Environment and Natural Resources Journal (EnNRJ) is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics, academic integrity, transparency, and responsible scholarly publishing. The journal follows internationally recognized principles of publication ethics, including the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (https://publicationethics.org/), and expects all authors, reviewers, editors, and other parties involved in the publication process to adhere to these principles.

This statement applies to all manuscripts submitted to and articles published by EnNRJ.

 

1. Originality and Plagiarism

EnNRJ considers plagiarism, duplicate publication, redundant publication, and inappropriate text reuse to be serious forms of publication misconduct.

All submitted manuscripts are screened for originality and text similarity using plagiarism-detection software, such as Crossref Similarity Check (powered by Turn-it-in) or other suitable tools.

A similarity score alone is not definitive evidence of plagiarism. The Editorial Board evaluates the nature, extent, location, and sources of overlapping content to determine whether further action or revision is required.

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

• Direct copying of text without appropriate quotation marks and citations.
• Mosaic plagiarism or patchwriting (paraphrasing without proper attribution).
• Presenting another party's ideas, data, methods, findings, or interpretations as one's own.
• Inappropriate reuse of figures, tables, images, or other visual materials.
• Substantial reuse of one's own previously published work without explicit disclosure and proper citation (self-plagiarism).

All manuscripts are subject to online screening via Turnitin. Any paper with a Turnitin similarity score above 60%—including references and block quotes—will be rejected without further consideration. It should be noted that manuscripts with a similarity score of 40-60% will be flagged for special consideration and submitted to the editorial board for formal evaluation. Manuscripts checked via Turnitin are not stored in online repositories. All authors accept their responsibilities, and the editorial staff will take additional precautions to prevent plagiarism if Turnitin yields inconclusive results.

2. Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship must be based solely on substantial intellectual or scholarly contributions to the research.

All listed authors must meet all of the following criteria:

• Have made a substantial contribution to the conception or design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.
• Have participated in drafting the manuscript or critically revising it for important intellectual content.
• Have approved the final version of the manuscript to be published.
• Agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet the full criteria for authorship should be appropriately recognized in the Acknowledge section.

EnNRJ strictly prohibits guest, honorary, gift, and ghost authorship.

Changes to authorship after initial submission are strongly discouraged and must be fully justified. Any requested changes require written consent from all authors and formal approval by the Editor-in-Chief. EnNRJ recommends the use of the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) to promote transparency regarding individual author contributions.

3. Research Misconduct

EnNRJ defines research misconduct as any action that compromises the integrity of the scholarly record. Misconduct includes, but is not limited to:

• Fabrication of data or results.
• Falsification or manipulation of data, images, methods, or results.
• Plagiarism and self-plagiarism.
• Duplicate or redundant publication.
• Inappropriate citation manipulation (e.g., coercive citation or citation stacking).
• Unethical research involving human participants or animal subjects.
• Concealment of potential conflicts of interest.
• Authorship or contributorship misconduct.
• Peer-review manipulation.
• Improper interference with the editorial or review process.
• Any other practices that severely undermine the integrity of scientific research.

Allegations or suspicions of misconduct will be thoroughly investigated by the Editor-in-Chief or designated members of the Editorial Board. When deemed necessary, EnNRJ reserves the right to request additional clarification, raw data, or supporting documentation from the authors or their affiliated institutions.

In cases of confirmed or severe misconduct, the journal may notify the author’s institutional authorities, funding bodies, or other relevant governance entities, strictly adhering to the applicable COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines and flowcharts.

Process for Dealing with Research Misconduct

4. Research Ethics and Ethical Approval

• Research involving human participants, personal data, vulnerable populations, or animal subjects must strictly comply with recognized ethical standards, institutional policies, and applicable national or international regulations.
• Where ethics committee approval is required, authors must explicitly state the name of the approving institution/committee and provide the official reference or approval number in the manuscript.
• Authors must obtain informed consent from participants (or their legally authorized representatives) prior to conducting the research, where applicable.
• Studies involving identifiable individuals, personal information, or sensitive data must strictly adhere to relevant privacy, confidentiality, and data-protection laws.
• The Editorial Board reserves the right to request documentation verifying ethical approval, informed consent forms, or institutional permits at any stage of the review process.

5. Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must transparently disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could influence, or be perceived to influence, the research findings, peer-review process, or editorial decisions.

Conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to:

• Financial relationships (e.g., funding, honoraria, stock ownership, or patent licensing).
• Employment, consultancies, or board memberships.
• Personal, family, or professional relationships.
• Academic competition or direct research collaborations.
• Institutional affiliations or organizational interests.
• Any other circumstances that could reasonably compromise impartiality.

Failure to disclose a relevant conflict of interest constitutes a violation of publication ethics and may be treated as publication misconduct.

6. Citation Manipulation

Authors, reviewers, and editors must not engage in citation manipulation to artificially inflate citation counts, journal metrics, author metrics, or the visibility of specific publications.

Citation recommendations provided during the peer-review process must be grounded solely in genuine scholarly relevance and necessity.

Inappropriate citation practices include, but are not limited to:

• Excessive self-citation without clear scholarly justification.
• Coordinated or reciprocal citation arrangements between authors, reviewers, or editors.
• Coercive citation (e.g., editors or reviewers requiring authors to cite specific papers without academic justification).
• Insertion of irrelevant or unnecessary references to artificially boost citation counts.
• Requesting or adding citations solely to improve journal, author, or reviewer metrics.

7. Use of Artificial Intelligence and Generative AI

Authors must fully disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies in the preparation of their manuscript, particularly when such tools have materially influenced the research or writing process.

AI tools and Large Language Models (LLMs) must not be listed as authors, as they cannot fulfill the criteria for authorship nor assume legal or ethical responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, or originality of the work.

Authors remain solely and fully responsible for:

• The accuracy, integrity, and originality of the entire manuscript.
• Critical verification and fact-checking of all AI-generated content or claims.
• Proper citation, attribution, and reference integrity.
• Protecting confidential, proprietary, or sensitive research data.
• Ensuring that the use of AI tools does not lead to plagiarism or infringe upon intellectual property rights.

AI technologies must not be used to fabricate or falsify data, generate non-existent references, manipulate images/visuals, or otherwise misrepresent research findings.

Reviewers and editors are strictly prohibited from uploading confidential manuscript content, data, or peer-review materials into external, unauthorized AI tools that lack proper confidentiality and data-security protections.

Comprehensive requirements are available in the EnNRJ Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.

8. Post-Publication Amendments

(Corrections, Retractions, Withdrawals, and Expressions of Concern)

EnNRJ is committed to upholding the integrity, accuracy, and permanence of the published scholarly record. In accordance with COPE standards, and NISO Recommended Practice (CREC), any necessary modifications to a published article will be made transparently, permanently, and will be officially linked to the original publication.

1. Corrections

Articles may be corrected if errors affect the interpretation of data, metadata, or governance disclosures, but do not invalidate the overall scientific conclusions. Corrections are issued for:

• Significant content errors or misstatements that affect the interpretation of presented data.
• Omissions of funder support, non-author contributor acknowledgments, ethics approval declarations, or potential conflicts of interest.
• Incorrect article metadata (e.g., author names, title, or affiliations) affecting indexing and discoverability.

Note: Minor copyediting or typesetting errors that do not alter the meaning or scientific interpretation of the text will generally not be corrected post-publication.

2. Retractions

In line with COPE Retraction Guidelines, an article may be retracted if the reported findings are deemed fundamentally unreliable or if severe misconduct has occurred. Retractions are applied when:

• There is a major error (due to honest error, miscalculation, or data fabrication/falsification) that invalidates the article's conclusions.
• Unattributed redundant publication (duplicate publication) has occurred without proper cross-referencing or justification.
• Ethical violations are confirmed, including plagiarism, unauthorized authorship manipulation, or reporting on unethical research.
• Evidence reveals systematic manipulation of the peer-review or publishing process.

3. Article Withdrawals (Removals)

Removal or deletion of a published Version of Record is extremely rare and strongly discouraged in accordance with international archiving standards. Full removal is considered only under exceptional circumstances, including:

• Cases where removal is necessary to protect the privacy of research subjects.
• Errors that pose a direct, significant risk to health or safety if followed by the public.
• Defamatory material or severe violations of legal rights, copyright, or confidentiality.
• For unedited Accepted Articles, a withdrawal notice will replace the file while preserving basic bibliographic metadata for transparency.

4. Expressions of Concern

An Expression of Concern may be issued by the Editor-in-Chief when serious concerns or allegations are raised regarding a published paper, but conclusive evidence is not yet available to justify a retraction. This notice may be published if:

• An institutional or formal investigation into the manuscript proves inconclusive, but strong indicators of invalidity remain.
• A complex investigation is ongoing and a final decision will not be reached in a timely manner.

All post-publication amendments are permanent, publicly accessible, and assigned a unique DOI linked directly to the original Version of Record to preserve the audit trail of the scientific record.

9. Complaints and Appeals

EnNRJ maintains transparent procedures for authors, reviewers, and other stakeholders to submit formal complaints or appeal editorial decisions.

Complaints may pertain to:

• Editorial decisions or procedures.
• Peer-review handling and timelines.
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
• Allegations of publication ethics violations.
• Authorship or contributorship disputes.
• Plagiarism or data integrity concerns.
• Professional conduct of editors or reviewers.
• Other operational aspects of journal management.

Formal complaints must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief or the designated editorial office contact. EnNRJ commits to investigating all complaints fairly, objectively, promptly, and confidentially.

Appeals against manuscript rejections must include a detailed rebuttal, clear justifications, and new or supporting scholarly evidence. Re-evaluations will not be considered without substantive technical or academic justification.

10. Enforcement and Editorial Authority

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board hold primary responsibility for upholding and enforcing this Publication Ethics Statement.

The journal reserves the full authority to:

• Request supplementary information, raw data, or official documentation from authors at any stage.
• Investigate any potential or alleged ethical concerns.
• Reject manuscripts that fail to comply with ethical standards or journal publishing requirements.
• Suspend editorial processing or delay publication while an investigation is actively conducted.
• Contact authors' affiliated institutions, funding agencies, or regulatory authorities when deemed necessary.
• Issue formal corrections, Expressions of Concern, or article retractions.
• Execute any additional measures necessary to preserve the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

All cases will be evaluated on their individual merits, strictly adhering to established international publication ethics standards and COPE guidelines.

11. Editorial Independence and Responsibilities of Editors

• Editors shall make editorial decisions objectively and independently based on academic quality, originality, relevance, methodological rigor, and contribution to the field.
• Editorial decisions shall not be influenced by authors’ nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, political views, institutional affiliation, personal characteristics, commercial interests, personal relationships, or the potential commercial value of a manuscript.
• Editors shall maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts and shall not use unpublished information for personal, professional, or financial advantage.
• Editors shall disclose and appropriately manage any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest and recuse themselves where impartiality may be compromised.
• Editors shall take appropriate action when ethical concerns arise before or after publication, in accordance with the journal’s publication ethics policies and relevant COPE guidance.

12. Intellectual Property and Copyright

• Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted manuscripts do not infringe the intellectual property, copyright, privacy, or other rights of third parties.
• Authors must obtain permission, where required, to reproduce copyrighted materials, including figures, photographs, tables, substantial text, or other protected materials, and must appropriately acknowledge all sources.
• EnNRJ respects the intellectual property rights of authors and third parties and may take appropriate action in cases of copyright infringement or unauthorized use of materials.

13. Editorial and Reviewer Misconduct

• Editors and reviewers shall uphold high standards of professional and ethical conduct throughout the editorial and peer review process.
• Misconduct may include misuse or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, coercive citation, discrimination or harassment, manipulation of peer review, undisclosed conflicts of interest, appropriation of authors’ ideas or unpublished work, and interference with editorial decisions for personal or professional benefit.
• Concerns regarding editorial or reviewer misconduct shall be investigated by the appropriate senior editorial authority or journal owner, with due regard for confidentiality, fairness, and impartiality.

14. Peer Review Ethics

EnNRJ is committed to a fair, objective, confidential, and transparent peer review process.

Reviewers shall:

• Assess manuscripts objectively and constructively
• Maintain confidentiality and not use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage
• Disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest and decline the review when impartiality cannot be maintained
• Identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited, where necessary
• Inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, data manipulation, or other potential misconduct.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly regarding a manuscript unless authorized by the journal.

Editors shall ensure that peer review and editorial decisions are conducted fairly and based on scholarly merit, independent of personal, institutional, commercial, or other inappropriate considerations.