Publication ethics and malpractice statement
General approach to ethics
All research activities must respect fundamental ethics
principles, including those reflected in the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union These principles
include the need to ensure the freedom of research and the
need to protect the physical and moral integrity of
individuals and the welfare of animals.
Ethics is an integral part of research from beginning to
end, and ethical compliance is seen as pivotal to achieve
real research excellence. There is a clear need to make a
thorough ethical evaluation from the conceptual stage of the
publication not only to respect the legal framework but also
to enhance the quality of the research. Ethical research
conduct implies the application of fundamental ethical
principles and legislation to scientific research in all
possible domains of research.
Publisher the journal follows the recommendations and core
practices of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, https://publicationethics.org/core-practices)
regarding ethical policies and dealing with misconduct.
Misconduct includes falsifying data, plagiarizing others'
works, and breach of confidentiality. Each case will be
considered by the publisher and Editor-in-Chief, and in all
cases the author (or reviewer) will be contacted directly.
However, the publisher reserves the right to speak directly
to the author's or reviewer's institution or other
appropriate organization if severe misconduct is suspected.
Note that if misconduct is suspected during the review
process the manuscript will be held until any concerns have
been resolved. If misconduct is confirmed during the review
process the manuscript will be immediately rejected. If
misconduct is proved after publication then the article will
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues (JSSI) is committed to
upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and
takes all possible measures against publication malpractice.
Authors who submit papers to JSSI attest that their work is
original and unpublished, and is not under consideration for
publication elsewhere. In addition, authors confirm that
their paper is their own; that it has not been copied or
plagiarized, in whole or in part, from other works; and that
they have disclosed actual or potential conflicts of
interest with their work or partial benefits associated with
DUTIES OF EDITORS
Decision on the Publication of Articles
The Editors in Chief of JSSI are responsible for deciding
which of the articles submitted to the journal should be
published. The Editors in Chief may be guided by the
policies of the journal's editorial board and subjected to
such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright
infringement and plagiarism. Decision making Editor in Chief
may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this
Review of Manuscripts
Peer review methodology
JSSI journal uses external experts to help evaluate articles
and assist the editors to make a decision.
When articles are submitted they will be checked and any
that appear out of scope of the journal, or otherwise
unsuitable for consideration, will be rejected immediately.
All other original research articles will be sent out for
review. Reviewers are selected based on their experience of
the subject matter of the article. They may be selected from
the Editorial Board of the journal as well as from
elsewhere. The journal editorial offices and editors will
identify suitable experts and invite them to review. Some
journals welcome suggestions from authors, but reserve the
right to select their own reviewers. Equally, if authors
have a good reason to request that a particular person
should be excluded from review (e.g. because they are
working in a competing laboratory), then they may say this
when they submit the article. However, the editors'
judgement of reviewer is final.
The journals operate a single-blind method of peer review.
This means that the authors' names are disclosed to the
reviewer, but the reviewer names are not disclosed to the
authors. If the authors have a specific reason why their
name should be blinded from the reviewers they may request
this on submission.
Invitations are sent to reviewers and the articles are only
sent to them when they agree to review. The reviewing
operation is managed through the submission system.
Reviewers are given between 2-3 weeks to return their review
(some journals set their own time limit), and reminders are
sent. However the journal cannot guarantee a time to
decision since reviewers may be late, or there may be
problems in finding the right reviewer. In all cases the
journal editorial office will endeavour to manage the
process as speedily as possible.
When the editors have received at least 2 reviews they will
make a decision.
Ethical peer review – guideline for reviewers
Publisher complies with
the Committee on Publication Ethics Guidelines for Peer
which provides a comprehensive guide to the ethics of peer
Each submission is checked for suitability when received by
the editorial office, and may be rejected without review if
it is outside the scope of the journal, is obviously of
insufficient quality, or is missing important sections.
The journal invites external experts (not only Editorial
Board members) to review each article that is considered
suitable for consideration. The publication decision is made
by the Editor-in-Chief after receiving at least two external
reviewer reports with recommendations.
Authors are encouraged to suggest suitable reviewers, but
the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial office reserves the
right to select different reviewers. The reason for asking
authors to suggest reviewers is that they are best placed to
know who is an expert in the field. In addition, the
suggested reviewers may be suitable for other articles on
the same topic. Therefore, obtaining these names can help
the editorial office to ensure that it is approaching
suitable people to review all articles.
The journal uses single-blind peer review, which means that,
by default, author names are revealed to reviewers but
reviewer names are withheld from the authors. Authors can
request to "blind" their names.
On receipt of at least two reviews, the Editor-in-Chief will
make a decision of (1) accept, (2) minor revision, (3) major
revision, or (4) reject. The reasons for the decision will
be communicated to the authors.
When the decision of minor/major revision is made, and the
authors do not revise their articles satisfactorily after
receiving reviewer reports, then the Editor-in-Chief
reserves the right to reject the article. When revised
articles are received they will either be sent out for
further review or the Editor-in-Chief will make a decision
depending on the level of revision requested.
The time to review and make a decision is extremely variable
since it is sometimes difficult to find suitable reviewers,
and there may be delays in receiving reviewer reports. The
Editor-in-Chief and editorial office make all efforts to
minimize the time from submission to first decision. The
journal aims to make a first decision (after review) within
40–60 days, but cannot guarantee this.
Note that articles that do not report original research
(e.g. letters to the editor, editorials) are not externally
reviewed and the Editor-in-Chief makes the decision to
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
A Conflict of Interest is defined as a situation where
personal relationships (e.g. friend, colleague or family),
business relationships (e.g. working in a competing
company), or financial influences (e.g. funding) will affect
the judgement of any person during the publication of the
Authors are required to declare (within the article and to
the Editor-in-Chief) any Conflict of Interest (COI) that may
have affected their research (e.g. funding) or decision to
submit to the journal.
Reviewers are required to declare if they have any Conflict
of Interest (COI) that may affect their judgement of any
article they review. The COI may not prevent them reviewing
the article, but must be declared to the Editor-in-Chief as
soon as it is known.
Editors are excluded from any publishing decision in which
they may have a Conflict of Interest (COI). For example, if
an article by a colleague of the Editor-in-Chief is
submitted to the journal, the peer review and all editorial
decisions will managed by another editor.
Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual
merit without regard to authors’ race, gender, sexual
orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship,
or political philosophy.
The Editors in Chief/editors 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
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS
In case, any reviewer feels that it is not possible for
him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated
time then the same must be communicated to the editor, so
that the same could be sent to any other reviewer.
Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors
should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no
personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express
their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has
not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been
previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the
relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor
in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap
between the manuscript under consideration and any other
published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
What reviewers are asked to do
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the articles for the
Is there a
clear objective for the article (e.g. a clear research
author make suitable reference to other work in the same
area of research?
methodology suitable to support the research?
reporting of findings clear and complete (so far as can be
tables and figures support the text?
discussion and conclusions accurately reflect on the
Is the title
suitable for the article?
Is there any
suspicion of ethics violation?
Reviewers are asked to always be polite and constructive in
their report, and never to be abusive or to make unjustified
criticisms of the work.
DUTIES OF AUTHORS
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
Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection
with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to
provide public access to such, if practicable, and should in
any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable
time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written entirely
original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or
words of others this must be appropriately cited or quoted.
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.
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.
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
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.
* Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000/C 364/01. See