Malpractice-Statement

Distribution Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

We follow the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2011) for publication ethics and publication malpractice statement in Journal of Research in Ecology.

Responsibilities of the Editors

Publication decisions

The editor is in charge of choosing which of the papers submitted to the journal will be published. The editor will assess the manuscripts regardless of the author race, sex, religious conviction, ethnic inception, citizenship, or political philosophy. The final decision depends on the paper's significance, innovation and clarity and the examination's legitimacy and its importance to the journal’s scope. Moreover, consideration of legal necessities in regards to defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism likewise be taken into account.

Privacy

The editorial office must not uncover any data about a submitted manuscript to anybody other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial counselors, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials revealed in a submitted paper won't be utilized by the manager or the individuals from the publication board for their own research purposes without the author’s written consent.

Reviewer’s duties

Commitment to editorial decisions

The editorial board decided if the manuscript are to be accepted or not based on the peer review process. The review process also helps to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Promptness

The chosen examiner who feels unfit to review the manuscript or realizes that its brief review will be impossible ought to inform the editorial manager and pull back from the review further.

Confidentiality

All the manuscript submitted for review must be treated as private records. They should not be unveiled to or examined by others apart from as approved by the supervisor.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews ought to be directed objectively. Individual analysis of the author is inappropriate. Examiners should express their perspectives unmistakably with supporting contentions.

Affirmation of sources

Reviewers ought to distinguish cases in which important published work referred to in the manuscript has not been cited to in the reference segment. They should bring up whether perceptions or contentions got from different publications are joined by the respective source. Reviewers will inform the editors of any generous likeness or overlap between the manuscript submitted and some other published article of which they have personal information.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Data or ideas got through peer review must be kept private and not utilized for individual benefits. Examiners must not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interests arised because of focused, collaborative or different relationships or associations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions related with the papers.

Author’s duties

Reporting standards

Authors of original research reports should show an exact record of the work executed just as a target dialog of its significance. Fundamental information ought to be spoken to precisely in the paper. A paper ought to contain adequate detail and references to allow others to recreate the work. Deceitful or purposely erroneous proclamations establish unethical conduct and are inadmissible.

Information access and maintenance

Authors could be solicited to give the crude data from their investigation together with the paper for review and ought to be set up to make the information freely accessible if practicable. In any occasion, authors ought to guarantee availability of such information to other able experts for in any event ten years after publication (ideally by means of an institutional or subject-based dara repository or other data center), provided that the privacy of the members can be ensured and legitimate rights concerning proprietary information don't block their distribution.

Originality, plagiarism and affirmation of sources

Authors should submit completely unique works, and will fittingly refer to or quote the work as well as expressions of others. Publications that have been powerful in deciding the idea of the reported work ought to likewise be refered to.

Numerous, redundant or concurrent publication

Generally, papers portraying basically a similar research should not be published in more than one journal. Presenting a similar paper to more than one journal comprises unethical publishing behaviour and is inadmissible.

Original manuscripts which have been distributed as copyrighted material somewhere else can't be submitted. Moreover, manuscripts under review by the journal ought not be resubmitted to copyrighted publications. Anyhow, by submitting a research article, the author(s) hold the rights to the distributed material. Once they publish they grant the utilization of their work under a CC-BY license [(CC BY 4.0) (www.creativecommons.org)], which enables others to duplicate, distribute and transmit the work just as to adopt the work and to utilize it.

Authorship of the paper

Authorship ought to be restricted to the individuals who have made a noteworthy commitment to the conclusion, design, execution or interpretation of the detailed investigation. Each one of the individuals who have made huge contribution ought to be recorded as authors.

The corresponding author guarantees that all contributing co-authors and no uninvolved people are incorporated into the author list. The corresponding author will likewise confirm that all co-authors have affirmed the last form of the paper and have consented to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interests

All authors ought to incorporate an statement unveiling any money related or other substantive conflicts of interests that might be construed to impact the outcomes or elucidation of their original manuscript. All sources of monetary help for the venture ought to be revealed.

Fundamental blunders in published works

At the point when a author finds a critical blunder or mistake in his/her very own published work, it is the author’s commitment to instantly inform the journal editor or publisher and to co-operate with the editor to withdraw or address the paper in the form of an erratum.