Ethical Standards and Editorial Policy

Our Editorial and Peer Review Policy

Our editors and reviewers are experts in their respective fields and are entrusted with overseeing the peer review process and ensuring the integrity of the journal’s content. Their responsibilities include managing the peer review of manuscripts, making recommendations regarding acceptance or rejection, and attracting high-quality submissions. The following guidelines are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and best practices for journal editors

1. ETHICAL EXPECTATIONS

1.1. Responsibilities of Editors

Diligence:
Editors must thoroughly evaluate every manuscript submitted for publication to ensure that it presents a significant contribution—either by developing a new subject or providing novel insight into an existing one. The Editor-in-Chief (EiC) of EJSD bears sole and independent responsibility for determining which manuscripts are suitable for publication. This decision must be supported by the validity and relevance of the work to the research community and readership. Editors may be constrained by legal considerations such as libel, copyright infringement, or plagiarism, and should comply with the legal requirements of the country or region in which the study was conducted, provided sufficient methodological detail is included.

Fairness:
Editors must perform their duties in a fair, objective, and impartial manner, without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, or ethnic or geographical origin. Manuscripts submitted for special issues or sponsored supplements must be treated with the same rigor as regular submissions, and decisions should be based solely on academic merit without commercial influence.

Confidentiality:
Editors must protect the confidentiality of all submitted materials and communications with reviewers, unless disclosure is agreed upon with the relevant parties. Unpublished data, ideas, or information obtained through the peer review process must not be used for personal gain or included in an editor’s own research.

Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Complaints:
Editors must follow fair procedures when handling ethical complaints or conflicts of interest, as outlined by the journal’s policies. Authors must be given a fair opportunity to respond. Complaints should be investigated regardless of when the publication occurred, and all associated documentation must be retained.

1.2. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Diligence:
Reviewers must contribute to editorial decisions and help improve manuscript quality by conducting objective, thorough, and timely reviews.

Objectivity:
Reviews should be impartial and free from personal bias. Reviewers must present their evaluations clearly, supported by sound reasoning.

Confidentiality:
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of all information provided by editors or authors. Unpublished data or ideas encountered during the review must not be used for personal benefit.

Conflicts of Interest and Ethical Issues:
Reviewers must inform editors of any conflicts of interest (e.g., financial, institutional, collaborative) and recuse themselves if necessary. They must also report any significant similarities between the manuscript under review and other published or submitted works.

1.3. Responsibilities of Authors

Accuracy and Data Retention:
Authors must ensure the accuracy of data in their submissions and provide access to data upon reasonable request. When possible, data should be stored in publicly accessible repositories for transparency and reuse.

Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources:
Authors must confirm that all submitted content is original. They must cite all sources appropriately and obtain permission to reproduce previously published content. If the manuscript includes overlapping material with other works, this must be acknowledged and cited, and a copy of the related manuscript must be provided to the editor.

Authorship:
Only individuals who made substantial intellectual contributions to the work should be listed as authors. Contributions limited to technical support, funding acquisition, or administrative oversight do not qualify for authorship and should instead be acknowledged.

Use of Human or Animal Subjects:
Authors must ensure that research involving human or animal subjects complies with ethical standards (e.g., Declaration of Helsinki, EU Directive on Animal Use). Necessary approvals must be obtained and documented, and the privacy and consent of human participants must be respected.

Conflicts of Interest:
Authors must disclose any real or perceived conflicts of interest that could influence the review or publication process.

Manuscript Integrity:
Authors must promptly notify the editor of any errors or inaccuracies identified post-publication. Corrections, retractions, or relevant notices must be issued in cooperation with the editor.

1.4. Responsibilities of the Publisher

The European Center of Sustainable Development (ECSDEV) is committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing. ECSDEV supports editors and reviewers in maintaining academic integrity and ensuring best practices are observed across all publications. While nurturing the scholarly communication process, ECSDEV is ultimately accountable for the ethical management of its journals.

2. PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR

Identification of Misconduct

Unethical conduct may be reported to the editor or publisher at any time by anyone. Misconduct includes but is not limited to the breaches outlined above. All allegations must be supported by sufficient evidence to enable a proper investigation and will be treated with seriousness and impartiality.

Investigation

Initial evaluation should be conducted by the editor, in consultation with the publisher if necessary. Information must be handled discreetly, and only those who need to be informed should be involved.

Minor Misconduct:
These cases may be resolved without broader consultation. Authors must be allowed to respond.

Serious Misconduct:
In cases of serious ethical breaches, the editor and publisher may inform the accused party's institution or employer. This decision will be based on the evidence and expert consultation.

Possible Outcomes (in ascending order of severity)

Educating the author/reviewer on acceptable standards
Issuing a formal warning
Publishing a notice of misconduct
Publishing an editorial outlining the issue
Notifying the author’s/reviewer’s institution or funding body
Retracting or withdrawing the paper
Imposing a submission embargo
Reporting to regulatory or professional bodies

3. SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF (EiC)

The EiC must relay reviewers’ full comments to authors, unless the comments are inappropriate.
The EiC should acknowledge the work of reviewers publicly or privately.
The EiC has a duty to investigate suspected misconduct, whether the paper is published or unpublished.
The EiC must not reject papers solely on the basis of suspected misconduct without first seeking a response from the authors.
If unsatisfied with the response, the EiC should notify the appropriate institution or governing body.
The EiC must ensure that all allegations are thoroughly investigated and pursue resolution if needed.
Constructive criticism of published work should be welcomed. Authors must be given the chance to respond, and negative results should not be excluded.
The EiC must respond to complaints promptly and ensure that a process exists for appeals.

For complaints, contact: editor@ecsdev.org