JEAM Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
The publication of peer reviewed articles in agreement with the following rules
of “Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement” is an essential model
for the Journal of Environmental Accounting and Management.
It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties
involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer
and the publisher.
Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
1. Publication decisions
The editor of the Journal of Environmental Accounting
and Management (JEAM) is responsible for deciding which of the articles
submitted to the journal should be published.
The editor 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 may confer with other editors or reviewers
in making this decision.
2. Fair play
An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without
regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship,
or political philosophy of the authors.
3. Confidentiality
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.
4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an
editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
5. Duties of Reviewers
a. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial
communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
b. Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a
manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the
editor and excuse himself from the review process.
c. Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They
must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
d. Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
e. 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 paper of which they have
personal knowledge.
f. 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 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 the papers.
6. Duties of Authors
a. Reporting standards
Authors of reports 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 paper. 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.
b. Data Access and Retention
Authors can be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial
review.
c. 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.
d. 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. Submitting the same manuscript
to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior
and is unacceptable.
e. Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should
cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported
work.
f. Authorship of the Paper
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 acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate
co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved
the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
g. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards
inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
h. 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 interpretation
of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be
disclosed.
i. 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 editor or publisher
and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.