actions so that patterns of unfair treatment can be identified and remediated.

Timelines should be reasonable. While science cannot always move quickly, researchers deserve communication when delays occur and clarity about what is required to advance a submission.

Readers must be able to distinguish editorial screening from peer review, open review from anonymous review, preprints from version-of-record publications, and organization-issued works from independently submitted scholarship. Review labels are not decorative; they describe what scrutiny a work received.

Reviewers declare conflicts of interest. Editors manage competing interests before assignments are made. Where open review is selected, reviewer identities and reports may be published alongside the work. Where blind review is promised, identifying information is protected to the extent technically feasible.

Review quality matters. Inquisra supports structured review forms, integrity checks, and editorial oversight so that peer review remains a genuine evaluation — not a formality.

Rejection, retraction, correction, suspension, or other serious adverse actions should not be imposed without explanation. Researchers may appeal editorial decisions through documented channels. Allegations of misconduct trigger procedures that balance speed with fairness — protecting the community while respecting the accused's right to respond.

Due process does not mean endless delay. It means that consequential decisions are reasoned, recorded, and subject to review. Emergency actions to protect public safety or research subjects may proceed immediately when justified, with follow-up process preserved.

Corrections and retractions distinguish honest error from misconduct. Researchers may request corrections when errors are identified. Retractions follow community standards and remain visible on the scholarly record.

Integrity is non-negotiable. Fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism violate the trust on which science rests. Inquisra requires disclosure of funding, conflicts of interest, ethical approvals, data availability, and material limitations. Image manipulation, selective reporting, and undisclosed duplicate publication undermine the record.

Reproducibility requires that methods, data, and code be available where ethical and legal constraints allow. Researchers should describe how others can verify or build upon their findings. AI-assisted analysis must be disclosed; generated content must be identified; human oversight must remain explicit.

Integrity protections benefit honest researchers by making misconduct visible and preserving the value of rigorous work.

Professional identity is not the same as personal surveillance. Researchers choose profile visibility, public contact preferences, and opportunity listings. Private manuscript files, draft submissions, reviewer identities (where blind review applies), and personal contact details are not exposed without authorization.

Inquisra collects only information necessary to operate publishing, identity, billing, and integrity workflows. Privacy policies describe retention, access, and deletion rights. Researchers at risk — including those facing harassment or political persecution — deserve tools to limit exposure while maintaining scholarly participation.

Aggregate analytics inform platform improvement; individual behavior is not sold to third parties for advertising.

Scholarly careers outlast any single platform. Researchers should not be trapped by proprietary lock-in. Profile information, publication metadata, activity summaries, badges, and professional identity records should be exportable so researchers can maintain continuity when institutions change or platforms evolve.

Portability respects third-party rights: co-authored works, licensed content, and confidential review material may be excluded or redacted as law and contract require. Export tools are designed for researcher benefit — not data harvesting.

Open standards — including persistent identifiers and structured metadata — make portability durable beyond any export file format.

Names change. Institutions change. Careers advance. A professional identity system must persist through those transitions. Inquisra supports ORCID linkage, institutional affiliations, research identifiers, and public profiles that researchers control.

Identity verification — where offered — distinguishes confirmed credentials from self-asserted information without creating unnecessary barriers to participation. Independent researchers, early-career scholars, and those between appointments deserve profiles as complete as any tenured professor.

Professional identity is how communities find collaborators, evaluate expertise, and attribute credit. It must be accurate, researcher-controlled, and resistant to impersonation.

Science depends on invisible work: peer review performed without payment, editorial service, mentoring, dataset curation, open-science advocacy, and community building. Inquisra recognizes publications, completed reviews, editorial roles, reputation indicators, contribution badges, and documented activity — so that contribution is not reduced to a publication count alone.

Recognition must be earned, not purchased. Reputation on Inquisra reflects documented activity and integrity signals — not payment tier, follower counts, or popularity metrics alone.

Institutions evaluating researchers for hiring and promotion may use platform records as one evidence source among many; the platform does not replace holistic academic judgment.

Excellent research emerges from every continent and career stage. Platform access, submission pathways, profile tools, and discovery features are designed for global participation. Barriers based on institutional prestige alone are inconsistent with fair science.

Reasonable requirements — such as disclosure language, ethical compliance, and technical submission standards — apply equally. Accommodations for language, disability, and resource constraints are pursued where feasible.

Commercial membership may unlock additional tools, but core scholarly participation, transparent review labeling, and integrity protections are not withheld from researchers who cannot pay.

AI tools can improve discovery, language editing, statistical review, and accessibility. They can also generate plausible falsehoods, obscure authorship, and contaminate the literature if used without oversight. Researchers remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of what they submit.

Disclosure of AI assistance — in writing, analysis, image generation, or review — is required where platform policy and publication type demand it. Reviewers and editors may use AI tools only in ways consistent with confidentiality and quality obligations.

Inquisra will evolve AI features with human oversight, transparent limitations, and alignment to research integrity standards — not opaque automation that bypasses editorial judgment.

Trust requires visibility. Policies governing ethics, review, copyright, retractions, conflicts of interest, and billing are published and versioned. Material changes receive notice. Community standards define acceptable conduct without silencing legitimate scholarly disagreement.

Moderation addresses harassment, fraud, and abuse — not disagreement over scientific conclusions. Researchers may know what was moderated, why, and how to appeal — subject to safety and legal constraints.

Platform analytics, algorithmic ranking, and discovery features are documented at a level sufficient for researchers to understand how visibility is determined.

Discovery, projects, opportunities, organizations, and graph relationships connect researchers by expertise, interest, and institutional context. Collaboration features respect privacy: researchers choose what to share and whom to engage.

Interdisciplinary science requires profiles that express diverse skills and affiliations. Opportunity listings allow researchers to signal availability for employment, supervision, review, and partnership.

Collaboration tools complement — not replace — institutional HR, grant administration, and legal agreement processes.

Science has a memory. Stable URLs, version history, correction links, and bibliographic metadata allow future readers to find and cite work accurately. Inquisra assigns persistent identifiers to published records and maintains version lineage.

Preservation balances access with rights: embargoes, takedowns for legal cause, and retractions are handled transparently without erasing history. Backups, export, and infrastructure planning aim for multi-year durability.

Researchers' professional profiles and linked publications should remain resolvable across career transitions.

Researchers submit only work they have the right to share. They declare authorship accurately, disclose funding and conflicts, obtain required ethical approvals, and report methods and limitations honestly. They do not harass reviewers, editors, or other community members.

Peer reviewers evaluate work fairly, declare conflicts, protect confidential materials, and complete reviews with constructive rigor. Editors apply standards consistently and document decisions.

AI tools are used with disclosure and human verification. Data and images are not manipulated to mislead. Duplicate submission and salami slicing waste community resources and violate trust.

These responsibilities protect every researcher who depends on Inquisra as a trustworthy venue for science.