•  
  •  
 

Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

The Journal of Ecological Anthropology is dedicated to following best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions. The prevention of publication malpractice is one of the important responsibilities of the editorial board. Any kind of unethical behavior is not acceptable, and the Journal of Ecological Anthropology does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors submitting articles to the Journal of Ecological Anthropology affirm that manuscript contents are original. Furthermore, they warrant that their article has neither been published elsewhere in any language fully or partly, nor is it under review for publication anywhere.

The following duties outlined for editors, authors, and reviewers are based on the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. Editors, authors, and reviewers will also adhere to the Journal of Ecological Anthropology Policies.

DUTIES OF EDITOR

  1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript.
  2. Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The manuscript is forwarded to reviewers for double-blind peer review, each of whom will make a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript.
  3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the Journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors.
  4. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript without written consent of the author. The editor will ensure that conflicts of interest do not exist between reviewers and authors of manuscripts.

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 will follow the submission guidelines of the journal. (See Policies and Instructions to Authors.)
  2. Originality: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work.
  3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Author should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal.
  4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and properly cite publications as necessary using established criteria for sound scholarship.
  5. Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. Authors also 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. Data Access and Retention: Authors must be willing to provide raw data related to their manuscript for editorial review and must retain such data.
  7. Disclosure of Financial Support: Sources of financial support, if any, must be clearly disclosed.
  8. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: At any point in time, if an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in submitted manuscript, then the error or inaccuracy must be reported to the editor.

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

  1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information.
  2. Acknowledgement of Sources: Manuscript reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Any kind of similarity or overlap between the manuscripts under consideration or with any other published paper of which reviewer has personal knowledge must be immediately brought to the editor's notice.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  4. Promptness: In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible to complete a review of a manuscript within the stipulated time, this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.
  5. Conflict of Interest: In the event that a reviewer feels they cannot complete a review due to conflict of interest with the author (such as a personal relationship, a former student, close colleague, etc.), they should alert the editors or editorial staff and another reviewer will be selected.