Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement:

1. Editor Roles and Responsibilities

Chief editor should:

  • Recruiting members in editorial board.
  • Approving the journal publication.
  • Making final decision about which article to publish.
  • Fast checking information in the article submission.
  • Promote the journal.

Managing editors should:

  • Report publication progress to chief editor.
  • Preliminary screening article submission.
  • Assign article to editor for handling.
  • Editing final version of article before publish.
  • Ensure editor and author adhere to deadline.

Editors and/or Editorial Board should:

  • Review submitted manuscripts.
  • Keep information pertaining to submitted manuscripts confidential.
  • Disclose any conflicts of interest.
  • Identify topics for special issues, which they may guest edit.
  • Evaluate manuscripts only for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  • Be responsible for making publication decisions for submitted manuscripts.
  • Review suspected incidents of plagiarism.
  • Advise on journal policy and scope.
  • Attract new authors and submissions

Advisory Board Editors should:

  • Give advise in maintaining and improving the quality of the journal.
  • Give advise and suggestion on ethical issue.
  • Promote the journal.

Editor Responsibilities toward Reviewers:

  • Assigning papers for review appropriate to each reviewer’s area of interest and expertise.
  • Establishing a process for reviewers to ensure that they treat the manuscript as a confidential document and complete the review promptly.
  • Informing reviewers that they are not allowed to make any use of the work described in the manuscript or to take advantage of the knowledge they gained by reviewing it before publication.
  • Providing reviewers with written, explicit instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, quality, and timeliness of their reviews to promote thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work.
  • Requesting that reviewers identify any potential conflicts of interest and asking that they recuse themselves if they cannot provide an unbiased review.
  • Allowing reviewers appropriate time to complete their reviews.
  • Requesting reviews at a reasonable frequency that does not overtax any one reviewer.
  • Finding ways to recognize the contributions of reviewers, for example, by publicly thanking them in the journal; providing letters that might be used in applications for academic promotion; offering professional education credits; or inviting them to serve on the editorial board of the journal.

2. Author and Corresponding Author Responsibilities 

Principles related to authorship with general consensus include the following:

  • Individuals who contributed to the work but whose contributions were not of sufficient magnitude to warrant authorship should be identified by name in an acknowledgments section.
  • All individuals who qualify for authorship or acknowledgment should be identified. Conversely, every person identified as an author or acknowledged contributor should qualify for these roles.
  • Individuals listed as authors should review and approve the manuscript before publication.
  • Editors should require authors and those acknowledged to identify their contributions to the work and make this information available to readers.
  • The ultimate reason for identification of authors and other contributors is to establish accountability for the reported work.

Authorship should be limited to:

  • Individuals who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.
  • Identification of authors and other contributors is the responsibility of the people who did the work (the researchers) not the people who publish the work (editors, publishers). Researchers should determine which individuals have contributed sufficiently to the work to warrant identification as an author.
  • Individuals listed as authors should review and approve the manuscript before publication.
  • Individuals who contributed to the work but whose contributions were not of sufficient magnitude to warrant authorship should be identified by name in an acknowledgments section.
  • All individuals who qualify for authorship or acknowledgment should be identified. Conversely, every person identified as an author or acknowledged contributor should qualify for these roles.
  • Those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors.
  • Others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.

The corresponding author should:

  • Ensure that all appropriate co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper.
  • Give consent to the manuscript submission for publication.
  • Manage any requests to add, delete or rearrange author names in an article published in an online issue.

The authors should:

  • The author-editor relationship is founded on confidentiality. Authors should hold all communication between themselves and the journal in confidence. Authors should designate a specific contact for all communication about the manuscript throughout peer review and (if accepted) the publication process. Authors should observe journal policy on communication with external peer reviewers (the policy may vary depending on whether a journal uses masked or non-masked peer review) and should observe journal policy on prepublication embargoes.
  • 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. The authors should provide a statement attesting to the originality of the study they have submitted for consideration. Originality is crucial, because many journals have limited space and editors may give a low priority to studies that, regardless of scientific accuracy and validity, do not advance the scientific enterprise. Some journals may ask authors to provide copies of reports on other studies (articles, manuscripts, and abstracts) related to the study under consideration.
  • Copyright Assignment. Authors are usually expected to assign copyright to the journal publishing their study. Assignment of copyright is a legal document in which the authors assign certain rights to the publisher. Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be asked to complete a 'Journal Publishing Agreement'. An e-mail will be sent to the corresponding author confirming receipt of the manuscript together with a 'Journal Publishing Agreement' form or a link to the online version of this agreement.
  • Secure the necessary reproduction rights with the rights holder for any third party material (images, digital content, etc.) you have used prior to submission.
  • Ensure that they have acknowledged any funding that have contributed to the publication.
  • Provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access and retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
  • NOT in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.
  • NOT submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
  • Include disclosure of all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest.
  • Promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  • Ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them.
  • Include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects.
  • Obtain appropriate consents, permissions and releases where an author wishes to include case details or other personal information or images of patients and any other individuals.

3.  Reviewer responsibilities

Reviewer responsibilities toward authors:

  • Providing written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and the scientific value of the work, together with the documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion
  • Indicating whether the writing is clear, concise, and relevant and rating the work’s composition, scientific accuracy, originality, and interest to the journal’s readers.
  • Avoiding personal comments or criticism.
  • Maintaining the confidentiality of the review process: not sharing, discussing with third parties, or disclosing information from the reviewed paper.

Reviewer responsibilities in regards to citations:

  • Recommending the addition of important or relevant published works that are widely available into the citation list.
  • Discouraging the citation of unrelated works.
  • Alerting the authors on the possible errors or misuse of citations whenever necessary.
  • Informing the authors on knowledge of cited works that have been updated or retracted.

Reviewer responsibilities toward editors:

  • Notifying the editor immediately if unable to review in a timely manner and providing the names of potential other reviewers.
  • Alerting the editor about any potential personal or financial conflict of interest and declining to review when a possibility of a conflict exists.
  • Complying with the editor’s written instructions on the journal’s expectations for the scope, content, and quality of the review.
  • Providing a thoughtful, fair, constructive, and informative critique of the submitted work, which may include supplementary material provided to the journal by the author.
  • Determining scientific merit, originality, and scope of the work; indicating ways to improve it; and recommending acceptance or rejection using whatever rating scale the editor deems most useful.
  • Noting any ethical concerns, such as any violation of accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects or substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript concurrently submitted to another journal which may be known to the reviewer.
  • Refraining from direct author contact.

 

4. Peer review process

  1. Manuscript Submission
  • The author submits a manuscript to journal via its online submission system.
  • The manuscript must comply with the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines.
  • A cover letter is usually included to highlight the significance of the work
  1. Initial Editorial Screening
  • The editor-in-chief or handling editor does a preliminary check to assess:
  • Relevance to the journal's scope
  • Basic quality and originality
  • Compliance with ethical standards
  • Manuscripts may be desk rejected at this stage if they are unsuitable or of low quality.
  1. Assignment to Reviewers
  • If the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to 2–3 expert reviewers (also called referees) in the relevant field.
  • Reviewers are often anonymous (depending on the type of peer review).
  • They assess the manuscript's methodology, analysis, novelty, and clarity.
  1. Peer Review
  • Single-blind: Reviewers know the author's identity; authors do not know reviewers.
  1. Reviewers Submit Reports
  • Reviewers typically provide:
    • Detailed feedback (comments on strengths, weaknesses, errors, or needed improvements)
  • A recommendation, such as:
    • Accept as is
    • Resubmission
    • Request for Revision
    • Reject
  1. Editorial Decision
  • Based on reviewers’ comments and recommendations, the editor makes a decision:
  • Accept: The paper is accepted with or without minor revisions.
  • Revise and Resubmit: Authors must address concerns and submit a revised version.
  • Reject: The paper is declined, often with feedback for improvement.
  1. Revision and Resubmission
  • The author revises the manuscript and writes a response letter detailing how each comment was addressed.
  • The revised manuscript may be sent back to the same reviewers for reassessment.
  1. Final Decision
  • Once all concerns are satisfactorily addressed, the editor makes the final decision to accept the manuscript.
  • The paper then proceeds to copyediting, typesetting, and eventually publication
  1. Publication
  • Accepted papers are published in online.

5. Publication Ethics

The Editorial Committee aims to shape the scientific journal environment such as ethical publishing practices, inform those involved in the editorial process, and foster informed decision-making by editors so the integrity of our publications is upheld. in addition, publishers and editors take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred; in no event shall a journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place; in the event that a journal’s publisher or editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct the publisher or editor shall deal with allegations appropriately; the journal should have available guidelines for retracting or correcting articles when needed; and finally publishers and editors should always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

6. Copyright and Access

Authors who claim ownership to the data being reported, along with the manuscript’s authors, may be asked to sign over certain publication rights to the journal through copyright transfer or a licensing agreement. Authors should be aware of, and must abide by, the terms of these agreements.

7. Archiving

The Journal of Tropical Resources and Sustainable Science (JTRSS) is published online with a frequency of four (4) issues per year. Besides that, special issues of JTRSS will be published non-periodically from time to time.

8. Publisher

Universiti Malaysia Kelantan is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors. Finally, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan will work closely with other publishers and industry associations to set standards for best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions- and are prepared to provide specialized legal review and counsel if necessary.

9. Retraction policy

The JTRSS is committed to maintaining the integrity, accuracy, and reliability of the scholarly record. Articles published in JTRSS may be retracted when there is clear and substantial evidence that the publication contains serious errors, research misconduct, ethical violations, or other circumstances that compromise the validity or integrity of the scholarly record.

JTRSS follows established international principles of publication ethics, including the guidance and best practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Grounds for Retraction

An article may be considered for retraction when, but not limited to, the following circumstances are established:

  • There is clear evidence that the findings or conclusions are substantially unreliable due to major errors in the research, methodology, data analysis, or reporting.
  • The article contains fabricated or falsified data, results, images, or other research materials.
  • There is evidence of plagiarism, substantial duplicate publication, or inappropriate text or data reuse.
  • The article has been published elsewhere without appropriate disclosure or justification.
  • There are serious violations of research ethics, including research involving human participants or animals without the required ethical approval or informed consent, where applicable.
  • There are serious authorship or contributorship issues that materially affect the integrity of the publication.
  • There is evidence of undisclosed conflicts of interest that have materially affected the interpretation or credibility of the research.
  • The article contains manipulated or misleading information that significantly compromises the scholarly record.
  • The article was published as a result of a significant editorial or peer-review process failure that materially affects its reliability.
  • Other circumstances are identified that seriously undermine the integrity, credibility, or reliability of the published work.

2. Retraction Initiated by Authors

Authors may request the retraction of their article by submitting a formal written request to the Editor-in-Chief, stating the reason(s) for the proposed retraction.

An author request does not automatically result in retraction. The Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Board will assess the circumstances and determine the appropriate action. Where necessary, JTRSS may conduct further investigation or request supporting information before making a decision.

If research misconduct or unethical conduct is suspected, the journal may proceed with an investigation regardless of whether the authors request retraction.

3. Retraction Initiated by the Journal

JTRSS may initiate a retraction when credible evidence indicates that an article meets one or more of the grounds for retraction.

The Editor-in-Chief may consult the Editorial Board, reviewers, authors, institutional representatives, or other relevant parties as appropriate. Where allegations concern research misconduct, the journal may request that the authors' institution or relevant authority conduct an investigation.

The journal will make decisions independently and based on the available evidence, while providing authors with an appropriate opportunity to respond to concerns.

4. Retraction Notice

When an article is retracted, JTRSS will publish a Retraction Notice that:

  • Clearly identifies the retracted article, including its title, authors, publication details, and DOI.
  • States the reason(s) for the retraction as clearly and transparently as possible.
  • Identifies whether the retraction was initiated by the authors, the journal, or another relevant party.
  • Provides sufficient information to distinguish the retraction from a correction or editorial update.
  • Remains permanently accessible and linked to the original article.

The retraction notice will be published as a separate, identifiable publication and will be indexed where applicable.

5. Treatment of the Original Article

The original article will normally remain accessible to preserve the integrity and transparency of the scholarly record. However, it will be clearly marked as “RETRACTED” on the article's online version and PDF.

The original article will not normally be removed or deleted unless there are exceptional circumstances, such as legal requirements, serious risks to public safety, or other circumstances that justify removal. Where removal is necessary, sufficient bibliographic information and an explanation of the retraction will be retained.

6. Retraction Does Not Imply Author Misconduct in All Cases

Retraction does not necessarily imply that the authors acted fraudulently or intentionally engaged in misconduct. An article may be retracted because of honest errors, methodological problems, or other circumstances that substantially affect the reliability of the published findings.

Where misconduct has been established, the retraction notice will describe the basis for the decision in an objective and evidence-based manner.

7. Correction Instead of Retraction

Where an article contains an error that does not invalidate its principal findings, conclusions, or overall scholarly contribution, JTRSS may publish a Correction, Corrigendum, or Erratum rather than retracting the article.

Retraction will generally be reserved for cases in which the reliability or integrity of the published record has been substantially compromised.

8. Appeals

Authors may appeal a retraction decision by submitting a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within a reasonable period after notification of the decision. The appeal must provide substantive reasons and, where applicable, new evidence that was not considered during the initial assessment.

The Editor-in-Chief may seek advice from the Editorial Board or independent experts when reviewing an appeal. The decision following the appeal will normally be considered final.

9. Editorial Responsibility

The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board are responsible for ensuring that retraction decisions are handled fairly, consistently, transparently, and in accordance with accepted publication-ethics principles.

JTRSS will seek to protect the integrity of the scholarly record while respecting the rights of authors, readers, reviewers, and other stakeholders.

10. Record of Retraction

All retracted articles and their associated retraction notices will remain part of the journal's permanent publication record. Retraction information will be clearly displayed and linked to the original article to ensure transparency for readers, researchers, indexing services, and other users of the scholarly literature.