Code of Publication Ethics

 

 


       

Article 1 (Ethical Obligations of Editors)

1. An editor should evaluate manuscripts without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or

    political philosophy of the authors.
2. The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding

    author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
3. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent

    of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
4. Editorial responsibility for any manuscript authored by an editor should be delegated to a co-editor or a member of editorial board.

    Also editors should ask a co-editor or a member of the editorial board from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of

    interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly)

    institutions connected to the papers.
5. If an erroneous conclusion is found after publication, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate report pointing out the error and,

    it possible, correcting it. The report may be written by the person who discovered the error or by an original author.
6. An editor should consider manuscripts submitted for publication with all reasonable speed.
7. An author may request that the editor does not use certain reviewers in consideration of a manuscript. This must be the case, for example,

    when a manuscript seriously disagrees with the previous work of a potential reviewer.

Article 2 (Ethical Obligations of Authors) 

1. Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. If the authors have used the work and/or words of others,

    this should be appropriately cited or quoted.
2. An author should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
3. A research paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Authors may be asked to provide

    the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective.
4. An author should perform a literature search to find the original publications that describe closely relatedwork and cite publications that

    have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. And proper citation to the sources of all information quoted in

    a manuscript should be made.
5. The co-authors should be limited to those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work and who share responsibility

    for the results. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgments” section.
6. All sources of financial support for the research should be clearly stated.
7. An author should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal, unless it is a resubmission of

    a manuscript rejected for or withdrawn from publication.
8. Plagiarism in all its forms is unacceptable. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper,

    to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others.
9. Studies on human subjects require ethics committee approval and informed consent, which must be documented with the name of

    the ethics committee and the case number of institution approval in the manuscript.
10. Authorship : Authors are expected to fulfill the following criteria. Each author is expected to have made (1) substantial contributions to the

    conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; and (2) drafting the work or revising it

    critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published; and (4) agreement to be accountable for all

    aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy of integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and

    resolved.

Article 3 (Ethical Obligations of Reviewers)

1. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the

    author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the

    scientific method.
2. Any chosen reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible

    should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Asian Journal of Atmospheric Environment AJAE Ethical Guidelines for

    Editors, Authors, and Reviewers.
3. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shownto or discussed with others except

    as authorized by the editor.
4. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with

    supporting arguments.

5. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement about an observation, derivation,

    or argument that had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s

    attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they

    have personal knowledge.
6. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent

    of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not be used for personal advantage.

    Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other

    relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. 

 

* These guidelines are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
(https://publicationethics.org/guidance/Guidelines)