Editorial Policies

  • Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

    Journal of Resources and Ecology is committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process. We follow closely the industry associations,such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) that set standards and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements.

    Duties of Editors

    1. Acceptance/Rejection rights
    Editors have the sole rights for acceptance and rejection of a manuscript. A manuscript may be rejected without external review if considered by the editors to be inappropriate for the journal. Such rejections may be based on the failure of the manuscript to fit the scopes of the journal, to be of current or sufficiently broad interest, to be written in unacceptable content etc.
    2. Fair play
    Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and their relevance to the journal’s scopes, without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, work units, etc. of the authors.
    3. Confidentiality
    Editors and editorial board members must ensure that the information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential avoiding deception and plagiarism.
    4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
    The editors and editorial board members cannot use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. The editors and editorial board members should recuse themselves from conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected with the submitted manuscript. In this case, they should ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.
    5. Publication decisions
    The editors must ensure that all the submitted manuscripts being considered for publication have undergone peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the manuscript related field with double-blind peer review. Reviewers might accept, reject or require a revision for style and/or content. After revision of the opinions of the reviewers item by item,the author should resubmit the manuscript with an clear revision explanation. However, the final acceptance or rejection rests with the Editorial Board member, who reserves the right to refuse any materials for publication. The decisions on acceptance, revision, or rejection will be made within three months after submission.
    6. Involvement and cooperation in investigations
    Editors (in conjunction with the publisher) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. If on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note relevant, will be published in the journal.

    Duties of Authors
    1. Reporting standards
    Authors should present an accurate account of their original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Manuscripts must follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
    2. Data access and retention
    Authors should provide raw data related to their manuscript for editorial review and must retain such data. Data fabrication, selective collected or used are unacceptable.
    3. Originality and plagiarism
    Authors should ensure that they have written and submitted only entirely original works which is neither previously published nor currently under consideration to any other journals for publication, and they have cited the work and/or words of others. 
    Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable and is considered as a serious breach of professional conduct. Using of someone else’s prior ideas, methods, or results should be indicated and cited clearly. The manuscripts should also avoid deception, including data fabrication and selective collected or used.
    4. Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication
    Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
    5. Authorship of the manuscript
    The co-authors and their affiliations of a paper should be all those who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. The authors’ arrangement should be based on their contributions to the work. The inclusion of inappropriate co-authors and affiliations is absolutely unacceptable. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgment” section. The corresponding author should ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
    6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
    Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. The funding source except for secret projects should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any) very clearly and accurately in the paper. Any indication of irrelevant funding source is unacceptable.
    7. Acknowledgement of sources
    Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in the research work.
    8. Hazards and human or animal subjects
    If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.
    9. Fundamental errors in published works
    At any point of time, if author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editors or publisher and to cooperate with the editors to retract or correct the paper in form of an erratum. If editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, it is also the author’ s obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.
    10. Participate in peer review process
    Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of “revisions necessary”, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, item by item, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
    11. Final check
    All authors will be asked to check the proofs thoroughly for any possible layout or typographical errors before publication. Because of the high cost of alterations, only typographical or data errors of fact can be corrected in proof and no major changes can be included at this stage. Please note that authors are urged to check their proofs carefully before return, since the inclusion of late corrections cannot be guaranteed. All proofs should be returned to the Editorial Office of Journal of Resources and Ecology in time. Failure to return may result in a delay to publication.
    Duties of Reviewer
    1. Contribution to editorial decisions
    Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions, and through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication.
    2. Promptness
    Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.
    3. Confidentiality
    Any manuscript received for review is confidential document and must be treated as privileged information. This applies also to the invited reviewers who decline the review invitation. The manuscript should be neither shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that case, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor.
    4. Standards of objectivity
    A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the complete manuscript and the supporting information with due regard to the maintenance of high scientific and literary standards. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
    5. Acknowledgement of sources
    Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge. A reviewer should also be alert to the failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientist, bearing in mind the complaints that the reviewer’s own research was insufficiently cited may seem self-serving.
    6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
    A reviewer should be sensitive to the conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review, so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
    7. Unacceptance of unpublished material or ideas using in reviewer’s own research 
    Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This also applies to the invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.
    Duties of the Publisher
    1. Handling of unethical publishing behavior
    In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.
    2. Access to the journal content
    The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by maintaining our own digital website (http://www.jorae.cn/).

    Editorial Office of Journal of Resources and Ecology

  • 2020-01-19 Visited: 870