Publication ethics and malpractice
• To act in objective and fair way while carrying out its duties, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
• To handle submissions or special issues in the same way, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their scientific merit and without commercial influence.
• To adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflict nature, in accordance with the By Laws of the National Society for Ecological Engineering and Environment Protection (NSEEEP). To give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. All documentation should be kept in archive.
• To contribute to the evaluation process and to assist in improving the quality of the submitted paper by reviewing the manuscript responsibly, objectively, and duly.
• To maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author.
• To alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
• To look for any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and to alert the editor to these.
• To maintain accurate records of the original data associated with their submitted manuscript, and to supply or provide access to these data, on reasonable request. To deposit data in a suitable repository or storage location for sharing and further use by others where allowed by employer.
• To declare/confirm that the submitted manuscript is not publiched elsewhere. Where parts of the content overlap with published content, to cite those sources.
• To declare that all the data in the submitted manuscript are original and to cite content reproduced from other sources.
• To obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources.
• Authors should ensure that any studies involving human or animal subjects conform to national, local and institutional laws and requirements (e.g. WMA Declaration of Helsinki, NIH Policy on Use of Laboratory Animals, EU Directive on Use of Animals) and confirm that approval by the National Ethics Committees, permission from human subjects etc. are obtained.
• To declare any potential conflicts of interest (e.g. where the author has a competing interest - real or apparent).
• To notify promptly the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board in case of significant error in their publication is identified. To cooperate with the editor and publisher to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper if necessary.
NS EEEP and Editorial Board responsibilities
• Both NSEEEP and Editorial Board shall ensure that good practice is maintained to the standards outlined above.
• NS EEEP and Editorial Board of the journal provide assurance that they subscribe to the principles outlined above and/or to their regulations.
PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH UNETHICAL
Identification of unethical behaviour
• Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief at any time and by anyone.
• Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.
• An initial decision should be taken by the Editor-in-Chief, who should consult with or seek advice from the Editorial Board, if appropriate.
• Evidence should be gathered and provided, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.
Minor and Serious breaches
• Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
• The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board or NSEEEP, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.
• Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
• A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behaviour.
• Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
• Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
• A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding organization.
• Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal.