Statement of Publication Ethics

Overview

All journals of Global Scientific Research respect the directions of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), abide by its Code of Conduct, and aim to adhere to its Best Practice Guidelines.

The Authors, editors, and reviewers of the Global Sustainability Researchare expected to be aware of and comply with best practices in publication ethics.

Authors are required to have knowledge of and adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct in publishing, particularly in regards to authorship (such as avoiding ghost or guest authorship), submitting work to multiple sources, plagiarism, manipulation of data, conflicts of interest, and adherence to research ethics policies. Further information is available below or in the accompanying documents.

Reviewers and editors must handle manuscripts impartially and confidentially, and disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

We will thoroughly examine any claims of research or publication impropriety, and we retain the authority to reach out to the authors' universities, funders, or regulatory organizations if necessary.

When there are suspicions or accusations of wrongdoing, we will adhere to the COPE flowcharts and may additionally consult the COPE forum for guidance. If we discover irrefutable proof of wrongdoing, we shall promptly rectify the scientific documentation by releasing a correction or retraction.

If you have any apprehensions regarding possible misbehavior, kindly send an email to the journal. Send your email to the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor of the journal, depending on the situation. Readers who are concerned should not simply depend on publishing their comments on blogs, social media, or other external websites to bring their issues to our attention. Instead, they should make sure to directly contact the journal.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The Global Sustainability Researchis dedicated to upholding the utmost ethical principles. To assure the production of a high-quality academic publication for our readers, we are governed by the following principles:

The journal editor assumes the responsibility of determining the papers that should be published from the submissions received. The editor's decisions are influenced by the guidelines set by the editorial board of the journal and are limited by the existing legal obligations concerning defamation, copyright violation, and plagiarism. The editors are responsible for maintaining the confidentially of the submitted works until they are published, unless there is a suspicion of multiple submission. If the editors choose not to publish a piece of work, the author's written permission is required before using the manuscript for any other reasons. The editor of a submitted paper must not have any personal or financial interest in the writers.

The reviewers aid the editors in determining whether to publish a submitted work. We adhere to the Double Blind Review protocol. All manuscripts submitted for evaluation must be regarded as confidential materials. They are strictly prohibited from being displayed or talked about with anybody unless authorized by the editor. Reviewers must abstain from evaluating manuscripts if they have any conflicts of interest with the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers.

Engaging in the simultaneous submission of a single manuscript to multiple journals is considered unethical and is not deemed acceptable in the realm of publishing. It is essential to consistently provide appropriate recognition for the labor of others. Authors are required to reference publications that have had a significant impact on shaping the character of the work being described.

Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism is not acceptable in submissions. Plagiarized content will not be considered for publication. If plagiarism is identified, we will follow COPE guidelines.

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.

Allegations of research or publishing misconduct

Follows the COPE guidelines and flowcharts for handling matters of publishing ethics allegations and how to identify papers with research or publishing misconduct (including but not limited to referee misconduct, citation manipulation, and data fabrication and falsification), how to prevent their publication, and how to deal with allegations of research or publishing misconduct after publication. The procedures followed by are summarized below.

Ethics Panel: Managing Editor, Editor in Chief, ad hoc experts (as required).

The Ethics Panel may also consult with senior members of the Editorial Board and other parties, such as publishers, university/institution investigative bodies, etc may be advised of, be consulted during, or be involved in inquiries.

Procedure for handling allegations of misconduct in submitted manuscripts:

Submissions to journal may be assessed for similarity with other published material and/or image screening to check for originality and image manipulation, respectively.
Editors, reviewers, and/or staff bring suspected instances of ethics misconduct to the attention of the journal Editor in Chief (EiC) and the Journals' Managing Editor.
The EiC and Managing Editor review the allegation and make a preliminary assessment. If they decide that there is merit to the allegation the manuscript is placed on hold.
Additional analyses, including similarity checks and forensic image analyses, may be requested as necessary.
The EiC sends a letter of inquiry to the corresponding author summarizing the allegation and requesting an explanation. Original data may be requested.
The Ethics Panel convenes to discuss the allegations, explanations, possible corrective actions, and sanctions. Possible sanctions include warnings, increased scrutiny of subsequent manuscripts, and prohibitions from publishing in journal for a period of time, up to possible lifetime bans for the most severe cases.
The corresponding author and co-authors are notified of the Ethics Panel's decision.
Authors may appeal the decision by writing to the Ethics Committee.
's priority is to preserve the integrity of the scientific record. Additionally, we hope to educate authors on issues of misconduct. Therefore, manuscripts submitted by authors who receive warnings and/or sanctions due to ethical misconduct will likely undergo increased scrutiny. Repeated offenses will likely result in more severe sanctions.
In cases of alleged fraud or misconduct, the Ethics Panel will notify the authors' institution(s). will comply with their investigations and will abide by their decisions.

Additional procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in published manuscripts:

Following the Code of Federal Regulations concerning timelines for pursuing allegations of research misconduct, will pursue allegations of publishing misconduct made within six years of publication. may pursue allegations of misconduct regarding older papers if these papers provide evidence of an extensive pattern of misconduct.
will not comment on allegations made on public websites or through social media.
The Ethics Panel will decide on the appropriate measures to ensure that the scientific record is appropriately corrected in response to an allegation. An authors' correction may be allowed, if the conclusions of the manuscript are not altered by the infringement. However, the manuscript may be retracted if the authors' explanation is insufficient, the authors are unable to provide original data, and/or the conclusions of the manuscript are no longer supported.

Appealing an Ethics Decision
To appeal a decision made by a journal ethics panel, authors must contact, in writing, the Ethics Committee within 30 days of receipt of the decision.

COMPLAINTS PROCESS

The journal’s process for authors to submit a complaint - In case, if an author has any complaint on the publishing process or any of the editors, please contact the publisher.

Competing Interests or Conflict of Interest Statement

The Global Sustainability Researchmandates that authors disclose any competing interests, also referred to as conflicts of interests, pertaining to their research. Every manuscript that is submitted must be accompanied by a 'conflicting interests' statement that includes a comprehensive summary of all competing interests. If writers have conflicting interests, they must include this disclosure in the manuscript. Editors may request more information regarding any potential conflicts of interest.

Competing interests can encompass financial or non-financial, professional, or personal aspects. Conflicting interests may occur in a connection with an organization or another individual. A conflicting interest arises when the writers' analysis of data or delivery of information might be impacted by their personal or financial ties with other individuals or organizations. Authors are required to state both financial and non-financial conflicting interests, including those that may lead to shame if they were to become publicly known after the paper is published.

The journal has a protocol in place to ensure that any potential conflicts of interest from its reviewers and editors are disclosed. To foster ethical peer review, it is essential for a reviewer or editor to maintain the integrity of the peer review process. When a reviewer or editor is asked to assess a manuscript or take on editing duties, it is crucial to thoroughly examine any potential conflicts of interest that may arise between the reviewer/editor and the authors. If a reviewer or editor believes they have a conflicting interest, it is imperative to promptly contact the journal. Depending on the circumstances, the journal editors may request the reviewer/editor to fulfil their duty or opt to seek an alternative reviewer/editor.

Human and animal rights

Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. A statement detailing this, including the name of the ethics committee and the reference number where appropriate, must appear in all manuscripts reporting such research.

Experimental research on vertebrates or any regulated invertebrates must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines and, where available, should have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee.

Informed Consent

For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants (or their parent or guardian in the case of children under 16) and a statement to this effect should appear in the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an 'acknowledgements' section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, or writing assistance or a head of the department/institution who provided only general support.

Changes in authorship

In line with COPE guidelines, it requires written confirmation from all authors that they agree with any proposed changes in authorship of submitted manuscripts or published articles. This confirmation must be via direct email from each author. It is the corresponding author’s responsibility to ensure that all authors confirm that they agree with the proposed changes. If there is disagreement amongst the authors concerning authorship and a satisfactory agreement cannot be reached, the authors must contact their institution(s) for a resolution. It is not the Editor’s responsibility to resolve authorship disputes. A change in authorship of a published article can only be amended via the publication of an Erratum.

Data and material release

Submission of a manuscript to the Global Sustainability Research implies that readily reproducible materials described in the manuscript, including all relevant raw data, will be freely available to any scientist wishing to use them for non-commercial purposes, without breaching participant confidentiality. Nucleotide/protein sequences should be deposited in an appropriate database in time for the accession number to be included in the published article. In computational studies where the sequence information is unacceptable for inclusion in databases because of lack of experimental validation, the sequences must be published as an additional file with the article.

Algal, fungal, and botanical names

From January 2022, electronic publication of algal, fungal, and botanical names is a valid form of publication. Manuscripts containing new taxon names or other nomenclatural acts must follow guidelines set by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants.

Authors describing new fungal taxa should register the names with a recognized repository such as Mycobank and request a unique digital identifier which should be included in the published article.

Corrections and retractions

publishes corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern as appropriate and as quickly as possible. We follow the ICMJE and COPE guidelines where applicable.

Rarely, it may be necessary to publish corrections to, or retractions of, articles published, so as to maintain the integrity of the academic record. Corrections to, or retractions of, published articles will be made by publishing the 'Correction' or 'Retraction' article without altering the original article in any way other than to add a prominent link to the Correction/Retraction article. The original article remains in the public domain, and the subsequent Correction or Retraction will be widely indexed. In the exceptional event that material is considered to infringe certain rights or is defamatory, we may have to remove that material from our site and archive sites.

Appeals or complaints

Authors have the right to appeal the rejection of their manuscript. Appeals should be based on the scientific content of the manuscript and its suitability for publication rather than concerns about the process. Authors wishing to appeal a rejection should contact the Editor in Chief by email (journals.gsr@gmail.com ). The Editor’s decision on the appeal is final.

Authors wishing to make a complaint should contact the publisher by email (journals.gsr@jescae.com )