Ethical Publishing Guidelines

Ethical Publishing Guidelines for JNRSP

Commitment to Ethical Standards

The Journal of Narcotics Research and Sustainable Practices (JNRSP) adheres to the highest standards of ethical publishing, guided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Every participant—authors, reviewers, editors, and readers—agrees to uphold these principles when interacting with JNRSP. This ethical policy shapes our criteria for selecting research articles for publication and emphasizes our dedication to transparent and honest research dissemination. For those interested in a deeper understanding of our ethical guidelines and publication policies, more information is available at COPE.

Publisher Duties and Responsibilities

  1. Editorial Decision Assurance: JNRSP pledges that all editorial decisions on manuscript submissions are conclusive, following an unbiased process.
  2. Impartial Judgement: Decisions are driven purely by professional judgment, unaffected by external commercial interests.
  3. Upholding Integrity: We are committed to preserving the authenticity of academic and research records.
  4. Monitoring Ethics: Our ethics policies extend to all parties—Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, editorial board members, reviewers, authors, and readers.
  5. Vigilance Against Plagiarism: JNRSP rigorously checks manuscripts for plagiarism and fraudulent data to maintain high standards.
  6. Corrections and Retractions: We readily publish necessary corrections, clarifications, or retractions to maintain transparency and trust.

Editorial Duties and Responsibilities

  1. Authority in Manuscript Decisions: Editors have complete authority to accept or reject submitted manuscripts, exercising professional judgment.
  2. Confidentiality: Editors must safeguard the confidentiality of manuscripts under review until publication.
  3. Collaborative Decisions: The Editor-in-Chief, along with editors and reviewers, makes final decisions regarding manuscripts’ publication.
  4. Reviewer Anonymity: Editors ensure that reviewers’ identities remain confidential to encourage candid feedback.
  5. Conflict of Interest: Editors are expected to disclose and actively avoid conflicts of interest in the review process.
  6. Upholding Academic Standards: Editors must protect academic integrity and balance the interests of both readers and authors.
  7. Addressing Ethical Violations: Editors are proactive in investigating potential plagiarism or fraudulent data and publish corrections when necessary.
  8. Focusing on Content Quality: Editorial decisions are based solely on the intellectual quality of the submissions.
  9. Information Confidentiality: Editors must not disclose any manuscript information to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and the publisher, when necessary.
  10. Protecting Unpublished Work: Editors may not use unpublished material from submissions for their research without explicit permission from the author.

Reviewer Duties and Responsibilities

  1. Advisory Role: Reviewers assist editors in determining whether manuscripts should be published, providing essential input.
  2. Confidential Review Process: Reviewers are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the manuscripts they review.
  3. Timely Feedback: Reviewers should offer timely feedback to support editorial decisions.
  4. Professional Conduct: Information obtained through peer review should be confidential and not used for personal gain.
  5. Objective Evaluations: Reviewer comments must be constructive, technical, and objective.
  6. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must recuse themselves from manuscripts where conflicts of interest exist.
  7. Transparency in Conflicts: Reviewers are also expected to disclose and avoid any conflicts of interest.

Author Duties and Responsibilities

  1. Originality and Clarity: Manuscripts must be written in clear English and be original, properly attributing all sources.
  2. Exclusive Submission: Authors are responsible for submitting manuscripts that are not under review or published elsewhere.
  3. Co-author Approval: The submitting author must ensure that all co-authors approve the manuscript’s submission and potential publication.
  4. Peer Review Contribution: Authors are encouraged to participate in the peer review process by reviewing others’ work.
  5. Institutional Approval: Authors must confirm institutional approval for their work if required.
  6. Editing Permission: Authors agree to necessary readability edits on their submissions.
  7. Funding Transparency: Authors should disclose any funding sources or sponsor contributions to the research.
  8. Corresponding Author: All co-authors should allow the corresponding author to liaise with the editorial office regarding the manuscript.
  9. Error Notification: If an author identifies a significant error in their published work, they are obliged to notify the editor for correction or retraction.
  10. Anti-Plagiarism Policy: All submissions undergo plagiarism screening; authors should ensure their work is original and compliant.
  11. Submission Checklist Compliance: All authors must verify that they have followed the final submission checklist before sending manuscripts to JNRSP.

Through these clear and robust ethical policies, JNRSP strives to uphold a rigorous, respectful, and transparent publishing environment, ensuring that all published research contributes meaningfully to the scientific community. We are dedicated to maintaining a standard of integrity that fosters trust among readers, researchers, and the academic community at large.

Transparency and Integrity Standards for JNRSP

Core Transparency Principles

  1. Peer Review Process: JNRSP operates with a rigorous double-blind peer review, ensuring both reviewers and authors remain anonymous for impartial feedback. This peer review process is detailed on our website, where authors and reviewers can find policies governing review standards and procedures.
  2. Editorial Board and Governance: Our editorial board comprises respected experts across the journal’s diverse scope, ensuring that each submission is evaluated with authority and integrity. Details on board members’ expertise and affiliations are available on our editorial team page.
  3. Contact Information: JNRSP maintains open communication, with complete contact information for the editorial office available here, making it easy for anyone to reach out with inquiries or concerns.
  4. Open Access and Fees: JNRSP is fully open-access, allowing unrestricted access to our database of articles at no charge to readers. Authors are responsible for a publication fee of 150,000 Iraqi Dinars to cover processing and access costs.
  5. Research Misconduct Prevention: Our Editor-in-Chief takes proactive steps to prevent research misconduct, using tools like plagiarism-check software to catch issues like data falsification, fabrication, or citation manipulation before publication.
  6. Website Quality Assurance: The JNRSP website is a resource dedicated to maintaining high standards in both ethics and professionalism, with all essential journal information readily accessible.
  7. Unique Journal Identity: The Journal of Narcotics Research and Sustainable Practices (JNRSP) maintains a unique identity that distinguishes it clearly from other publications, minimizing confusion.
  8. Conflict of Interest Transparency: During submission, authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest through a Conflict of Interest Disclosure form, supporting integrity throughout the review and publication process.
  9. Publishing Schedule: JNRSP publishes twice yearly, with schedules and timelines transparently listed on our journal website.
  10. Archival Policy: JNRSP has a robust plan for electronic backup and preservation to ensure permanent access to published content, detailed here.

Addressing Publication Ethics Violations

  1. Plagiarism: JNRSP considers plagiarism—using another’s ideas or words without proper citation—a severe breach of ethics. All submitted work is screened with CrossCheck powered by Turnitin software, which helps confirm originality. Plagiarism in any form will result in immediate rejection.
  2. Data Fabrication and Falsification: Falsifying data, whether by creating fake data or manipulating results, violates JNRSP’s core values. Such misconduct undermines research credibility and will not be tolerated.
  3. Simultaneous Submissions: Submitting a manuscript to multiple journals concurrently is against our policy. Authors must ensure that JNRSP has exclusive consideration for their manuscript.
  4. Duplicate Publications: Publishing the same findings across multiple papers without proper citation is prohibited. Authors must cross-reference any related publications accurately.
  5. Redundant Publications: Dividing study outcomes into multiple papers to pad publication records is discouraged. Our focus is on publishing meaningful, consolidated findings.
  6. Proper Attribution of Authors: Only contributors with significant input to the research should be listed as authors. This includes acknowledging those who provided essential assistance, like students or lab technicians.
  7. Citation Manipulation: Excessive, irrelevant citations intended solely to boost citation counts for specific authors or journals is a serious violation. JNRSP enforces strict penalties for citation manipulation.
  8. Sanctions for Misconduct: Consequences for violating JNRSP’s ethical guidelines are significant, including the immediate rejection of manuscripts, a 36-month ban on future submissions for the offending authors, and removal from any editorial roles.

Steps for Handling Ethical Misconduct

Upon confirming a breach of ethics, JNRSP takes the following actions:

  1. Initial Notification: The journal editor reaches out to the corresponding author with relevant evidence, requesting an explanation in a neutral tone.
  2. Escalation: If the explanation is inadequate, the case may be escalated to the editorial board, where serious infractions may result in a submission ban.
  3. Minor Infractions: Lesser issues may result in a formal warning and a reminder of JNRSP’s ethical policies. In some cases, an apology may be published to set the record straight.
  4. Notification of Co-authors: The corresponding author and any co-authors are notified of the decision, and all current submissions are rejected.
  5. Editorial and Review Prohibition: Offending authors may be prohibited from serving on JNRSP’s editorial board or reviewing future manuscripts.
  6. Institutional Notification: Severe misconduct may lead to notifying the authors’ affiliated institutions, with a potential five-year ban from JNRSP.
  7. Retraction Notices: In cases of confirmed fraud, a retraction notice will be posted and linked to the retracted article online, clearly marked with the date of retraction.

Complaints and Appeals Process

JNRSP welcomes thorough and well-supported appeals against editorial decisions. Appeals are initially reviewed by the editor, and if justified, may involve the editorial board or external reviewers for re-evaluation. We strive to handle complaints with transparency and in alignment with COPE standards, addressing all concerns pre- and post-publication.

If needed, allegations will be escalated to the appropriate institution for investigation. Pending investigation outcomes, corrections or retractions are issued, with a digital object identifier (DOI) link to enhance transparency. Articles will only be removed in rare cases where public interest warrants such action, ensuring a permanent, trustworthy record.