Publication ethics and malpractice
ETHICAL EXPECTATIONS
Editor-in-Chief's responsibilities
• 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.
Reviewers' responsibilities
• 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.
Authors' responsibilities
• 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
BEHAVIOUR
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.
Investigation
• 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.
Other responsibilities
• 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.