Publication Ethics for Authors, Editors and Reviewers

Publication Ethics and Best Practices for Authors, Editors and Reviewers

The Journal of Agrometeorology (JAM) follows the code of conduct and best practice statement as prescribed by the COPE Guidelines. The Editorial decisions are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of the authors.

 

Publication Ethics and Best Practices for Authors

The authors should review the Author Guidelines and adhere to publication ethics and best practices. Authors need to register with the journal before submitting or, if already registered, can simply log in and begin the five-step process.

Authorship

The authorship credit should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, and design, or acquisition, execution, and interpretation of data; drafting the article or revising it critically for the important intellectual content of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions like above should be recognized as co-authors. AI tools cannot be listed as an author of a paper. Authors who use AI tools in the writing of a manuscript, production of images or graphical elements of the paper, or in the collection and analysis of data, must be transparent in disclosing in the Materials and Methods (or similar section) of the paper how the AI tool was used and which tool was used. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, even those parts produced by an AI tool, and are thus liable for any breach of publication ethics.

Corresponding author- The “corresponding author” means the person who handles correspondence regarding a paper. The corresponding/submitting author is solely responsible for maintaining proper communication with the journal and between co-authors, before and after publication.

Before submission, it is the liability of the corresponding author that he/she should ensure that all authors are included in the author list and that all authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and all are aware of the submission of the paper.

The corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of content given to the journal, in particular, the names of coauthors are present and correctly spelled, and that addresses and affiliations are up to date. This author is answerable to all the inquiries and also to ensure that those are answered promptly on behalf of all the co-authors. The name and e-mail address of this author (corresponding authors may be more than one considering the case of large collaborations) is published in the paper.

Submission to the Journal of Agrometeorology (JAM) is taken by the journal to mean that all the listed authors have agreed on all of the contents. Corresponding authors are expected to have notified all authors when the manuscript is accepted. They are the point of contact with the editor and they must communicate any matters that arise after publication to their coauthors and to ensure such matters are dealt with promptly keeping consent from all the coauthors.

Duplicate publications

Redundant publication is defined as when two or more papers, without full cross reference, share the same hypothesis, data, discussion points or conclusions. The defining characteristic of a duplicate publication is that, in addition to the above, it shares at least some of the authors. Thus, duplicate publications have one or more authors in common and a substantial amount of duplicated text also.

Any manuscript submitted to the Journal of Agrometeorology (JAM) must be original. The manuscript, or substantial parts of it, must not be under consideration by any other journal. Submission of an article to the journal itself implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out.

Authors who submit a manuscript for publication containing data, reviews, conclusions, etc., that have already been disseminated in some significant manner (e.g., published as an article in another journal, presented at a conference, posted on the internet) must clearly inform to the editors and readers the nature of the previous dissemination.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is when a submitted manuscript/material in part or whole is not entirely one’s own work but the words and ideas have been cut-and-pasted without acknowledging the correct source. The act of substantially using another’s idea and written materials without due credit is unethical. Duplicate publication is also, sometimes called self-plagiarism.

Following acts are considered as Plagiarism:

  • Turning in someone else’s work as your own.
  • Copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit.
  • Failing to put a quotation in quotation marks.
  • Giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation.
  • Changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit.
  • Copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of work, whether you give credit or not.

It is the responsibility of the author that likewise published data, unpublished data must be properly credited and the appropriate permission has been sought. In the case of license data, authors must submit a written assurance that they have signed the data-licensing agreement with its owner.

Journal of Agrometeorology (JAM) would not consider the manuscripts for publication which comes under the plagiarism. If a case of plagiarism comes to knowledge after a paper is published in the journal, the journal will conduct a proper investigation.

Plagiarism can also occur accidentally when an author does not intend to plagiarize but fails to cite his or her sources correctly and completely. Being careful and having a clear understanding of ethical writing can help to prevent this.

Copyright Infringement and Fair Use

Copyright Infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. An exception to copyright infringement falls under the doctrine of “Fair Use” of copyright law and generally represents instances in which the activity is largely for nonprofit educational, scholarship, or research purposes.

The safest way is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. When it seems to be impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “Fair Use” would clearly apply to the situation.

Confidentiality

Journal of Agrometeorology (JAM) respects the confidentiality of the research. Journal of Agrometeorology (JAM) editors and editorial staff do not disclose any information about the submitted manuscripts and the communication with reviewers and authors. Editors of JAM do not comment about the manuscript under consideration by the journal or even if it is rejected.

Authors must also treat the communication as confidential. Any information regarding the manuscript submission, reviewer’s reports, and its publication should not be disclosed to any website or otherwise publicized without prior permission from the editors.

It is the duty of the reviewer to treat any manuscripts received for review as confidential documents and they should not reveal any information about the correspondence and interactions with editors. They should not be shown or discussed or commented with third parties except the editor.

Standards of objectivity and Fair play

Journal of Agrometeorology (JAM) follow the standards of objectivity and fair play. Journal’s editor will evaluate the manuscripts for their intellectual content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.

Personal criticism of the author is taken as inappropriate from the reviewer. Journal emphasizes the importance of objectivity and so reviews should be conducted objectively without any prejudices and presumptions. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Conflict of Interest and Funding Acknowledgement

The author(s) should certify that all authors of Manuscript have no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interests, patent licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted Manuscript, except as disclosed on a separate attachment. All funding sources supporting the work and all institutional or corporate affiliations should be acknowledged in a footnote.

Animal Ethics and Informed Consent for Human Participants

The author should ensure that appropriate permission are taken from the concerned Animal Ethics Committee for the conduct of the research using animals. The research involving human participants proper guidelines should be followed to protect their privacy and written consent should be taken informing the participants about the data to be used in the research.

Supplementary Information

We encourage the inclusion of supplementary information as it enables the research to be transparent, reproducible, and accessible to a wide audience. The author should follow these guidelines for including supplementary information in a manuscript.

The acceptable supplementary information may include figures, tables, datasets, and technical details. The maximum file size for supplementary information files is 10 MB. The supplementary information should be clearly organized and labelled so that it is easy for readers to navigate and understand. Citations to supplementary information should be included in the manuscript's main text, and the supplementary information should be referenced in the same way as other sources.

 The author(s) is responsible for the content or functionality of any supplementary information. Any queries regarding the same should be directed to the corresponding author.

The supplementary information is downloadable from the article's webpage and will not be printed in the print copy.

Publication Ethics and Best Practices for Editors


General duties and responsibilities of Editors

Editors will adhere to the following guidelines to the best of their abilities:

  • strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
  • strive to constantly improve their journal;
  • have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
  • champion freedom of expression;
  • maintain the integrity of the academic record;
  • preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
  • always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Best Practice for Editors includes:

  • actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal's processes
  • encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal's processes in the light of new findings
  • working to persuade their publisher to provide appropriate resources, guidance from experts (e.g. designers, lawyers)
  • supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct
  • supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics

Relations with authors

  • Editors decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the papers importance, originality, and clarity, and the study's validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
  • Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
  • New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
  • A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
  • Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated.
  • Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.

Best practice for Editors includes:

  • reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines
  • ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests)
  • being guided by the COPE flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts) in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship
  • publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct (e.g. with links to the COPE flowcharts)
  • publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles

Relations with reviewers

  • Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
  • Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
  • Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.

Best practice for editors includes:

  • encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions , inappropriate data manipulation and presentation
  • encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
  • considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)
  • sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libellous remarks
  • seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal
  • encouraging academic institutions to recognize peer review activities as part of the scholarly process
  • monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of a high standard
  • developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance
  • ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews
  • ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for their journal and adding new reviewers as needed
  • using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases)
  • following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct

Publication Ethics and Best Practices for Reviewers

 General guidelines for Reviewers

The Journal of Agrometeorology (JAM) is committed to publishing good research manuscripts based on well-explained review reports. The purpose of a good review is to help the editors to reach a decision and provide a brief and valid explanation of manuscript's areas of improvement which can strengthen the chances of acceptance or provide valid reasoning for rejection to the author. Reviewers are requested to make them aware about the reviewers guidelines provided by COPE.

The journal considers every submitted manuscript as a confidential document and the reviewers are also expected to abide by this rule. The manuscript's work cannot be implemented in reviewer’s own research or some personal advantage

According to the journal's policies, the reviewer's names are not disclosed to the authors. Reviewers are asked to adopt the same policy by not mentioning their name or any other personal information in the reviewer's comments of a manuscript.

The research article given for review should match the area of expertise of a reviewer and the reviewer must accept the article only if he/she feels competent enough to do the assigned work. The journal may only have the information about a reviewer's work in a broader aspect and thus journal gives the freedom to reviewers to deny the review request from the editor on this basis.

Journal of Agrometeorology holds the right to edit in or out the comments in a review report if the Editor-in-Chief finds the use of an offensive language or the disclosure of confidentiality. Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject a paper at any stage without assigning the reason and his decision would be final.

The journal appreciates the prompt response of review request from the reviewer and the submission of the review report within the specified time period. If the reviewer feels that a particular manuscript might take a long time due to some other professional or personal prior commitments and preventing him/her to submit a timely review, he/she should inform the editor before the deadline.

A conflict of interest eliminates the purpose of an objective evaluation of a manuscript. If a reviewer has some professional, personal or financial affiliations to the manuscript or the author or the sponsoring organization/agency, a full disclosure of this information to the editor at the time of response to review request is mandatory.

A reviewer must have the knowledge of policies for authors of writing a manuscript (Guidelines for Authors, Authors declaration). It mainly includes the originality of data, novelty of conclusions, paper's written presentation and the ethical issues of data collection.

The reviewer will use Microsoft Word track changes feature to suggest/include all the changes and recommendation in the manuscript along with the comments in the space provided by the online system.

 

Peer Review Process

The articles received by the editorial office are initially screened and if found not as per guidelines or out of scope of the Journal of Agrometeorology, are rejected without review. After initial screening, each article is sent to 2 independent reviewers for peer review. The journal follows the double-blind review process in which authors and reviewers’ names are not disclosed. Hence, authors names, affiliations and other potentially identifying information are removed from the text of the manuscript before sending it to the reviewers.  

Reviewers are expected to respond to the editor's request within a week time (7 days) to accept or decline the request and if the request is accepted, 3-week time (21 days) to submit the reviewers’ comments. Any delay in the time lines, the reminders are sent. If any reviewer declines the request or does not respond to the request, the manuscript is withdrawn and is sent to the third reviewer.

A reviewer’s guidelines has been provided in the system. Reviewers are requested to submit the detail comments in space provided “For Authors and Editor”. A separate window is provided for specific comments “For Editor only”. Reviewer is also advised to add the comments, if he/she wishes, on the manuscript in Review track mode and upload the file.

After receiving the comments from both reviewers, the manuscript is sent to author for modification along with the reviewer's comments. Authors are also advised to adheres  to the guidelines on presentation of title, affiliations, present address, abstract, scientific nomenclature, text and reference presentation etc as per journal style in the online system as well as on the manuscript.

If the reports of both referees disagree with regard to the suitability of the paper for publication, the editor gives his/her own remark over and above the reviewer’s comments. The article is rejected on the basis of comments of reviewer(s).

The revised manuscript submitted by the Author along with the reply of author to comments of reviewers, is again sent to one of the reviewers for checking and verifying the modification made by the author. The favourable comments received from the reviewer on the revised manuscript is taken into consideration for accepting the manuscript.

The manuscript is again sent to the Author if reviewer/editor ask for inclusion of more information in the form of table, figs or references etc.

Editor's decision independently or in consultation with editorial board, is final.

Journal of Agrometeorology holds the right to edit in or out the comments in a review report if the Editor-in-Chief finds the use of an offensive language or the disclosure of confidentiality. Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject a paper at any stage without assigning the reason and his decision would be final.

 

Post Publication Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Expressions of Concern

Journal of Agrometeorology follows the COPE guidelines for post publication corrections, retractions and editorial expression of concern.

We aim to ensure the integrity of the academic record of all published or potential publications. Whenever it is recognized that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement, or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence. If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction should be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.

Corrections

Errors in published papers may be identified in the form of a corrigendum or erratum when the Editor-in-Chief considers it appropriate to inform the journal readership about a previous error and makes a correction to the error in the published article. The corrigendum or erratum will appear on the web page of that publication article.

Retractions

Journal of Agrometeorology would consider retracting a publication under the following events:

  • There is evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of a major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
  • It constitutes plagiarism
  • The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
  • It contains material or data without authorisation for use
  • Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
  • It reports unethical research
  • It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
  • The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

The journal will issue a retraction notice by clearly identifying the article which will be linked to the retracted article wherever possible. The retraction will be freely available to all readers and will include who retracted the article and the reason for retraction.

 Editorial expressions of concern

Where substantial doubt arises as to the honesty or integrity of a submitted or published article, journal editors may consider issuing an expression of concern. However, expressions of concern should only be issued if an investigation into the problems relating to the article has proven inconclusive, and if there remain strong indicators that the concerns are valid.  Under some rare cases, an editorial expression of concern may also be issued when an investigation is underway but a judgment will not be available for a considerable time.

The expression of concern will be linked back to the published article it relates to.