Allegations of Misconduct

1. Preamble

The Forest and Nature Journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity in research and publication. This policy outlines the procedures for addressing allegations of misconduct related to work submitted to or published in the Journal. Our aim is to ensure a fair, transparent, and timely process for all parties involved, thereby safeguarding the credibility of the scientific record. This policy is guided by principles recommended by organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Definition of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct includes, but is not limited to, the following:

• Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
• Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
• Plagiarism: The appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit. This includes self-plagiarism (redundant publication) where an author republishes substantial parts of their own previously published work without appropriate citation or justification.
• Authorship Issues:
  • Gift Authorship: Including individuals as authors who have not made a substantial contribution to the research.
  • Ghost Authorship: Omitting individuals who have made a substantial contribution and meet authorship criteria.
  • Disputes regarding the order or contribution of authors that cannot be resolved by the authors themselves.
• Undeclared Conflicts of Interest: Failure to disclose financial or other interests that could be construed as influencing the research or its interpretation.
• Ethical Violations in Research:
  • Failure to obtain necessary ethical approvals for research involving human or animal subjects.
  • Violation of established ethical guidelines in the conduct of research.
• Simultaneous Submission/Duplicate Publication: Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently, or publishing substantially similar work in more than one journal without proper cross-referencing or justification.
• Breach of Confidentiality: Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information related to submitted manuscripts or reviewer identities.
• Systematic Efforts to Manipulate the Peer Review Process: For example, by creating fake reviewer accounts or coercing reviewers.

3. Reporting Allegations of Misconduct

• Who Can Report: Any individual or entity who suspects misconduct in relation to a manuscript submitted to or published in the Forest and Nature Journal.
• How to Report: Allegations should be made in writing to the Editor-in-Chief or the Journal's dedicated editorial office for misconduct (e.g., [editorial-misconduct@forestnaturejournal.org]).
• Content of Report: The report should include:
  • Clear identification of the manuscript or published article in question (e.g., manuscript ID, title, authors, DOI).
  • A detailed description of the alleged misconduct.
  • Specific evidence supporting the allegation (e.g., copies of documents, data, relevant citations). Anonymous allegations may be considered, but the ability to investigate them may be limited if insufficient evidence is provided.
• Confidentiality: The identity of the whistleblower will be kept confidential to the extent possible and permissible by law, and efforts will be made to protect them from retaliation.

3.1. Initial Assessment

• Upon receipt of an allegation, the Editor-in-Chief (or a designated editorial committee member) will conduct an initial assessment to determine if the allegation is credible, specific, and falls within the scope of this policy.
• This initial assessment may involve a preliminary review of the submitted evidence and the manuscript/article in question.
• If the allegation is deemed to be frivolous, lacking sufficient evidence, or outside the Journal's purview, it may be dismissed at this stage. The whistleblower will be informed of this decision.
• If the allegation warrants further investigation, the Journal will proceed to the formal investigation phase.

3.2. Investigation Process

• Notification: The corresponding author (and potentially other relevant authors) of the manuscript/article in question will be notified of the allegation and provided with the details and evidence, unless doing so would compromise the investigation or the safety of the whistleblower. They will be allowed to respond to the allegations.
• Gathering Evidence: The Journal will take reasonable steps to gather all relevant information and evidence. This may include:
  • Requesting additional information from the whistleblower.
  • Requesting data, materials, or explanations from the authors.
  • Consulting with relevant experts or reviewers (while maintaining confidentiality).
  • Contacting the authors' institution(s) if the misconduct is serious or if the institution is better placed to conduct a full investigation (e.g., in cases of data fabrication).
• Confidentiality: All parties involved in the investigation (editorial staff, reviewers, authors, whistleblowers) are expected to maintain strict confidentiality throughout the process.
• Impartiality and Objectivity: The investigation will be conducted impartially and objectively, ensuring a fair hearing for all parties. Individuals with conflicts of interest will be excluded from the investigation process.
• Timeliness: The Journal will strive to complete investigations promptly, although the complexity of some cases may require extended periods. Regular updates will be provided to the relevant parties as needed.

3.3. Findings and Sanctions

Based on the evidence gathered, the Editor-in-Chief (in consultation with the editorial board or a dedicated ethics committee, if applicable) will determine whether misconduct has occurred.

• No Misconduct Found: If the investigation concludes that no misconduct has occurred, all parties will be informed. The Journal will consider whether any further action is necessary to clear the names of individuals who have been wrongly accused.
• Minor Misconduct: If minor errors or breaches are found (e.g., minor plagiarism, unacknowledged overlap), the Journal may require:
  • Issuance of a correction (Erratum or Corrigendum).
  • An apology from the authors.
• Serious Misconduct: If serious misconduct is confirmed (e.g., fabrication, falsification, extensive plagiarism), the Journal may impose one or more of the following sanctions:
  • Rejection of the manuscript if it is under review.
  • Retraction of the published article by the COPE guidelines. A notice of retraction will be published, clearly stating the reasons for the retraction.
  • Notification to the authors' institution(s) and/or funding bodies.
  • The imposition of a ban on the authors from submitting to the Forest and Nature Journal for a specified period.
  • Reporting the case to the relevant professional bodies or regulatory authorities.

3.4. Appeals Process

• Authors who are found to have committed misconduct and have sanctions imposed will be allowed to appeal the decision.
• Appeals must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within a specified period (e.g., 30 days) from the notification of the decision.
• The appeal must clearly state the grounds for the appeal and provide any new evidence that was not available during the initial investigation.
• The appeal will be considered by a panel independent of the initial investigation (e.g., senior members of the editorial board not previously involved, or an external ethics advisor).
• The decision of the appeals panel will be final.

3.5. Confidentiality Post-Investigation

While the Journal aims for transparency, details of investigations will generally remain confidential to protect the privacy of individuals involved. However, if misconduct is confirmed and results in a public action (e.g., retraction), the Journal will publish necessary information to correct the scientific record.

3.6. Protection for Whistleblowers

The Forest and Nature Journal is committed to protecting whistleblowers who report misconduct in good faith. The Journal will take all reasonable steps to ensure that whistleblowers are not subjected to retaliation as a result of their report.

3.7. Record Keeping

The Journal will maintain confidential records of all allegations, investigations, and outcomes for a reasonable period, in accordance with data protection regulations and best practices.

4. Policy Review

This policy will be reviewed periodically and updated as necessary to reflect evolving best practices in publication ethics.