Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer
reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical
behavior. The ethics statements for Scientific Review Engineering and Environmental
Sciences are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines
for Journal Editors.
Duties of the Editors-in-Chief
Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race,
gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy
of the authors.
The Editor-in-Chief 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Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an Editor's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 explicit written consent of the author(s).
The handling Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the submitted
articles should be published. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the
journal's Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force
regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with
other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Duties of peer reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial
communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or
knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief
so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must
not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable.
Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate 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 data 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 evaluating 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
Duties of authors
Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work
performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be
represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and
references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate
statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors
have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research
in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript
to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite
publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of a manuscript
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 named
in an Acknowledgement section.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the
above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the
manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and
have agreed to its submission for publication.
Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards
inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of
interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the
manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
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’s Editor-in-Chief or publisher and
cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an approriate erratum.
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the
publisher, in close collaboration with the Editors-in-Chief, will take all appropriate measures
to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt
publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected