The ethical policy of IJROWA is based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and complies with International Committee of IJROWA Editorial Board codes of conduct. Readers, authors, reviewers and editors should follow these ethical policies once working with IJROWA. The ethical policy of IJROWA is liable to determine which of the typical research papers or articles submitted to the journal should be published in the concerned issue. The journal is committed to maintaining the highest level of integrity in the content published and has a Conflict of Interest policy in place. Content published in this journal is peer reviewed (Double Blind).
International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture Research follows CC BY attribution. This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation.
Ethical Responsibilities of Publisher
The publisher is committed to keeping all content and history of manuscripts confidential.
The publisher is obliged to answer users’ queries regarding the technical problems of the site.
The publisher shall back up and store the data archive of all manuscripts.
The publisher must publish articles after proofreading and the authors’ approval.
The publisher must provide articles with appropriate proofreading and layout.
The publisher shall solve any possible technical and non-technical problems regarding the journal management systems.
The publisher will manage any problematic issues and misconduct on the basis of ethical rules issued by COPE and the publisher.
The publisher will observe the journals’ activities and feedback to assure adherence to ethical rules.
Any person or third party can contact the journal’s mail in the ‘’Contact Section’’ or the mail of [email protected] (publisher’s research center) regarding any report or allegation of misconduct or incorrect actions by journals.
Editors and employees of the publisher can publish their own papers providing that a third editor from another university or institute has provided unbiased peer review
The Publisher does not publicize any advertisements especially commercial ones in this journal.
Ethical Responsibilities of Authors
This journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record. The journal will follow the COPE guidelines on how to deal with potential acts of misconduct.
Authors should refrain from misrepresenting research results which could damage the trust in the journal, the professionalism of scientific authorship, and ultimately the entire scientific endeavour. Maintaining integrity of the research and its presentation is helped by following the rules of good scientific practice, which include*:
All authors of every manuscript must contribute to composing the manuscript or research.
All authors who contributed to the research work should approve the final manuscript, so it is mandatory that all authors sign the copyright letter. Authors are free to post and distribute the links of their articles anywhere immediately upon publication.
The manuscript should not be submitted to more than one journal for simultaneous consideration.
The submitted work should be original and should not have been published elsewhere in any form or language (partially or in full), unless the new work concerns an expansion of previous work. (Please provide transparency on the re-use of material to avoid the concerns about text-recycling (‘self-plagiarism’).
A single study should not be split up into several parts to increase the quantity of submissions and submitted to various journals or to one journal over time (i.e. ‘salami-slicing/publishing’).
Concurrent or secondary publication is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. Examples include: translations or a manuscript that is intended for a different group of readers.
Results should be presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation (including image based manipulation). Authors should adhere to discipline-specific rules for acquiring, selecting and processing data.
No data, text, or theories by others are presented as if they were the author’s own (‘plagiarism’). Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given (this includes material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarized and/or paraphrased), quotation marks (to indicate words taken from another source) are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions secured for material that is copyrighted.
Important note: the journal uses iThenticate to screen for plagiarism.
Authors should make sure they have permissions for the use of software, questionnaires/(web) surveys and scales in their studies (if appropriate).
Authors should avoid untrue statements about an entity (who can be an individual person or a company) or descriptions of their behavior or actions that could potentially be seen as personal attacks or allegations about that person.
Research that may be misapplied to pose a threat to public health or national security should be clearly identified in the manuscript (e.g. dual use of research). Examples include creation of harmful consequences of biological agents or toxins, disruption of immunity of vaccines, unusual hazards in the use of chemicals, weaponization of research/technology (amongst others).
Authors are strongly advised to ensure the author group, the Corresponding Author, and the order of authors are all correct at submission. Adding and/or deleting authors at revision stage are generally not permitted, but in some cases it may be warranted. Reasons for adding authors in authorship should be explained. If the correspondence author wants remove any author, this author should request from HIM/HER self email to journal.
Please note that changes to authorship cannot be made after acceptance of a manuscript.
*All of the above are guidelines and authors need to make sure to respect third parties rights such as copyright and/or moral rights.
Upon request authors should be prepared to send relevant documentation or data in order to verify the validity of the results presented. This could be in the form of raw data, samples, records, etc. Sensitive information in the form of confidential or proprietary data is excluded.
If there is suspicion of misbehavior or alleged fraud the Journal and/or Publisher will carry out an investigation following COPE guidelines. If, after investigation, there are valid concerns, the author(s) concerned will be contacted under their given e-mail address and given an opportunity to address the issue. Depending on the situation, this may result in the Journal’s and/or Publisher’s implementation of the following measures, including, but not limited to:
If the manuscript is still under consideration, it may be rejected and returned to the author.
If the article has already been published online, depending on the nature and severity of the infraction:
– an erratum/correction may be placed with the article
– an expression of concern may be placed with the article
– or in severe cases retraction of the article may occur.
The reason will be given in the published erratum/correction, expression of concern or retraction note. Please note that retraction means that the article is maintained on the platform, watermarked “retracted” and the explanation for the retraction is provided in a note linked to the watermarked article.
The author’s institution may be informed
A notice of suspected transgression of ethical standards in the peer review system may be included as part of the author’s and article’s bibliographic record.
Fundamental errors
Authors have an obligation to correct mistakes once they discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published article. The author(s) is/are requested to contact the journal and explain in what sense the error is impacting the article. A decision on how to correct the literature will depend on the nature of the error. This may be a correction or retraction. The retraction note should provide transparency which parts of the article are impacted by the error.
Suggesting / excluding reviewers
Authors are welcome to suggest suitable reviewers and/or request the exclusion of certain individuals when they submit their manuscripts. When suggesting reviewers, authors should make sure they are totally independent and not connected to the work in any way. It is strongly recommended to suggest a mix of reviewers from different countries and different institutions. When suggesting reviewers, the Corresponding Author must provide an institutional email address for each suggested reviewer, or, if this is not possible to include other means of verifying the identity such as a link to a personal homepage, a link to the publication record or a researcher or author ID in the submission letter. Please note that the Journal may not use the suggestions, but suggestions are appreciated and may help facilitate the peer review process.
Ethical Responsibilities of Editors
The Editors of the journal should maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts under review except when they discover particular misconduct.
Editor in Chief has the authority to make the final decision for acceptance or rejection of papers.
The Editors of the journal should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
The Editors of the journal should disclose and try to avoid any conflict of interest.
The Editors of the journal should maintain academic integrity and strive to meet the needs of readers and authors.
The Editors of the journal should be willing to investigate plagiarism and fraudulent data issues and willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when needed.
Editors should critically assess the ethical conduct of studies in humans and animals.
IJROWA Journal shall NOT publish more than two papers submitted by its editors in a year. If one of the editors such as editor in chief, managing editor tends to submit a paper in the IJROWA journal, his/ her paper will be managed or peer-reviewed without the authors’ interference and unbiasedly by reviewers assigned by other editors.
See more about Editor roles and responsibilities at COPE website
Ethical responsibilities of Reviewers
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.
The Reviewers should not review the manuscripts in which they have found conflicts of interest with any of the authors, companies, or institutions 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.
Refraining from direct author contact.
Reviewers must report any unethical cases in manuscripts including double submission, duplication, or plagiarism to editors.
If the manuscript is against the reviewers’ interest, they are morally obliged to decline the peer-reviewing process.
The Reviewers should provide comments in time, if they are not able to meet the deadlines due to any reason, they shall contact editors as soon as possible.
The Reviewers comments against each invited manuscript should be technical, professional and objective.
See more about reviewers roles and responsibilities at COPE website.
Archiving
The content of website and article process is preserved by everyday backup which the owner of the server is committed to providing with us every day.
Part of the important files is stored in INTERNET ARCHIVE and part of journal office document archive is saved on a Hard disk.
