Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics

This statement clarifies the ethical behavior expected of all parties involved in the publication of articles in Journal of Environment and Sustainability Education (JOEASE), including the author, the editor, the reviewer, and the publisher. This statement is based on the Core Practices outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

1. Duties of Editors

1.1. Publication Decisions
After reading the reviewers' reports, the editor will decide whether the manuscript is accepted, rejected, or needs revision. This decision is mainly based on how valid the study is and how useful it will be for researchers and readers. Editors make their decisions according to the journal's policies and must also follow existing laws, such as rules about defamation, copyright, and plagiarism. They may consult with other editors or reviewers before making a final decision. Editors are responsible for everything that is published in the journal. They must have clear rules and procedures to ensure the published articles are of good quality and that the journal's academic record remains trustworthy.

1.2. Review of Manuscripts
The editor must first check every manuscript to make sure it is original. The editor is also responsible for managing the peer review process in a fair and proper way. Editors should clearly describe how peer review works in the author guidelines and explain which sections of the journal are peer-reviewed. When choosing reviewers, editors must select people with the right expertise for the topic and avoid anyone who has a conflict of interest with the paper.

1.3. Fair Play
Editors must judge every manuscript based only on its academic quality and ideas, without being influenced by the author's gender, sex, race, religion, nationality, or any other personal background. To make fair decisions, editors must protect their independence and act with honesty and integrity. Because editors have strong influence over what gets published, it is essential that their decisions are made in a neutral and unbiased way.

1.4. Confidentiality
Editors must keep all information about submitted manuscripts private. They must carefully prevent any misuse or leakage of personal data and confidential information, especially when the study involves human subjects. Authors must have proper informed consent for the research itself and, when necessary, separate consent for publishing the data or results. Editors are responsible for ensuring these rules are followed.

1.5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Editors must not use any unpublished information from a submitted manuscript for their own research unless they have written permission from the author. Editors must also stay out of the decision-making process if they have any personal or professional conflict of interest with the manuscript. If a manuscript is submitted by an editor of the journal, it will be reviewed outside the normal editorial system to ensure the review process remains fair, independent, and free from bias, with another independent editor managing the peer review in place of the author-editor.

2. Duties of Reviewers

2.1. Confidentiality
All information about manuscripts submitted by authors must be kept private and treated as confidential. It should not be shared with or discussed with anyone else unless the editor gives clear permission.

2.2. Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers must check that authors properly credit all data sources used in the study and point out important previous studies that the authors did not cite. Reviewers must inform the journal right away if they find any problems, such as ethical concerns, strong similarity with another paper, or signs of possible misconduct, while keeping such concerns private and not investigating the issue on their own unless the journal requests it.

2.3. Standards of Objectivity
Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts fairly and objectively, clearly explaining their opinions and supporting them with logical reasoning. Reviews should be constructive, with comments that guide authors on how to improve their paper, and reviewers should clearly distinguish between suggestions that are necessary to support the paper's main claims and those intended only to improve or expand the study.

2.4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Any confidential information or ideas learned during peer review must be kept private and must not be used for personal benefit. Reviewers must not review a manuscript if they have a conflict of interest arising from competition, collaboration, or any personal or professional relationship with the authors, companies, or institutions related to the paper.

2.5. Promptness
Reviewers should complete their reviews within a reasonable time and should only accept a review request if they believe they can finish it by the agreed deadline. If a reviewer cannot complete the review within the given time, they must inform the editor immediately so the manuscript can be reassigned.

3. Duties of Authors

3.1. Reporting Standards
Authors must report their research truthfully and clearly, presenting results honestly without fabricating, falsifying, or improperly altering data, or hiding important findings. A manuscript should include enough detail and references so that other researchers can replicate the study if needed.

3.2. Originality and Plagiarism
Authors must ensure that their paper is completely original and must not submit it to more than one journal simultaneously, unless the editors have clearly agreed to co-publish it. All relevant earlier studies must be properly acknowledged and cited. Direct quotations must be placed in quotation marks and followed by the correct citation.

3.3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications
Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time, nor publish more than one paper reporting the same study or substantially similar results in different journals. If several articles arise from one research project, this must be clearly stated, and the main or first publication must be properly cited.

3.4. Acknowledgement of Sources
Authors must clearly mention all data sources used in their research and cite any studies that influenced their work, properly recognizing the contributions of other researchers.

3.5. Authorship of the Paper
The list of authors must accurately reflect who made a genuine contribution to the research and writing of the paper. Only individuals who made a major contribution to the idea, design, data collection, or interpretation of the study should be listed as authors; others should be acknowledged separately. All authors must have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

3.6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors must openly disclose in their manuscript any financial or other significant conflicts of interest that could affect the results or their interpretation, along with all sources of funding or financial support for the study.

3.7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works
If authors discover a serious error or inaccuracy in their published paper, they must inform the journal editor or publisher promptly and cooperate to correct or retract the paper as needed.

3.8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
Authors must clearly state in the manuscript if their study involves chemicals, methods, or equipment that carry special or unusual risks, and must confirm compliance with relevant ethical approvals when human or animal subjects are involved.