Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Journal of Environmental Informatics Letters (JEIL) is a peer-reviewed journal committed to ensuring the highest standards of publication ethics. It is recognized that the scholarly publishing ecosystem is complex and includes editors, authors, reviewers, and publishers. It is expected that all parties involved have a shared understanding and acceptance of JEIL’s standards on publication ethics and malpractice. The statements below are closely aligned with COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) Core Practices, which can be accessed at: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices.


Responsibility of Editors

The editors’ chief responsibility is to determine without bias which submissions to the journal will be published. They must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).


Confidentiality

JEIL’s editorial staff will maintain strict confidentiality of manuscripts under consideration for publication. They should not disclose any information about a manuscript to anyone other than reviewers and potential reviewers.


Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Editors must recuse themselves 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 institutions connected to the papers.

Editors require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.


Responsibility of Authors

An author’s central obligation is to present a concise, accurate account of the research performed and an objective discussion of its results and their significance. A paper should contain enough detail and references to public information to allow an author’s peers to evaluate and build on the work. An author should cite publications that have been influential in the reported work and guide the reader quickly to earlier work that is essential for understanding their investigation. Data and software referenced in the work should be represented accurately in the paper. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.


Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication

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. Manuscripts which have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere cannot be submitted. In addition, manuscripts under review by one journal should not be submitted to other publications while the manuscript is under review.


Authorship of the paper

Authorship should be limited to those 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. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.


Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed to the editor at the earliest stage possible. Readers should be informed about who has funded research and on the role of the funders in the research.


Fundamental errors in published works

When 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 the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or to provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.


Responsibility of Reviewers

Reviewing manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process and all scientists have an obligation to do their fair share of reviewing as part of their service to the scientific community. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor. In this case, our editors welcome recommendations for alternate reviewers.

Reviewers should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. A criticism of a published paper may be justified; however, in no case is personal criticism considered acceptable.

Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument in a manuscript was previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.


Confidentiality

A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. The reviewer should not share or discuss the manuscript with others. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author. These guidelines regarding unpublished information do not include an author’s own preprints.


Conflicts of Interest

A reviewer should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or in a published work. When in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript.


Alertness to Ethical Issues

A reviewer should be on the alert to the failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists. A reviewer should call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.