Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

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

EJSS considers manuscripts solely on their scientific validity, originality, methodological quality, clarity, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, and compliance with ethical requirements. Positive, negative or inconclusive results are eligible for consideration when the research question and methods are scientifically sound.

Editorial Governance and Independence

EJSS is owned and published by the Federation of Eurasian Soil Science Societies (FESSS) and operates under the scientific direction of the Editor-in-Chief, Editors-in-Chief and Editorial Board. FESSS supports the journal’s operations but does not interfere in the evaluation, peer review, selection or acceptance of individual manuscripts.

Editorial decisions are independent of commercial, institutional, political and personal interests. Advertising, sponsorship, author fees or the absence of author fees do not influence editorial decisions. EJSS does not accept paid editorial content or paid fast-track review.

Manuscripts submitted by an editor, Editorial Board member or a person with a close relationship to an editor are handled by an independent editor who has no involvement in the work. The author-editor is excluded from reviewer selection, editorial discussion and the final decision.

Responsibilities of Editors

Editors must:

·         evaluate manuscripts fairly and without discrimination based on authors’ race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, disability, institutional affiliation, nationality or career stage;

·         make decisions based on scientific merit, originality, methodological quality, clarity, relevance and ethical compliance;

·         protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewer identities and editorial correspondence;

·         select qualified and independent reviewers and manage the peer-review process impartially;

·         disclose and appropriately manage actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest;

·         avoid using unpublished data, methods, images or ideas for personal advantage;

·         investigate credible concerns before or after publication fairly, promptly and confidentially;

·         provide authors and other affected parties with an opportunity to respond to substantive allegations; and

·         correct the scholarly record through corrections, expressions of concern or retractions when necessary.

The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for editorial decisions. Reviewer recommendations inform but do not determine the decision.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must:

·         accept a review only when they have appropriate subject and methodological expertise and can complete it within the requested period;

·         disclose any financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, competitive or personal conflict of interest before accepting the assignment;

·         treat the manuscript, associated files, data and editorial correspondence as confidential;

·         provide objective, evidence-based, constructive and respectful comments;

·         assess the work rather than the authors and avoid personal or discriminatory criticism;

·         identify major methodological problems, unsupported claims, relevant omitted literature and possible ethical concerns;

·         avoid requesting citations that are irrelevant or intended primarily to increase citations to themselves, a particular author or a journal;

·         not contact authors directly regarding the manuscript unless authorised by the editor;

·         not delegate the review to another person without prior editorial permission; and

·         not retain, distribute, reproduce or use unpublished material or ideas obtained through peer review.

Reviewers must not upload a confidential manuscript or any part of it to a public or external generative artificial intelligence system. If a reviewer requires assistance for a legitimate reason, prior permission must be obtained from the editor and confidentiality must be fully protected. Reviewers remain personally responsible for the accuracy, integrity and originality of their reports.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must present an accurate, complete and objective account of research genuinely performed. Methods and analyses must be described in sufficient detail to permit scientific evaluation and, where possible, replication. Data must not be fabricated, falsified, selectively omitted or misleadingly presented.

Authors must:

·         ensure that the submission is original and properly acknowledges all sources;

·         confirm that the manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal;

·         disclose closely related manuscripts, conference papers, preprints, reports and previous publications;

·         obtain all necessary ethics approvals, permits, licences, permissions and informed consent;

·         preserve underlying data, records and documentation and provide them to the journal when reasonably requested;

·         disclose all funding sources and financial or non-financial competing interests;

·         ensure that all listed authors qualify for authorship and have approved the submitted and final versions;

·         acknowledge individuals and organisations that contributed without qualifying for authorship;

·         obtain permission for copyrighted or third-party material; and

·         notify the journal promptly if a significant error is identified before or after publication.

Submitting false declarations, withholding material information or failing to cooperate with a legitimate editorial inquiry may result in rejection or other corrective action.

Authorship and Contributorship

Authorship represents both credit and accountability. Every listed author must have:

1.      made a substantial scholarly contribution to the conception, design, data acquisition, analysis or interpretation of the work;

2.      participated in drafting the manuscript or critically revising it for important intellectual content;

3.      approved the final version; and

4.      agreed to be accountable for their contribution and to cooperate in resolving questions about the integrity of the work.

Individuals who provide only funding, materials, routine technical support, translation, language editing, administrative supervision or general oversight do not qualify for authorship on that basis alone. Their contributions may be acknowledged with permission.

Guest, gift and honorary authorship are prohibited. Ghost authorship, undisclosed professional writing and omission of a person who qualifies for authorship are also unacceptable. EJSS requires an Author Contributions statement using the CRediT contributor roles.

The corresponding author must ensure that the author list, author order, affiliations and contribution statement are accurate and approved by all authors. Requests to add, remove or reorder authors after submission require a written explanation and documented agreement from all affected authors. After acceptance, authorship changes are permitted only in exceptional and fully justified circumstances. EJSS does not adjudicate authorship disputes; unresolved disputes should be referred to the authors’ institution or another appropriate body.

Originality, Plagiarism and Text Recycling

All submissions must be original. Plagiarism includes unattributed copying, close paraphrasing, translation plagiarism and appropriation of another person’s ideas, methods, data, images or words. Appropriate quotation, citation and permission are required where applicable.

Reuse of an author’s own previously published text, data or images without transparent citation may constitute inappropriate text recycling or redundant publication. Limited reuse of standard methodological language may be acceptable when accurately cited and when no copyright restriction is violated, but duplication of results, discussion or conclusions is not acceptable.

EJSS uses similarity-detection software as a screening tool. The journal normally expects an overall similarity score below 15% after references, tables and figures are excluded. A numerical score is not proof of plagiarism and is never interpreted mechanically. Editors evaluate the nature, source, amount and location of overlap. Serious plagiarism or concealed redundancy may result in rejection regardless of the score.

Fabrication, Falsification and Image Integrity

Fabrication is the creation of data, observations or results that did not exist. Falsification includes manipulation, selective deletion, inappropriate transformation or misrepresentation of data, methods, images or results.

Image adjustments are acceptable only when applied consistently and when they do not obscure, remove, introduce or misrepresent information. Splicing, cloning, selective enhancement or removal of features must not be used to alter scientific meaning. Editors may request original, uncropped and unprocessed image files, instrument outputs, laboratory records or raw datasets.

Authors must not invent standard deviations, error values, statistical significance, grouping letters, replications or observations. Statistical analyses must be based on genuine data and accurately reported methods.

Duplicate, Redundant and Concurrent Publication

A manuscript must not be submitted to more than one journal at the same time and must not substantially duplicate a published or accepted work. Fragmenting one study into multiple minimally publishable papers without a clear independent contribution is discouraged and may constitute redundant publication.

Related manuscripts and overlapping datasets must be disclosed at submission and provided to the editor on request. Legitimate secondary publication requires prior agreement of the editors and transparent citation of the primary publication.

Posting a genuine preprint does not normally constitute prior publication. Authors must disclose the preprint and provide its DOI or URL. Following publication, the preprint record should be updated with a citation and link to the EJSS version of record.

Data, Materials and Reproducibility

Authors are expected to retain underlying data and research documentation for a reasonable period and to provide them to the editor when necessary for evaluation or an integrity investigation. Data should be deposited in a recognised repository whenever ethical, legal, contractual and practical conditions allow.

Every article must contain a Data Availability Statement explaining where the data can be found or why access is restricted. Restrictions involving personal data, protected locations, confidential agreements, endangered species or legal limitations must be clearly explained. Data, code and supplementary material must be described accurately and must correspond to the reported analyses.

Ethical Oversight, Consent and Permits

Research involving human participants, identifiable personal information or surveys must comply with applicable ethical standards and state the name of the approving committee, approval number where applicable, and the consent procedure. Research involving animals must comply with relevant institutional and national welfare requirements and report ethics approval.

Field sampling, work in protected areas, collection of protected species, use of genetic resources, import or export of biological material and access to restricted locations require the relevant permissions. Authors must provide permit details when applicable. Research involving genetically modified organisms, hazardous chemicals, unusual procedures or significant environmental risks must describe the required safety and regulatory compliance.

If ethics approval was not required, the manuscript should state this and provide a brief justification where the issue may not be self-evident.

Competing Interests and Funding

Authors, reviewers and editors must disclose financial and non-financial interests that could reasonably be perceived to influence their work or decisions. Such interests may include employment, consultancy, stock ownership, patents, honoraria, paid testimony, personal relationships, academic competition, institutional responsibilities or strongly held intellectual positions.

Authors must identify all funding sources and grant numbers and describe the funder’s role in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation and the decision to publish. The absence of funding or competing interests must also be stated.

Disclosure does not necessarily prevent publication. The purpose is to allow transparent assessment and appropriate management.

Citation Integrity

Citations must be accurate, relevant and read by the authors. Authors must not add references solely to increase citations to themselves, colleagues, an institution or a journal. Editors and reviewers must not pressure authors to include unnecessary citations. Citation cartels, coercive citation and systematic citation manipulation are prohibited.

Peer-Review Manipulation, Paper Mills and Fraudulent Submissions

EJSS does not tolerate manipulation of the submission or peer-review process. Prohibited conduct includes:

·         fabricated reviewer identities or contact information;

·         impersonation of authors, reviewers or editors;

·         undisclosed control of reviewer accounts;

·         coordinated or compromised peer review;

·         submission of purchased, fabricated or paper-mill manuscripts;

·         sale or purchase of authorship;

·         falsified affiliations, email addresses, ethics approvals or supporting documents; and

·         attempts to influence editorial decisions through personal, institutional or financial pressure.

Reviewer identities and qualifications may be independently verified through institutional profiles, publication records, ORCID or other reliable sources. Suspicious submissions may be placed on hold while verification is undertaken.

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Generative AI tools cannot be authors because they cannot approve the final work, accept accountability or disclose conflicts of interest. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, citations, confidentiality and integrity of all submitted content.

Any substantive use of generative AI in writing, coding, analysis, image generation, translation or another part of the research or manuscript preparation must be transparently disclosed, including the tool, version, purpose and human verification performed. Routine spelling or grammar checking that does not generate substantive content need not be declared.

Generative AI must not be used to fabricate, alter or enhance research data or evidentiary images. AI-assisted methods used as part of the research must be described in sufficient detail to be evaluated and reproduced. Authors must not upload confidential, copyrighted, personal or otherwise protected material to an external AI system without appropriate authorisation.

Identification and Investigation of Suspected Misconduct

Concerns may be raised by editors, reviewers, authors, readers, institutions or other parties through the journal’s official contact channel. Allegations should identify the relevant article or manuscript and provide specific supporting information where possible. Anonymous concerns may be considered when they contain sufficient verifiable evidence.

The journal follows a fair and proportionate process:

1.      The concern is documented and assessed confidentially by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor.

2.      The available evidence is reviewed to determine whether further inquiry is warranted.

3.      The author or other affected party is informed of the substantive concern and given an opportunity to respond.

4.      Original data, ethics documents, image files, contribution records or other evidence may be requested.

5.      When the matter requires powers beyond the journal’s authority, the relevant institution, funder, ethics committee or regulatory body may be asked to investigate.

6.      The journal evaluates the available findings and takes action necessary to protect the scholarly record.

The journal does not determine legal guilt and will not conduct an institutional investigation on behalf of an employer. It may, however, preserve evidence, suspend processing, seek expert advice and cooperate with authorised investigations. Information is shared only with those who need it for a legitimate inquiry, subject to legal and ethical obligations.

Editorial Actions and Sanctions

Depending on the nature, severity and evidence, EJSS may:

·         request clarification, correction or additional documentation;

·         suspend editorial evaluation while a concern is investigated;

·         reject or withdraw a manuscript from consideration;

·         remove an invalid reviewer report and obtain a new independent review;

·         publish a correction, retraction or expression of concern;

·         notify all authors and, where justified, relevant institutions, funders, ethics bodies or other journals;

·         decline to consider related submissions until an investigation is resolved; or

·         take another proportionate action consistent with COPE guidance.

Institutional notification is not automatic and will occur only when supported by the seriousness and credibility of the concern. Actions are based on the available evidence and the need to maintain an accurate scholarly record, not on an author’s status or affiliation.

Corrections, Retractions and Expressions of Concern

Material errors that do not invalidate the central findings are corrected through a clearly labelled and permanently linked correction notice. Minor typographical errors that do not affect meaning may be corrected without a formal notice when appropriate.

An article may be retracted when its findings are unreliable because of major error or misconduct, when it reports unethical research, when plagiarism or redundant publication is established, or when authorship or peer review has been seriously compromised. Retraction is intended to correct the literature, not to punish authors. The retracted article remains identifiable in the scholarly record and is linked to a notice stating the reason and basis for the action.

An Expression of Concern may be published when there is credible evidence of a serious problem but the investigation is incomplete, inconclusive or unreasonably delayed. Notices are linked bidirectionally to the affected article and are included in journal metadata where technically possible.

Complaints and Appeals

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, peer-review procedure, publication ethics or journal policies should be submitted through the journal’s official contact channel with the manuscript or article identifier and a clear explanation of the concern. Complaints are acknowledged and assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or, when a conflict exists, by an independent senior editor or designated member of the governing body.

Authors may appeal a rejection when they can demonstrate a substantial factual error, procedural irregularity, unmanaged conflict of interest or serious misunderstanding that could have affected the decision. An appeal must be concise, evidence-based and respectful. Disagreement with reviewers’ academic judgment alone is not sufficient. Where practicable, the appeal is considered by an editor who was not solely responsible for the original decision. The outcome of the appeal is final.

Complaints about the Editor-in-Chief are referred to an appropriate independent representative of FESSS. No person should suffer retaliation for raising a concern in good faith.

Confidentiality and Data Protection

Submitted manuscripts, peer-review reports, correspondence, personal data and allegation files are handled confidentially and accessed only for legitimate editorial purposes. Confidential information may be disclosed when required by law, necessary to protect research participants, or needed for a properly authorised integrity investigation.

Post-Publication Discussion

EJSS welcomes evidence-based scholarly comments and credible notifications of error. Post-publication criticism is evaluated on its scientific content and supporting evidence. When a published response, correction or other notice is warranted, it is linked to the article to preserve the transparency of the scholarly record.

Policy Review

This policy is reviewed periodically and may be updated to reflect changes in international publication-ethics guidance, legal requirements, editorial practice and publishing technology. The policy in force on the journal website applies to current submissions and editorial actions.