Environment and Natural Resources Journal (EnNRJ) is committed to upholding the highest standards of research and publication integrity and follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in handling all cases of suspected misconduct. This process applies to any allegation of misconduct — including, but not limited to, plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, image manipulation, duplicate or redundant publication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, authorship disputes, and violations of ethical standards in research involving human participants, animals, or biological materials — relating to a manuscript under review or an article already published in the journal.

Overview

When misconduct is suspected or reported, EnNRJ conducts a structured, confidential and impartial investigation, consistent with COPE's core practices and relevant flowcharts, before any corrective action is taken. The steps below outline how such cases are handled, from the initial report through to final resolution.

Investigation Process

1. Receiving a Report or Allegation

Concerns may be raised by editors, reviewers, authors, readers, or any other party, and may also be identified through routine screening, including similarity-detection software applied to submitted manuscripts. Reports should be submitted in writing to the Editorial Office, with supporting evidence where available.

2. Preliminary Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief carries out an initial review to determine whether the concern falls within the scope of research or publication misconduct and warrants formal investigation. Allegations judged to be without merit are documented and closed at this stage, with the reasoning recorded for the journal's records.

3. Evidence Gathering and Review

The panel examines all relevant material — including the manuscript, reviewer reports, correspondence, similarity reports, and any other supporting evidence — and refers to COPE's guidelines and flowcharts appropriate to the type of misconduct in question (for example, suspected plagiarism, fabricated data, or redundant publication) to guide its assessment.

4. Opportunity for Author Response

The author(s) concerned are formally notified of the allegation and given a reasonable period, normally two to three weeks, to respond, explain, or submit clarifying evidence before any decision is made. Where appropriate, the corresponding author's institution may also be contacted for information.

5. Confidentiality

All investigations are conducted with strict confidentiality. Case details are shared only with those directly involved in the review — the panel, the Editor-in-Chief, and, where necessary, the relevant institution or funding body — until a final decision has been reached.

6. Final Decision and Actions

Based on the panel's findings, the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the Editorial Board, reaches a final decision. Where misconduct is confirmed, EnNRJ takes action in line with COPE guidelines, which may include one or more of the following:

• Rejection of the manuscript
• Requiring correction, revision, or publication of an erratum
• Retraction of the published article
• Notifying the author's institution and/or funding agency
• Temporary or permanent restriction on future submissions to the journal

If the investigation finds no evidence of misconduct, the case is closed and all relevant parties are formally notified of the outcome.

7. Right of Appeal

An author who disagrees with the outcome of an investigation may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief, including any new evidence, within a reasonable period following notification of the decision.

8. Record-Keeping

The Editorial Office maintains confidential records of all allegations, investigations and outcomes, supporting consistency in future cases and demonstrating the journal's accountability to authors, readers and the wider research community.

Related Policy

This process should be read together with EnNRJ's Publication Ethics policy, which sets out the responsibilities of authors, reviewers and editors and the journal's adoption of COPE's core practices and guidelines (https://publicationethics.org/).