Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

The Eurasian Journal of Soil Science (EJSS) is committed to the integrity, reliability and transparency of the scholarly record. The journal follows the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in all matters relating to authorship, peer review, conflicts of interest, research misconduct, complaints, appeals, corrections and retractions. These requirements apply to authors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members and the publisher, the Federation of Eurasian Soil Science Societies (FESSS).

1. General Principles

Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their scientific validity, originality, methodological quality, clarity, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, and compliance with ethical standards. Studies reporting positive, negative or inconclusive results are equally eligible for publication, provided the research question is relevant and the methods are sound.

EJSS publishes Research Articles only. All manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review.

2. Editorial Governance and Independence

EJSS is owned and published by FESSS. The publisher supports the journal’s operations but does not interfere with the evaluation, peer review or acceptance of individual manuscripts.

The scientific direction of the journal rests with the Editors-in-Chief and the Editorial Board. Editorial decisions are independent of commercial, institutional, political and personal interests. They are not influenced by advertising, sponsorship or any publication charges. EJSS does not accept paid editorial content and does not offer paid fast-track review.

Manuscripts submitted by an Editor-in-Chief, an Editorial Board member or a close associate are handled by an independent editor. The author-editor takes no part in reviewer selection, editorial discussion or the final decision on that manuscript.

3. Responsibilities of the Publisher

FESSS:

• ensures that the journal operates under editorial independence,
• provides the infrastructure for submission, peer review, publication and long-term digital preservation,
• supports the editors in handling ethical concerns, corrections and retractions,
• ensures that published content remains permanently accessible under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence, with authors retaining copyright.

5. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must:

• accept an invitation only if they have the necessary subject and methodological expertise and can complete the review on time,
• disclose any financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, competitive or personal conflict of interest before accepting,
• treat the manuscript, supplementary files, data and correspondence as strictly confidential,
• provide objective, evidence-based, constructive and respectful comments,
• assess the work, not the authors, and avoid personal or discriminatory remarks,
• identify major methodological problems, unsupported claims, relevant omitted literature and possible ethical concerns,
• not request citations that are not scientifically necessary, including citations to their own work, to the authors’ work or to any journal,
• not contact the authors directly,
• not delegate the review to another person without prior permission from the editor,
• not retain, share, reproduce or use any unpublished material or ideas obtained through the review.

Reviewers must not upload a manuscript, or any part of it, to a generative artificial intelligence system, and must not use such tools to write or evaluate their review. Reviewers are personally responsible for the content of their reports.

6. Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must report the research they actually performed accurately and completely. Methods must be described in enough detail to allow evaluation and, where possible, replication. Data must not be fabricated, falsified, selectively omitted or presented in a misleading way.

Authors must:

• submit original work and properly acknowledge all sources,
• not submit the manuscript to another journal while it is under consideration at EJSS,
• disclose related manuscripts, conference papers, preprints, reports and earlier publications,
• obtain all required ethics approvals, permits, licences and consents,
• retain the underlying data and records and provide them on reasonable request,
• disclose all funding sources and competing interests,
• confirm that all listed authors meet the authorship criteria and have approved the final version,
• acknowledge contributors who do not qualify for authorship,
• obtain permission to reproduce copyrighted or third-party material,
• promptly notify the journal of any significant error, before or after publication.

False declarations, withholding material information or failing to cooperate with an inquiry may lead to rejection of the manuscript or other editorial action.

7. Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship carries both credit and accountability. Each author must:

1. have made a substantial scholarly contribution to the conception, design, data collection, analysis or interpretation of the work,
2. have drafted the manuscript or critically revised it for important intellectual content,
3. have approved the final version for publication,
4. accept accountability for the work and cooperate in resolving any question about its accuracy or integrity.

Acquisition of funding, provision of materials, routine technical assistance, translation, language editing, administrative supervision or general oversight alone do not qualify for authorship. These contributions may be recognised in the Acknowledgements with the contributor’s permission. Artificial intelligence tools cannot be listed as authors.

Guest, gift and honorary authorship, ghost authorship, undisclosed professional writing assistance and the omission of a qualifying author are not permitted.

Every manuscript must include an Author Contributions statement based on the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy). The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that the author list, author order, affiliations and contribution statements are accurate and approved by all co-authors.

Any change to the author list after submission requires a written explanation and the signed agreement of all authors, including any author being added or removed. After acceptance, changes are permitted only in exceptional and fully justified cases. EJSS does not adjudicate authorship disputes. Such disputes are referred to the authors’ institution or another appropriate body.

8. Originality, Plagiarism and Text Recycling

Plagiarism includes unattributed copying, close paraphrasing, translation plagiarism and the appropriation of another person’s ideas, methods, data, images or words. Reusing one’s own published text, data or images without transparent citation may constitute text recycling or redundant publication.

Limited reuse of standard method descriptions may be acceptable with citation of the original source. Duplication of results, discussion or conclusions is not acceptable.

All submissions are screened with similarity-detection software. The overall similarity index is normally expected to be below 15%, excluding references. The similarity score is a screening tool, not proof of plagiarism. Editors assess the nature, source, extent and location of any overlap. Serious plagiarism may lead to rejection regardless of the overall score.

9. Fabrication, Falsification and Image Integrity

Fabrication is the invention of data or results. Falsification is the manipulation, omission or misrepresentation of data, methods, images or results.

Adjustments to images (brightness, contrast, colour balance) are acceptable only if they are applied uniformly to the whole image and do not obscure, remove or alter any information. Splicing, cloning, selective enhancement or removal of features is not permitted where it changes the meaning of the image.

Authors must not invent standard deviations, error values, significance levels, grouping letters, replicates or observations. Editors may request original unprocessed images, instrument outputs, laboratory records or raw data at any stage.

10. Duplicate, Redundant and Concurrent Publication

Manuscripts must not be submitted simultaneously to more than one journal and must not substantially duplicate work that has already been published or accepted elsewhere. Dividing a single study into several minimal papers without independent scientific contribution (“salami publication”) is not acceptable.

Related manuscripts and overlapping datasets must be disclosed at submission and provided on request.

Posting a manuscript on a recognised preprint server is not considered prior publication. Authors must disclose the preprint, giving its DOI or URL, at submission. After publication, they should update the preprint with a link to the published EJSS article.

11. Data, Materials and Reproducibility

Authors must retain the data and documentation underlying their results for at least five years after publication. They must make these available when needed for evaluation or for an investigation.

Wherever ethical, legal and contractual conditions allow, authors are encouraged to deposit data in a recognised public repository. Every article must include a Data Availability Statement explaining where the data can be accessed or why access is restricted. Restrictions may arise from personal data, protected sampling locations, confidentiality agreements, protected species or legal limitations, and must be explained. Data and code must correspond to the analyses reported in the article.

12. Ethical Oversight, Consent and Permits

• Human participants, personal data and surveys: research must comply with applicable ethical standards. Authors must state the approving ethics committee, the approval number and the consent procedure.
• Animals: research must comply with institutional and national animal welfare requirements, and the approval must be reported.
• Field work: sampling in protected areas, work with protected species or genetic resources, transfer of biological material and access to restricted locations require the relevant permits. Details must be given in the manuscript.
• Hazardous materials and procedures: research involving genetically modified organisms, hazardous chemicals, unusual procedures or significant environmental risk must include a statement of safety and regulatory compliance.

If ethics approval was not required, authors must state this and, where it is not self-evident, explain why.

13. Competing Interests and Funding

Authors, reviewers and editors must disclose any financial or non-financial interest that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their work or decisions. Examples include employment, consultancy, shareholding, patents, honoraria, personal relationships and academic competition.

Authors must list all funding sources with grant numbers and describe the role of the funder in the study. If there is no funding or no competing interest, this must be stated explicitly. A disclosed interest does not automatically prevent publication. Disclosure allows the interest to be managed transparently.

14. Citation Integrity

Citations must be accurate, relevant and based on sources the authors have actually read. References must not be added merely to increase citations to the authors, their colleagues, their institution or any journal. Editors and reviewers must not pressure authors to add unnecessary citations. Citation cartels, coercive citation and any other systematic citation manipulation are prohibited.

15. Peer Review Manipulation, Paper Mills and Fraudulent Submissions

The following are prohibited:

• fake reviewer identities, impersonation or undisclosed control of reviewer accounts,
• coordinated or compromised peer review,
• manuscripts produced by paper mills or purchased from third parties,
• buying or selling authorship,
• falsified affiliations, e-mail addresses, ethics approvals or other documents,
• any improper pressure on editors or reviewers.

EJSS may verify the identities and qualifications of authors and reviewers through institutional profiles, publication records, ORCID or other sources. Suspicious submissions may be held while verification is in progress.

16. Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Language editing and translation. Authors may use generative artificial intelligence tools to improve the language of their manuscript or to translate text that they have written themselves. Such use must be declared in the Title Page at submission. In the published article, it is reported in the “Use of artificial intelligence” statement. Standard spelling and grammar checkers built into word-processing software do not need to be declared.

Research data and results. Artificial intelligence tools must not be used to generate, alter or enhance research data, results, figures, images or any other material presented as evidence.

Artificial intelligence as a research method. If artificial intelligence or machine-learning methods form part of the research itself (for example, in data analysis or modelling), they must be described in the Materials and Methods section in enough detail to allow evaluation and reproduction.

Authorship and responsibility. Artificial intelligence tools cannot be authors, because they cannot approve the final manuscript, take responsibility for the work or declare conflicts of interest. Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, citations and integrity of all content in their manuscript.

Editorial process. Editors and reviewers must not upload manuscripts, or any part of them, to generative artificial intelligence systems. They must not use such tools to evaluate manuscripts, write review reports or make editorial decisions.

17. Handling Suspected Misconduct

Concerns may be raised by editors, reviewers, authors, readers, institutions or any other party. They should be sent through the journal’s contact channel, identify the manuscript or article concerned and include specific supporting information. Anonymous concerns may be considered if they contain sufficient verifiable evidence.

Concerns are handled according to COPE guidance:

1. The Co-Editor-in-Chief (Peer Review & Research Integrity), or an independent editor if there is a conflict of interest, records and assesses the concern confidentially.
2. The available evidence is reviewed to decide whether further inquiry is needed.
3. The authors or other affected parties are informed of the substance of the concern and invited to respond.
4. Original data, ethics documents, images or contribution records may be requested.
5. Matters beyond the journal’s competence may be referred to the authors’ institution, funder, ethics committee or a relevant authority.
6. The findings are evaluated and appropriate action is taken to protect the scholarly record.

EJSS does not determine legal guilt or conduct investigations on behalf of employers. The journal may preserve evidence, suspend processing of a manuscript, seek expert advice and cooperate with authorised investigations.

18. Editorial Actions

Depending on the seriousness of the case and the strength of the evidence, the journal may:

• request clarification, corrections or supporting documents,
• suspend evaluation of the manuscript during an inquiry,
• reject the manuscript,
• discard a compromised review and obtain a new one,
• publish a correction, an expression of concern or a retraction,
• inform the authors and, where justified, their institutions, funders, ethics committees or other journals,
• hold other submissions from the same authors until the matter is resolved,
• take any other proportionate action consistent with COPE guidance.

Notification of institutions is not automatic. It depends on the seriousness and credibility of the case. All actions are based on evidence and are applied regardless of the authors’ status or seniority.

19. Withdrawal of Manuscripts

Authors may withdraw a manuscript at any time before acceptance by sending a written request, signed by the corresponding author and approved by all co-authors, that states the reason. After acceptance, withdrawal is possible only for serious and justified reasons, which are evaluated by the Editors-in-Chief. A published article cannot be withdrawn. It can only be corrected or retracted, as described below.

20. Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern

Correction. When an error affects part of an article but does not invalidate its findings, a Correction notice is published. The notice is clearly labelled and permanently linked to the original article. Minor typographical errors that do not affect the meaning may be corrected without a notice.

Retraction. An article is retracted when its findings are unreliable because of a major error or misconduct, or when the research was unethical. Retraction also applies when plagiarism or redundant publication is established, or when authorship or peer review was seriously compromised. The retracted article remains available, is clearly marked as retracted and is linked to the retraction notice.

Expression of Concern. When there is credible evidence of a serious problem but an investigation is incomplete, inconclusive or delayed, an Expression of Concern may be published. It may later be followed by a correction or retraction, or it may be withdrawn.

All notices are linked to the original article in both directions and recorded in the article metadata where possible.

21. Complaints and Appeals

Complaints about editorial conduct, peer review, publication ethics or journal policy should be sent through the journal’s contact channel. They should give the manuscript or article number and a clear explanation. Complaints are handled by the Editors-in-Chief or, if there is a conflict of interest, by an independent senior editor. Receipt is acknowledged within five working days, and the outcome is normally communicated within 30 days.

Authors may appeal against a rejection once. An appeal must show a substantial factual error, a procedural irregularity, an unmanaged conflict of interest or a serious misunderstanding of the manuscript. It must be concise, evidence-based and respectful. Disagreement with the academic judgement of reviewers or editors alone is not sufficient grounds for appeal. Wherever practical, the appeal is assessed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision. The outcome of the appeal is final.

Complaints concerning an Editor-in-Chief are referred to an independent representative of FESSS. No one will be disadvantaged for raising a concern in good faith.

22. Confidentiality and Data Protection

Manuscripts, review reports, editorial correspondence, personal data and files relating to allegations are confidential. They are used only for legitimate editorial purposes. Information may be disclosed only when required by law, when necessary to protect research participants or as part of an authorised investigation.

4. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors must:

• evaluate manuscripts fairly, without discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, gender, religion, nationality, political belief, institutional affiliation, career stage or any other personal characteristic of the authors,
• base decisions on scientific merit, originality, methodology, clarity, relevance and ethical compliance,
• protect the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviewer identities and editorial correspondence,
• select qualified and independent reviewers and manage the double-blind peer review process impartially,
• disclose and manage any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest,
• not use unpublished data, methods, images or ideas from submitted manuscripts for their own research or advantage,
• not upload any manuscript, or any part of it, to a generative artificial intelligence system,
• investigate credible concerns fairly, promptly and confidentially,
• give authors and other affected parties the opportunity to respond to substantive allegations,
• correct the scholarly record through corrections, expressions of concern or retractions when necessary.

The Editors-in-Chief hold final responsibility for editorial decisions. Reviewer recommendations inform these decisions but do not determine them. Matters of peer review and research integrity are coordinated by the Co-Editor-in-Chief (Peer Review & Research Integrity).

23. Post-Publication Discussion

EJSS welcomes evidence-based comments on published articles and notifications of possible errors. These are assessed on their scientific content and supporting evidence. Where warranted, responses or corrections are linked to the article concerned.

24. Policy Review

This policy is reviewed periodically to reflect developments in COPE guidance, legislation, publishing practice and technology. The version published on this page applies to all current submissions and editorial actions.