PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
Investigations with human subjects must state in the Methods section that the research followed the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and Tokyo for humans, and was approved by the institutional human experimentation committee or equivalent, and that informed consent was obtained.
Studies using experimental animals must state in the Methods section that the research was conducted in accordance with the internationally accepted principles for laboratory animal use. For cases of wild species collected, the license number of the collection must be provided, as well as the name of the agency that granted the approval. Articles describing work with animals will be accepted only if the procedures used are clearly described and conform to the legal requirements of the country in which the work was carried out and to all institutional guidelines. Methods sections of papers on research using human or animal subjects and/or tissue or field sampling must include required ethics statements. The absence of information about the ethical procedures of the work may result in rejection of the author’s paper by referees and/or editors.
PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
Ethics and malpractice statements of the Ethnobiology and Conservation are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the authors, editors and the editorial board, reviewers and the publisher.
DUTIES / RESPONSIBILITIES OF AUTHORS
- Originality and Plagiarism - All manuscripts must be the original work of authors and not evidence plagiarism.
- Acknowledgement of sources - If the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
- Authorship of the Paper - Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged.
- Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication - Authors must not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently.
- Disclosure and Conflicts of interest and financial support - authors should disclose any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript and acknowledge individuals or organisations that have provided financial support for research.
- Authors should only submit papers only on work that has been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and that complies with all relevant legislation
- Data access and retention - Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with manuscripts for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data if possible.
- When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
DUTIES / RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE EDITOR AND THE EDITORIAL BOARD
- Publication decisions - The Editor is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The publication decision should be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board, and should be based exclusively on the academic merit and the decision of the reviewers. 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.
- Fair play - An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
- Confidentiality - 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.
- Disclosure and conflicts of interest - 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. Editors should excuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) 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. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
- Involvement and cooperation in investigations - Ethnobiology and conservation will respond to all allegations or suspicions of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors. Cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication will be assessed by the journal. In other cases, the journal may request an investigation by the institution or other appropriate bodies. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
DUTIES / RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEWERS
- Contribution to Editorial Decisions - Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions.
- Promptness - Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editors and excuse himself from the review process.
- Confidentiality - Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with others except as authorized by the editors.
- Standards of Objectivity - Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
- Acknowledgement of Sources - Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument 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.
- Disclosure and Conflict of Interest - Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not 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.