Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Our ethic statements are based on
COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Ethical guidelines for journal publication
The publication of an article in the peer-reviewed journals published by REABIC
( Aquatic Invasions,
and Management of Biological Invasions)
is process of permanent knowledge improvement.
It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them.
It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing:
the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.
Duties of Authors
• Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed
as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper.
A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.
Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
• Data Access and Retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review,
and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (please see also Data Publication Policy of REABIC journals),
and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
• Originality and Plagiarism
The 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 and sufficiently cited or quoted.
• Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially
the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.
Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes
unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
• Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties,
must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source.
Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications,
must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
• Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception,
design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant
contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain
substantive aspects of the relevant research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version
of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
• Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards
inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. Relevant codes of ethics, with regard
to the use of human or animal subjects should be cited.
• Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive
conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript.
All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts
of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria,
paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
All sources of support (financial and technical) and details thereof should be named in the acknowledgements section.
These include grants, honoraria, industrial, academic and editing support.
• Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work,
it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate
with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns
from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation
of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor
of the correctness of the original paper.
Duties of Editors
• Publication decisions
The editor of the GR is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published.
The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements
as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
• Fair play
An editor must at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation,
religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone
other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
• Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express
written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential
and not used for personal advantage. Editors should excuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor
or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they
have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with
any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all
contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed
after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
• Involvement and cooperation in investigations
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning
a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society).
Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving
due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications
to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction,
retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing
behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
Duties of Reviewers
• Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial
communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
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.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
• Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
• Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported
should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention
any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other
published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
• Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential
and not used for personal advantage. 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.