The ethical principles for the Vallis Aurea (Journal of Sustainable Development and Innovation) are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
The Editorial Board is committed to following these internationally accepted principles. The adopted ethical principles are binding for the Editorial Board, reviewers and authors.
AUTHORS
The expected duties of authors are to present an accurate account of their work and objectively discuss its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain significant detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. The duty of authors:
EDITORS
Editors, and members of the editorial board of our journal Vallis Aurea (Journal of Sustainable Development and Innovation) , are committed to proper and professional behaviour in all aspects of our publishing operations. Our goal is to publish original high-quality papers which have value to the scientific community according to the highest possible standards. We expect similar standards from our reviewers and authors.
Honesty, originality and fair dealing on the part of authors, and fairness, objectivity and confidentiality on the part of editors and reviewers are among the critical values that enable us to achieve our aim.
Submissions to the Vallis Aurea (Journal of Sustainable Development and Innovation) authored by the editors or the employees of the Faculty of Tourism and Rural Development Pozega or the editorial board and advisory board members will be handled in such a way as to ensure unbiased reviews. Editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Submissions authored by the editors or employees of the FTRR are considered by an appropriate advisory board member, whereby the advisory board member also chooses two reviewers, not employees of the FTRR.
Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be considered, even if it is discovered years after publication. In conjunction with the publisher, the editors should take reasonable, responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Such measures will generally include contacting the authors of the manuscript or published paper and giving due consideration to 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 another note, as may be relevant.
Editors should be accountable for everything published in the Vallis Aurea (Journal of Sustainable Development and Innovation). This means the editors should:
Editors of the Vallis Aurea (Journal of Sustainable Development and Innovation) :
EDITORIAL BOARD
The publisher will establish a suitably qualified editorial board whose members can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal. Editorial board members are aware of their membership role in the Vallis Aurea (Journal of Sustainable Development and Innovation) . Their expected functions and duties are:
The editors are obliged to consult editorial board members at least once a year to gauge their opinions about the journal’s running, inform them of any changes to the journal’s policies and identify future challenges.
The editors have the right to update the list of the editorial board according to the journal’s needs.
REVIEWERS
The peer review process is an independent quality control procedure for articles submitted to the journal. It is vital for enhancing published research’s quality, credibility and acceptability. The expected duties and responsibilities of the reviewers are:
Ethical complaints
The editors should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper in conjunction with the publishers’ code of ethics. Such measures will generally include contacting the authors of the manuscript or published paper and considering the complaints or claims made. Still, they 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 may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be considered, even if discovered years after publication.
Retraction Policy
If errors are found that are so significant that the article cannot remain in the journal, they will be removed and replaced with a note stating the reason for the retraction.
If plagiarism is found, a whole article will be removed from the journal and replaced with a note indicating the authors´ names and description of the plagiarism. Authors and their institutions will be notified.
Process for identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct
Publishers and editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication. In no case shall a journal or its editors encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow it to occur. If a journal’s publisher or editors are made aware of any alleged research misconduct relating to a published article, the publisher or editor shall follow COPE’s guidelines (or equivalent) in dealing with allegations.
Journal policies will be revised if required, considering the new findings in journal editing and publishing and the effects of journal policies on authors’ and reviewers’ behaviour.
In addition, peer reviewers should be aware of all other detailed COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and use them in the review process.
The journal will adopt procedures for detecting plagiarism in submitted items and act under Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE: http://publicationethics.org/).