Publication Ethics

International Journal of Aquatic Research and Environmental Studies is not a member on Committee of Publication Ethics. Ethic statements of the International Journal of Aquatic Research and Environmental Studies are based on COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) best practice guidelines for journal editors.

Authors’ Duties:

When an author submits a manuscript to INJOERE, the manuscript should be original and has not been previously published or under review by other journals.

If the authors have used the work/and or words of others, it must be appropriately cited or quoted. The corresponding author is responsible for co-authors whether they have any conflict of interest to declare. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors are included on the article, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its submission to the Journal for its publication.

Any type of plagiarism is unacceptable and is considered unethical publishing behavior. Such manuscripts will be rejected. 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.

The corresponding author has the right to withdraw the article at any stage prior to its publication in the journal.

Editors’ Duties:

The editor-in-chief has complete responsibility and authority to accept, reject or request modifications to the manuscript based on the reviewers’ and relevant editor evaluation of the manuscript and policies of the journal editorial board.

Originality and quality of paper, clarity of presentation and relevance to publication’s scope should be the only sole characteristics for accepting or rejecting any manuscript. Rejections should not be made based on suspicions. Editors should find out a solution for ethical issues and problems including conflict of authors regarding their published or unpublished papers.

That information pertaining manuscripts should be kept confidential. The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, editorial advisers, and the publisher.

Reviewers’ Duties:

All manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents.  They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor-in-chief.

The reviewers should be experts in the corresponding field of research, and should be selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge. The reviewer cannot be the author (authors) of the manuscript and scientist who has a conflict of interest (e.g. a supervisor and his/her subordinate, a scientific adviser and his/her student).

The reviewer should comment on any ethical concerns raised by the study, or any possible evidence of low standards of scientific conduct. The reviewer’s comments to the author should be constructive and professional.

The review should provide the editor the proper context and perspective to make a decision on acceptance (and/or revision) of the manuscript.

The peer-review process should be completed as soon as possible.

AI Usage Guidelines

In light of evolving technologies, this journal recognizes the role of generative AI tools in academic writing and peer review. The following policy outlines the responsible and ethical use of such tools by authors, reviewers, and editors.

 For Authors

1. Allowed:
   • Use of generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini) for improving grammar, clarity, or formatting is acceptable.
2. Not Allowed:
   • Generating research findings, analysis, data interpretation, or reference content through AI tools.
   • Using AI-generated content without proper oversight or fact-checking.
   • Listing AI as a contributor or co-author.
3. Required Disclosure:
   • Any use of AI must be transparently declared in the manuscript.
     Example: “The authors used ChatGPT to support grammar editing. All intellectual content is original and the authors bear full responsibility.”
4. Responsibility:
   • Authors must ensure that AI use does not compromise originality, integrity, or the scientific value of the work.

 For Reviewers

1. Permitted:
   • AI may be used for grammar checks or for summarizing text to aid understanding — strictly for personal use.
2. Prohibited:
   • Uploading manuscript text to public AI platforms for evaluation or comment generation.
   • Submitting AI-written reviews or relying on AI to form opinions on the manuscript.
3. Confidentiality:
   • Manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers must not share, store, or process manuscript content through external AI services.
4. Best Practice:
   • Reviews must reflect the reviewer’s independent judgment and academic expertise.

For Editors

1. Appropriate Use:
   • AI tools may assist in editorial communication, metadata organization, or reviewer identification — under strict human supervision.
2. Inappropriate Use:
   • Editorial decisions regarding acceptance, rejection, or ethical evaluation must not be based on AI recommendations.
3. Data Privacy:
   • Editors must ensure AI usage complies with privacy regulations and protects the integrity of submitted content.
4. Oversight Role:
   • Editors should remain alert to AI misuse and enforce policy violations in accordance with ethical publishing standards.