Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

All authors and reviewers should read and familiarize themselves with Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The Journal Forestry Ideas publish original work in the highest academic standards. Articles submitted for publication are peer-reviewed. Reviewers are aware of the identity of the authors, but authors are unaware of the identity of reviewers. It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing (authors, editors, peer reviewers, publisher). The Journal Forestry Ideas ethic statements are based on the guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

    Duties of editors

  • Clear instructions about the submission of manuscripts from authors are published on the journals’ website.
  • The editors will accept and evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content regardless of race, gender, nationality, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, religious belief or sexual orientation of the authors.
  • 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.
  • The editorial board ensures that all published scientific papers have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers. The non-peer-reviewed sections of the journal are always clearly identified.
  • The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
  • Unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author(s).
  • Duties of authors

  • Authors attest that the respective paper is their original and unpublished work. The authors are responsible for the reliability of information which materials published contain. Submitting the concurrently submitted manuscript or already published research is unethical and unacceptable. If the authors have used the work of others (phrases, data, images, …), this should be appropriately cited or quoted.
  • 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 or listed as contributors.
  • Affiliation (all authors/co-authors) and corresponding adress (main author) must be clearly stated.
  • The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
  • All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
  • When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  • The originality, proofreading of manuscripts and errors are the sole responsibility of the individual authors.
  • Duties of reviewers

  • The reviewers' task is to support the editor in editorial decision making and the improvement of received manuscripts.
  • Reviewers should conduct the review objectively and in a non-discriminatory way. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. They should be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.
  • Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. 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 connected to the papers.
  • In the even that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

Монди Стамболийски


SCImago Journal & Country Rank