Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
 
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
The ethics statements for the Environment, Earth and Ecology follow the COPE standards (COPE - Committee on Publication Ethics).

It is expected of authors, reviewers, and editors that they follow the best-practice guidelines on ethical behavior contained therein.
A selection of key points is included below, but you should always refer to the document listed above for full details.

Author Responsibilities


Reporting standards


Authors reporting their results of original research should present a reliable description of the works performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Data should be represented accurately in the manuscript.
A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Deceptive and consciously wrong inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism


The authors should ensure that they have written original works, and also if the authors have used the work and/or words/figures/ideas of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple and concurrent publications


An author should not publish their manuscripts describing fundamentally the same research in more than one journal. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is unethical and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgment of sources


Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument that has been reported in another manuscript should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
Correctly acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.

Authorship of a manuscript


Authorship always should be limited only to persons, who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the submitted work. All persons, who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
If there are others who have participated in certain aspects of the research project, they may be named in an Acknowledgement section.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript. The corresponding author should ensure also that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Changes to authorship


Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of all authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Any changes (addition, deletion, or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list) should be made before the manuscript has been accepted and only if approved by the journal Editor. To request a change, the Editor must receive the following from the corresponding author the reason for the change in the author list and written confirmation (e-mail or letter) from all authors that they agree with the changes (addition, removal, or rearrangement).

Disclosure and conflicts of interest


All authors should disclose in their manuscript: any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest, which might have an influence on the results or their interpretation in the manuscript.
All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works


When an author discovers a significant and fundamental error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to inform the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.


Reviewer Responsibilities


Contribution to editorial decisions


Peer review assists the editor in making an editorial decisions and, also through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness


Any invited referee who feels unspecialised to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately inform the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality


All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They can not be shown to/or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Standards of objectivity


Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly and in detail.

Acknowledgment of sources


Reviewers should identify published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement (an observation, derivation, or argument) which had been previously published should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also be vigilant and pay attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and also any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest


Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, business connections, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, or institutions connected to the submission.

Editor Responsibilities


Accountability


The editors of a peer-reviewed journal are always responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. In making this decision, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board, by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and also plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor always should maintain the integrity of the academic record and preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always should be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.

Fairness


The editor always should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to gender, sexual orientation, race, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political orientation of the author(s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

Confidentiality


The editor(s) and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues


The editor always will be guided by COPE’s standards when considering withdraw, issuing expressions of concern about, and also issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in the Environment, Earth and Ecology.
Unpublished materials from the submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express consent of the author.
The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, promotions, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact on editorial decisions.
The editor should seek to ensure a fair and appropriate peer-review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other members of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
Editors should require from all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations


Editors should guard the integrity of the published manuscript by issuing necessary corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or supposed research and publication misconduct. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Publisher’s Confirmation


In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct ( also fraudulent publication or plagiarism) the publisher, in collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes also the publication of an erratum or, in the most hard cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.
 
eISSN:2543-9774
ISSN:2451-4225