The Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research is published by MUK press aand is dedicated to upholding publication ethics in accordance with the COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices. You can access the journal's code of publication ethics here.
Introduction:
The Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research aims to serve as a key platform for data communication, idea exchange, and information sharing within the scientific research community. Adherence to a strict code of ethics is required to ensure the highest quality of published work. This code of ethics offers clear guidance on the responsibilities and proper conduct of editors, authors, and reviewers throughout the scientific publication process.
Authors and Co-authors
Authors
The Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research is dedicated to adhering to and implementing the International Standards for Authors set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in overseeing the journal's review and publication processes, as well as addressing any related concerns. The International Standards for Authors can be accessed here. Authors are required to thoroughly review and fully apply these standards to their work.
By submitting a paper, authors confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all contributing authors, and that all authors consent to its submission to the Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research. The journal follows the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which stipulate that authorship should be based on the following four criteria:
Contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgements section.
Moreover, authors are required to strictly adhere to the following code of ethics: submit manuscripts that are their original works or works they were involved with during their tenure.
Manuscripts submitted must present original and novel results, data, and ideas that have not been submitted to other publications or previously published. Fabrication of data, intellectual property theft, and plagiarism are strictly prohibited and violate the ethical standards expected of authors. Any information obtained from external sources should only be included in the manuscript with prior permission from the owner of the information or data.
Authors must accurately cite the works they reference and are encouraged to verify their references before submitting their manuscripts.
They should not promote their work through any media to facilitate publication. No article should include an author who has not directly contributed to the research in any capacity.
All authors and co-authors are asked to review and confirm the accuracy and validity of their results before submission.
Any potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed to the editor beforehand. Authors must adhere to the Creative Commons licensing policy associated with publication.
Also, all authors are required to submit the copyright transfer form promptly upon receiving acceptance of their article for publication.
Editors
The Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research is dedicated to adhering to the “International Standards for Editors” set by the Committee on Publication Ethics in managing its reviewing and publishing processes, as well as addressing related issues. You can access the International Standards for Editors here. It is essential that the journal's editors familiarize themselves with these standards and fully implement them in their editorial tasks and procedures.
The term "editor" commonly refers to the Chief Editor, Content Editor, Section Editor (an expert managing the review process in a specific subject area), and members of the Editorial Board. Editors of the Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research are fully responsible for all editorial and technical decisions related to the journal. No editor or office holder should interfere with or comment on any editorial decisions made by the assigned editor regarding a manuscript. Editors are encouraged to provide impartial evaluations of the submitted articles. As the Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research aims for rapid publication, editors are advised to process manuscripts promptly and with diligence.
Editors are solely responsible for the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript; while it may undergo peer review, the final decision rests with the assigned editor.
Any decisions made or concerns regarding a submitted article must remain confidential and should not be disclosed by the editor to anyone. If one editor wishes to publish a manuscript, it should be handled by another editor.
Editors must refrain from using any information, data, theories, or interpretations from a submitted manuscript in their own work until that manuscript has been published.
Reviewers
Reviewers play a crucial role in enhancing the journal's quality. As this is a peer-reviewed journal utilizing a single-blind review process, reviewers must keep their identities confidential.
A reviewer should promptly decline to evaluate a manuscript if they believe it is technically inadequate, if they cannot conduct the review in a timely manner, or if there is a conflict of interest. All submissions must be treated as confidential; editorial approval is required before seeking advice from any external parties.
Reviewers should not pass the manuscript assigned to them for review to another reviewer; they must decline it immediately if they cannot fulfill the review. As the foundation of the quality assurance process, reviewers must ensure that the articles published are of high quality and originality. If a reviewer discovers that a manuscript they are reviewing is also under consideration by another publication, they should inform the editor.
There are no strict rules for analyzing an article; the evaluation can be conducted on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the manuscript's quality, originality, and overall merit.
In general, the following aspects may be evaluated during a review:
A reviewer's comments play a crucial role in determining the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript and are a key component of the peer review process. All reviewers are encouraged to thoroughly examine the articles submitted to them and provide unbiased feedback, which will enhance the overall quality of our journal.
Breach of Code
As an association dedicated to the research community, it is essential that we all adhere to the established code of ethics in every possible way. As a not-for-profit organization, it is the internal responsibility of each individual to follow these codes, as there is no external enforcement.
Members of the Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research committee are authorized to take action against any individual found to be in violation of the code.
COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts
The Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research is committed to following and applying the guidelines and flowcharts set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in its review and publication processes. For more information, please click here.
COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices
The Chief Editor is responsible for all content published in the journal. This accountability entails that the editors:
1.1 Strive to meet the needs of both readers and authors.
1.2 Continuously seek to improve the journal.
1.3 Implement processes to ensure the quality of the published material.
1.4 Advocate for freedom of expression.
1.5 Uphold the integrity of the academic record.
1.6 Prevent business interests from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.
1.7 Remain open to publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies as necessary.
Best Practices for Editors:
2.1 Readers should be informed regarding the sources of funding for the research or other scholarly work, as well as whether the funders played any role in the research process or its publication. If the funders were involved, their specific contributions should be clearly disclosed.
Best practices for editors :
3. Informing readers readers about the measures implemented to ensure that submissions from the journal's staff or editorial regarding are subjected to an objective and unbiased evaluation.
4.1 Editorial decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of a paper should be based on its importance, originality, clarity, the study’s validity, and its relevance to the journal’s scope.
4.2 Editors should not reverse decisions to accept a submission unless significant issues are identified.
4.3 Incoming editors should not overturn publication decisions made by previous editors unless serious problems are found.
4.4 The journal’s peer review process should be clearly described, and editors should be prepared to justify any major deviations from this process.
4.5 Journals should have a formal mechanism for authors to appeal editorial decisions.
4.6 Editors should provide authors with clear guidelines on what is expected of them, and these guidelines should be regularly updated and refer to or link to this code.
4.7 Editors should offer guidance on authorship criteria and clarify who qualifies as a contributor, following the standards of the relevant field.
Best practices for editors :
Regularly reviewing author guidelines and providing links to relevant resources and standards.
Publishing relevant competing interests for all contributors and issuing corrections if competing interests are disclosed after publication.
Ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions, specifically those qualified to assess the work and free from conflicts of interest.
Honoring reasonable and practicable requests from authors to exclude certain individuals from reviewing their submission.
Publishing clear procedures for handling cases of suspected misconduct.
5.1 Editors should offer clear guidance to reviewers outlining their responsibilities, including the importance of treating submitted material confidentially. This guidance should be regularly updated and should reference or link to this code of conduct.
5.2 Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before they agree to review a submission.
5.3 Editors should implement systems to protect the anonymity of peer reviewers, unless the journal operates under an open review system, which should be clearly communicated to both authors and reviewers.
Best practice for editors:
6.1 Editors should provide new editorial board members with clear guidelines outlining their responsibilities and keep existing members informed about any new policies or developments.
Best practices for editors:
Periodically consulting with editorial board members (e.g., annually) to gather their insights on journal operations, inform them of any policy changes, and identify future challenges.
7. Editorial and peer review processes
7.1 Editors should work to ensure that the peer review process at their journal is fair, unbiased, and conducted in a timely manner.
7.2 Editors should implement systems to ensure that all material submitted to their journal remains confidential during the review process.
Best practices for editors:
8.1 Editors should take all reasonable measures to ensure the quality of the material they publish, acknowledging that different journals and their respective sections may have varying aims and standards.
Best practice for editors:
9.1 Editors must comply with confidentiality laws in their jurisdiction. Regardless of local statutes, they should always safeguard the confidentiality of personal information obtained through research or professional interactions. Typically, it is necessary to obtain written informed consent for publication from individuals who could be identified or recognized, such as in case reports or photographs. However, publication without explicit consent may be permissible if the public interest outweighs potential harms, if obtaining consent is not feasible, and if a reasonable person would not object to the publication.
Best practice for editors:
It is important to note that consent to participate in research or undergo treatment does not equate to consent for the publication of personal details, images, or quotations.
Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research: Promoting Ethical Research Practices
The Journal of Advances in Environmental Health Research is committed to encouraging ethical research practices, especially in studies involving human or animal subjects. We highlight the importance of adhering to ethical standards and regulations to safeguard the rights and welfare of participants. Researchers are urged to obtain the necessary approvals from ethics committees and to ensure informed consent is obtained from participants when applicable. For studies involving animals, it is essential to follow established guidelines to ensure their humane treatment and care. Our journal supports research that contributes to environmental health while upholding the highest ethical standards.
10.1 Editors have a responsibility to take action if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is presented to them. This duty applies to both published and unpublished papers.
10.2 Editors should not merely reject papers that raise concerns about potential misconduct; they are ethically obligated to investigate the allegations.
10.3 Editors should refer to the COPE flowcharts when applicable.
10.4 Editors should first seek a response from the individuals suspected of misconduct. If they find the response unsatisfactory, they should contact the relevant employers, institutions, or appropriate bodies (such as regulatory agencies or national research integrity organizations) to investigate further.
10.5 Editors should make every reasonable effort to ensure that a thorough investigation into the alleged misconduct is carried out. If this does not occur, they should persist in their attempts to achieve a resolution. This responsibility, while demanding, is crucial.
11.1 Errors, inaccuracies, or misleading statements must be corrected promptly and prominently.
11.2 Editors should adhere to the COPE guidelines regarding retractions.
Best practices for editors:
12.1 Editors should be vigilant regarding intellectual property issues to effectively address potential violations of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Best practices for editors include:
13.1 Editors should foster an environment where cogent criticisms of work published in their journal are encouraged and considered.
13.2 Authors of the criticized material should be given the opportunity to respond.
13.3 Studies reporting negative results should not be excluded from publication.
Best practices for editors include:
14.1 Editors should respond promptly to complaints and ensure there is a mechanism for dissatisfied complainants to escalate their concerns. This process should be clearly outlined in the journal and include information on how to refer unresolved matters to COPE.
14.2 Editors should adhere to the procedures outlined in the COPE flowchart regarding complaints.
15.1 Journals should establish policies and systems to ensure that commercial interests do not influence editorial decisions (e.g., advertising departments should operate independently from editorial departments).
15.2 Editors should have clear policies regarding advertising related to the journal's content and the processes for publishing sponsored supplements.
15.3 Reprints should be published as they appear in the journal unless a correction is necessary, in which case it should be clearly identified.
Best practices for editors:
16.1 Editors should utilize the ICMJE form and procedures to effectively manage conflicts of interest.
16.2 Journals should have a transparent process for handling submissions from editors, employees, or members of the editorial board to ensure an unbiased review.