Publication Ethics

Section A: Publication and authorship
1. All submitted papers are subject to a peer-review process by at least one
reviewer who is an expert in the area of the particular paper.
2. The review process is blind peer review.
3. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness,
significance, originality, readability, and language.
4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or
rejection.
5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no
guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then
be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
8. No research can be included in more than one publication.
Section B: Authors’ responsibilities
1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published
elsewhere.
3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for
publication elsewhere.
4. Authors must participate in the peer review process.
5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have a significant contribution to
the research.
7. Authors must state that all data in the paper are authentic.
8. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
9. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the
Editors.
Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities
1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat
them as privileged information.
2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the
author
3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by
the authors.
5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial
similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any
other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
6. Reviewers should not review 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.
Section D: Editors’ responsibilities
1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
2. Editors are responsible for the content and overall quality of the publication.
3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when
attempting to improve the publication.
4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the
academic record.
5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
6. Editors should have a clear picture of the research’s funding sources.
7. Editors should base their decisions solely on the papers’ importance,
originality, clarity, and relevance to the publication’s scope.
8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn those of previous
editors without a serious reason.
9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to
internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or
unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a
resolution to the problem.
13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, and they should have
proof of misconduct.
14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors,
reviewers, and board members.
Retraction
The papers published in the Soil and Water Journal will be considered for retraction in
the publication if:
1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of
misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or
experimental error)
2. The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper
cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant
publication)
3. It constitutes plagiarism
4. It reports unethical research
The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on
Publication Ethics (COPE), which can be accessed at
https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.