Publication Ethics and Malpractice

» Ethical norms are strongly advocated upon by all the stakeholders of JENT at every stage in the publication process.

» The publication of a research work in JENT, a peer-reviewed, international and open-access journal, establishes the fact that the authors concerned are of high academic calibre and their work has a high degree of original scientific merit.

» As a publisher of Journal of Environmental Nanotechnology, Institute for Environmental Nanotechnology is committed to seriously monitor all aspects of publications, upholding its ethical duty of zero tolerance towards any suspicious malpractice that hinders the quality of the journal.

» The Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Environmental Nanotechnology, makes the final decision in the selection of papers for publication in the journal and the decision of acceptance or rejection cannot be challenged.

1. DUTIES OF AUTHORS

1.1 Reporting Standards

Authors shall ensure that the paper focuses upon the innovative research outcomes in the thematic topic with proper presentation of the methodologies, data, analysis, interpretations and justifications.

1.2 Data access and Retention

The authors must submit raw data with their articles for editorial review, with open consent for making the data publicly available for the scientific community to use it.

1.3 Originality and Plagiarism

Originality and uniqueness are to be ensured by the authors for the entirety of their work. Any prior work done by others should be properly cited/referenced and duly credited/acknowledged. Plagiarism may take many forms - from copying or paraphrasing major parts of others’ research works without proper attribution to falsely claiming the outcomes of others’ research work. Plagiarism in any form is strictly unethical and plagiarized submissions should be avoided by all means.

1.4 Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

Submitting the same information to many journals at the same time is deemed unethical. An author should not submit a work for consideration that has previously been published elsewhere. At a time, an author cannot have more than three papers under JENT’s review.

1.5 Acknowledgement of Sources

JENT considers giving due credit for the efforts/works of others as very important. The authors’ sources for the study should be clearly mentioned, as per JENT’s guidelines. In general, the information collected informally through conversations with third parties shall not be utilized or publicized.

1.6 Authorship of the Paper

Only those researchers who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, implementation or interpretation of the research work undertaken should be considered as the authors. It is the duty of the corresponding author to check and ensure that all the authors have viewed and approved the final version of the paper that is being published.

1.7 Hazards and Human/Animal Subjects

If the research involves the use of materials, substances, procedures and/or equipment that pose risks to humans/animals, it is the duty of the authors to get prior permission from the authorities/institutions concerned and abide by the applicable local laws; in addition, the authors must explicitly state the details of such approvals in the manuscript.

1.8 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Any financial or other conflicts of interest with the probability of affecting the outcome of the research work should be declared by the authors in their manuscript. All the funding sources for the study undertaken should be made public.

1.9 Fundamental Errors in Published Works

Any substantial error or inaccuracy in the published work, found by the authors or third party at any stage, should be communicated by the authors immediately to the Editor-in-Chief; the authors shall lend their fullest support and ensure that necessary corrective actions are taken.

2. DUTIES OF EDITORS

In addition to the well-known duties such as maintaining the integrity of the journal, striving for continuous improvement of quality and encouraging academic research, the editors shall apply their best will to take up the following responsibilities:

2.1 Editorial Board

Editorial Board consists of fully qualified and highly recognized experts in the pertinent fields. The full names and affiliations of the board members as well as their contact information shall be preserved in the editorial office. Manuscripts are subjected to peer reviews and the accept/reject decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief (EIC), based on the recommendations of the editors and reviewers concerned. If one of the editorial board members is willing to publish an article, the Editor-in-Chief shall be notified so that the processing shall be assigned to another board member. Editorial board members shall refrain from using any part of the submitted manuscript, even if it is rejected, in their own work.

2.2 Publication decisions

The validation of the research work done and its significance and relevance to the scientific community and society shall be the driving factors for the decisions of acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. The editors shall derive guidance from the policies of the journal’s editorial board for forwarding their recommendations to EIC and be constrained by legal requirements such as copyright infringement and plagiarism.

2.3 Fair play

Editors shall evaluate the manuscripts for the intellectual content, with no inclination or bias to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.

2.4 Confidentiality

Editors shall abstain from disclosing any information about the submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the reviewers concerned. Editors shall ensure the complete confidentiality of the manuscript under review.

2.5 Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished/rejected manuscripts shall not be used by an editor or reviewer without the written consent of the author(s) concerned. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors shall consult EIC while reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other connections with any of the authors or institutions affiliated. Editors shall insist all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.

2.6 Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour

Unethical behaviour identified shall be brought to the attention of EIC at any time, by anyone. Whoever informs such conduct shall provide sufficient information and evidence so that an investigation can be initiated. All allegations shall be taken seriously and treated in the same way; every reported act of unethical publishing shall be looked into, even in the aftermath of publication.

Measures taken shall include contacting the author of the manuscript for clarifications and if necessary, to further communicate the issue to the relevant institutions and research bodies, depending on the degree of proven misconduct. In any case, the author shall be given the opportunity to defend such allegations in the first place.

Major and serious misconduct might require the application of one or more of the following measures:

Publication of a formal notice, detailing the misconduct.
A formal letter to the head of the author’s department or funding agency.
Withdrawal of the publication, after a formal communication to the head of the author’s department.
Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from the individual, for a defined period.

3. DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

Reviewers are responsible for ensuring the journal's quality and integrity through their unbiased reviews; they shall not disclose their identity in any form. Peer reviewers play a dual role in assisting the Editorial Board in forwarding publication recommendations to the EIC on one hand, and supporting the authors in improving the technical merit and overall quality of the manuscript through their valuable comments on the other. Reviewers shall immediately decline the review request if the technical part is unfamiliar or out of their specialization. In addition, they shall decline if the article has a conflict of interest or in case of their inability to provide a timely review. All submissions shall be treated as highly confidential. Reviewers have no right to pass on the article to another reviewer.

Checklist for reviewing articles

The following points shall be considered by the reviewers while checking the assigned research articles:

Structure of the article submitted and its adherence to the prescribed author’s guidelines
Purpose and Objective of the article
Introduction given and the conclusion/ suggestions provided
Adequacy of references cited to substantiate the content
Structure, grammar, punctuation and spelling
Plagiarism issues, if any
Suitability of the article to the social need or technological advancement
Conflict of interest, if any
Knowledge addition to the scientific community
Authors’ involvement in preparing the article and their interest towards scientific development

4. POLICY REGARDING CORRECTIONS AND RETRACTIONS

4.1 Addendum

If crucial results (e.g., additional affiliations, clarifications over the methodologies/analyses, etc.) were unintentionally omitted in the original publication, the original article can be amended through an Addendum. The Addendum shall be published with due reference to the article concerned, in the current issue of the journal. A hyperlink to the Addendum shall be added to the original publication, but the original paper does not need to be updated.

4.2 Erratum

Errata should be published for scientifically relevant formatting changes, or changes to authorship if the author list is incorrect (with errors such as omitting a deserving author or including an inappropriate author). Erratum for scientifically relevant formatting issues requires the inclusion of missing or unclear figures or addressing the errors related to proofreading such as a missing text. Minor spelling or grammatical errors that do not affect readability or meaning do not qualify for an Erratum. All authors shall proofread the final version carefully.

4.3 Corrections

Corrections shall be submitted for any scientifically relevant errors in published articles. Any changes may be evaluated by the academic editors. Any changes after publication that affect the scientific interpretation (e.g., changes to a misleading portion of an otherwise reliable publication, an error in a figure, an error in data that does not affect conclusions, or the addition of missing details about a method) are announced using a Correction. This is a separate publication that links to the original paper, which is updated. A note shall be added to the Abstract page, notifying the readers that an updated version was uploaded.

4.4 Retractions

Sometimes an article needs to be completely removed from the body of research literature. This could be due to inadvertent errors made during the research process, gross ethical breaches, fabrication of data, large amounts of plagiarism or other reasons. Such articles threaten the integrity of scientific records and need to be retracted. Journal of Environmental Nanotechnology follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for retraction. Potential Retractions shall be thoroughly investigated by the Editorial Board and finally approved by the Editor-in-Chief. Other persons and institutions will be consulted as necessary, including university authorities, or experts in the field. If a Retraction is published, the original publication is amended with a “RETRACTED” watermark, but will still be available on the journal’s website for future reference. However, retracted articles shall not be cited and used for further research, as they cannot be relied upon. A paper shall be completely removed in very exceptional circumstances, where leaving it online would constitute an illegal act or be likely to lead to significant harm.

4.5 Expression of Concern

For complex, inconclusive, or prolonged situations, an Expression of Concern may be published. If investigations into alleged or suspected research misconduct have not yet been completed or prove to be inconclusive, an editor or journal may wish to publish an Expression of Concern, detailing the points of concern and what actions, if any, are in progress. Usually, a reader will approach the Editorial Office or the Editor-in-Chief of a journal, if he/she finds an article intriguing. In such circumstances, the Editorial Office may invite the reader to write a short and logical comment on the article. After consideration and review by the Editor-in-Chief, the comment shall be published, in which case the Editorial Office will invite the authors of the article to prepare an appropriate reply. Editors shall invite previous reviewers to review both the comment and the reply (if available). If the reader’s complaints are substantiated, the Editorial office shall publish a correction or if the situation necessitates, retract the paper entirely.

4.6 Fabrication or Falsification

If the submitted manuscripts are found fabricated or falsified, such articles shall be rejected at any stage of the publication process.

4.7 Duplicate Manuscript Submission

If the content of the manuscript submitted for review overlaps or is substantially related to any published article, it shall be deemed as duplicate content and is not considered for publication.

4.8 CrossMark Policy

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative to provide a standard way for readers to locate the current version of a piece of content. By applying the CrossMark logo, Journal of Environmental Nanotechnology is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur. Clicking on the CrossMark logo will tell you the current status of a document and may also give you additional publication record information about the document.

5. APPEAL AND COMPLAINT PROCESS

Before submitting manuscripts, authors are requested to read all the guidelines and policies regarding the processing and publication of the manuscript. Many manuscripts are dropped with a general statement of the rejection decision. These decisions are not eligible for formal appeal unless the author believes the decision to reject the manuscript was based on an error in the review of the article, in which case the author may appeal the decision by providing the Editor with a detailed written description of the error that might have occurred possibly.

The authors can submit their complaints if issues are related to plagiarism, copyright violation, inclusion of wrong research results, defilements in set standards for research, unfairness in the review process, delay in manuscript processing, unsatisfactorily peer-review comments and/or authorship issues.

The authors can submit complaints to: editorjent@gmail.com or by using the online contact form.

Dealing with Complaints:

Once a complaint is received, at first an acknowledgment will be sent to the complainant with a declaration that appropriate action will be taken on the complaint within five working days, excluding the complaint receiving date. The investigation process shall be initiated by the Editorial Board under the guidance of the EIC. The decision will be forwarded to the concerned scholar through email to the author(s) concerned.

This page DOI: 10.13074/jent.crossmark.policy