Publication ethics and malpractice statement
PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
(Based on existing Scopus requirements and Committee on Publication Ethics)
The editorial staff of the Journal Ornamental Horticulture follows ethics norms accepted by international scientific community and makes every endeavor to prevent any infringements of the norms. The editorial board follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (http://publicationethics.org) and all of this is therefore expected of all parties involved: Editors, Reviewers and Authors.
All submitted papers are subject to blind peer-review process by reviewers (Ad doc) that are experts in the area/theme of the particular paper. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection. The authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, but there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
- Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
- Articles may be rejected without review if they are obviously not suitable for publication.
- The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
When a conflict of interests arising, all the participants of reviewing process should inform the editorial staff.
The accepted papers are allocated in open access on the journal site and the copyrights are reserved.
An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The reviewers evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
The editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the text is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Peer review assists the publisher in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the experts from the scientific staff and the author may assist the author in improving the paper.
Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents and are reviewed by anonymous staff (double-blind peer review).
A reviewer should also call to the publisher's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Authors of contributions and studies research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. A paper should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely review works, if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been obligatory and appropriately cited or quoted.
Submitting the same manuscript to more than one publication concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Sources of financial support for the reported results can be thankful at “Acknowledges”.