EDITORIAL POLICY AND ETHICAL GUIDELINES 

Journal of Biopesticides employs the principles of publishing ethics and set of editorial and publishing policies outlined below to prevent unfair publishing practices. Authors, editors, and reviewers are expected to be aware of, and comply with best practice in publication ethics.

Progress in Ecofreindly Pest Control adheres to the doctrines consistent with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) included in the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL EDITORS

Timeliness of the publication process: Editor is accountable for everything published in a journal. The decision to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality, the study’s validity and its relevance to the theme of the journal.

Fair play rule: The submitted articles are evaluated based on their quality and importance for the journal regardless the nationality, ethnicity, political views, gender, race or religion of the authors.

Confidentiality and compliance with ethical standards: Editor must obey and protect the confidentiality of the material submitted to the journal while it remains under review at every stage of the publication process, except for information disclosed by the scientific journal on the website and in printed version. The editor is responsible for compliance with the codes of editorial ethics by authors and reviewers.

Disclosure of information and conflict of interest: Information obtained during publishing process and also from unpublished papers should not be used neither by editors nor reviewers without the written permission of the author. Editor is responsible for confidentiality relating to the peer-review process and reliability of being published papers. Editor should act impartially and have systems for managing their own conflicts of interest and that neither professional nor institutional connections and personal beliefs influence the decisions regarding the peer-review process.

Addressing allegations or findings misconduct: Editor may decide to withdraw the submitted manuscript if the work is plagiarized, if it contains the material that is copyright protected, the authorship is uncertain and the paper content is either fabricated or falsified. The Editorial Board takes appropriate action if there is suspected or alleged misconduct regarding both published and unpublished papers. The editor might publish an erratum, withdraw the manuscript, present the case to an entity of institution that the author is affiliated to and take appropriate legal steps.

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR REVIEWER

Participation in editorial decisions : The reviewer supports the editor and Editorial Board in making editorial decisions in the publication process. A reviewer performing a thorough review has an impact on the final shape of the published work.

 Timeliness: The reviewer should agree to review a manuscript for which he/she has the appropriate knowledge and only if he/she is fairly confident that a review can be completed within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame.

 Confidentiality: The reviewer is required to respect the confidentiality of peer-review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the process.

 Standards of objectivity: The reviewer should provide an objective and constructive assessment, and feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. Personal criticism and derogatory personal comments to authors are inappropriate behavior.

 Confirmation of source: The reviewer should suggest to the author the publications regarding the manuscript subject which are not included in the manuscript. Any resemblance of the evaluated manuscript to the work of other authors should be reported to the editor.

 Disclosure of information and conflict of interest: Information obtained in the process of peer-review cannot be used for the personal benefits. Reviewers are obliged to inform the editor and the Editorial Board if there is any potential conflict of interest; for instance, the reviewer works at the same institution as any of the authors and they have either joint grant or close collaboration, or they have close personal relationship.

 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR AUTHOR

Access and storage of data: The author should keep accurate records of the source data associated with the submitted manuscript and may be asked to provide access to this data during the publishing process.

 Originality and plagiarism: The author should confirm that the submitted manuscript is original and all cited works of other authors should be presented in an appropriate manner. Plagiarism is treated as unethical and improper behavior.

 Duplication and competitiveness: The author should confirm that the manuscript submitted for publication has been neither published nor is in the process of review in another journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is inconsistent with the code of publishing ethics and results in the withdrawal of the work from publication.

Authorship: Authorship should be limited to these who substantially were involved in study conception, data collection, or data interpretation, and the design of the manuscript. The author is required to indicate all co-authors contributing to the publication, as well as to obtain consent for publication from them. All authors are accountable for the integrity of a published work. Publishing practices such as ghostwriting and guest authorship are a manifestation of scientific misconduct.

 Disclosure of information and conflict of interest: The author should disclose information about the sources of financing the publication, the contribution of scientific and research institutions, associations and other entities, and report to the editorial office any potential conflicts of interest.

 Errors in published papers: The author should immediately notify the editors if he/she notices significant errors in the submitted material. The Editorial Board will remove or correct any errors by publishing an erratum, annex, correcting or withdrawing the publication. It is the responsibility of the authors to carefully check the work at a reviewing stage to avoid significant errors and mistakes.