Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Journal of Natural Resources and Development is committed to maintaining the scholarly publication ethics at all stages of the publication process. Our statements of publication ethics is based on the COPE Code of Conduct and best practice guidelines for Journal Editors. Below is a summary of our key expectations of editors, peer-reviewers, and authors.
- Is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the journal will be published.
- It will evaluate manuscripts without regard to the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors. The decision will be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the journal's scope. Current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism should also be considered.
- The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
- Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author's explicit written consent.
- The editors should always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when appropriate.
- Should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.
- New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
- It should follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of ethical nature or conflicts of interest, in accordance with the journal’s policies and procedures. Editors must give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints.
- All complaints should be investigated, regardless of the original publication’s approved date. Documentation associated with such complaints should always be archived. Conflicts of interest could be considered or viewed as instances where third parties exert an undue influence on the presentation, review and publication of an article. These may be financial, professional, or personal in nature.
- The peer-reviewing process has to be objective. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame, especially if they cannot do the review.
- Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.
- Advantageous information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal benefit. Reviewers should not volunteer for manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the subject matter.
- Reviewers should identify instances in which work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are properly accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published or submitted content of which they have personal knowledge.
- Not suggest that authors include citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work merely to increase the reviewer’s (or their associates’) citation count or to enhance the visibility of their or their associates’ work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.
- Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
- Authors of original research reports should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
- Authors could be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the paper for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data, on reasonable request, to other competent professionals for at least ten years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
- Authors will submit only entirely original works, and will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Authors submitting articles to the JNRD are required to obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should also be cited.
- In general, papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. JNRD takes a declaration from the corresponding author that the manuscript communicated is neither has been published anywhere else (except in the form of an abstract or presentation in a scientific conference) nor is under consideration in any other journal.
- Manuscripts which have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere cannot be submitted. In addition, manuscripts under review by the journal should not be resubmitted to copyrighted publications. However, by submitting a manuscript, the author(s) retain the rights to the published material. In case of publication they permit the use of their work under a CC-BY license [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/], which allows others to copy, distribute and transmit the work as well as to adapt the work and to make commercial use of it.
- Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
- Authors are obliged to participate in peer review process
- In case an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with journal to retract or correct the paper.
- All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed in a separate section of the text and placed before the References.
- Author(s) should declare any potential conflicts of interest.
- If authors use their own previously published work as part of the manuscript under consideration, they are expected to properly cite it and justify that the new manuscript under consideration offers novel contributions compared to their previously published work.
Procedures for dealing with unethical behavior
In handling complaints and disputable situations the JNRD editor will follow the guideline of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) – Flowcharts
Identification of unethical behavior:
- Anyone may inform the editor at any time of suspected unethical behavior and misconduct by confidentially providing the necessary evidence to start an investigation.
- Misconduct and unethical behavior may include, but need not be limited to, the examples outlined above.
- The editor-in-chief will consult with the editor(s) in charge on the need of an investigation.
- During an investigation, any evidence should be treated as strictly confidential and only made available to those in the investigation commission.
- Before any judgement is passed, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
- If it is judged at the end of the investigation that misconduct has occurred, then it will be classified as either a minor or serious offense.
- Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult third parties.
- The editor-in-chief, in consultation with the board of editors, should choose the course of action to be taken using the evidence available and, when appropriate, seek further consultation with a small group of experts.
- The possible outcomes, in increasing order of severity, are as follows:
- Informing the author or reviewer of any misconduct by means of a formal letter.
- A more strongly-worded letter to the author or reviewer outlining the misconduct and that should serve as a warning.
- Publication of a formal announcement describing the misconduct.
- Formal retraction of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
- A ban on submissions from an individual for a defined period.
- Escalating the case to a professional organization or legal authority for further action.