Publication Ethics

At GreenTech, we uphold the highest ethical standards in scholarly publishing to ensure the integrity, credibility, and transparency of research. We are committed to preventing academic misconduct, unethical research practices, and conflicts of interest while fostering a culture of honesty and responsibility among authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher.

This Publication Ethics policy outlines the responsibilities of all parties involved in the publication process and establishes clear guidelines for ethical research, authorship, peer review, editorial integrity, and post-publication corrections.

1. Responsibilities of Authors

1.1. Originality and Plagiarism

  • Authors must submit original research that has not been previously published or is under consideration elsewhere.
  • Any form of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, data fabrication, image manipulation, or duplicate submission, is strictly prohibited.
  • Manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software, and violations will result in immediate rejection or retraction.

1.2. Authorship and Contribution Transparency

  • Authorship should be based on significant contributions to the research, including:
    1. Study conception, design, data collection, or analysis.
    2. Drafting or critical revision of the manuscript.
    3. Final approval of the version to be published.
    4. Accountability for the integrity of the research.
  • The corresponding author must ensure that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no qualified contributor is omitted.
  • Contributors who do not meet these criteria should be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section.

1.3. Data Integrity and Research Transparency

  • Authors must provide accurate and complete data with clear explanations of methods and findings.
  • Any data fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting is considered unethical and will lead to rejection or retraction.
  • Raw data should be retained for at least five years after publication and made available upon request for verification.

1.4. Ethical Compliance for Human and Animal Research

  • Research involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data must comply with recognized ethical guidelines.
  • Authors must provide:
    • Ethical approval statements from a recognized ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB).
    • Informed consent documentation for human studies.
    • Compliance with animal welfare regulations if applicable.

1.5. Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

  • Authors must disclose any financial, institutional, or personal relationships that could influence the research.
  • Funding sources, affiliations, or any potential conflicts must be fully disclosed in the manuscript.

2. Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

2.1. Fair and Objective Evaluation

  • Peer reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively based on scientific merit, originality, clarity, and relevance.
  • Reviews should be constructive and professional, avoiding personal criticism of authors.

2.2. Confidentiality

  • Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and refrain from sharing, discussing, or distributing manuscript content.
  • Unpublished data or ideas obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage.

2.3. Conflicts of Interest

  • If a reviewer has a financial, professional, or personal relationship with the authors that could affect their judgment, they must decline the review invitation.
  • Reviewers should recuse themselves if they:
    • Have collaborated with the authors in recent years.
    • Work at the same institution as the authors.
    • Have competing research interests in the same subject area.

2.4. Reporting Ethical Concerns

  • If a reviewer suspects plagiarism, data manipulation, or unethical research practices, they should report it confidentially to the editorial team for investigation.

3. Responsibilities of Editors

3.1. Editorial Independence and Unbiased Decision-Making

  • Editors must ensure that manuscripts are evaluated solely on academic merit, without political, institutional, or commercial influence.
  • The double-blind peer-review process ensures that editorial decisions are impartial and based on quality.

3.2. Handling Research Misconduct and Retractions

  • Editors will investigate allegations of:
    • Plagiarism or duplicate submission.
    • Data fabrication, falsification, or unethical research practices.
    • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • If misconduct is confirmed, corrective actions may include:
    • Rejection of the manuscript.
    • Retraction of a published article.
    • Author blacklisting for repeated violations.

3.3. Post-Publication Corrections and Retractions

  • The journal allows for corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern if errors or ethical concerns are identified after publication.
  • Authors must cooperate in resolving post-publication issues in a transparent and responsible manner.

4. Responsibilities of the Publisher

4.1. Transparency and Open Access Commitment

  • GreenTech follows a Diamond Open Access model, meaning that all articles are freely accessible without subscription fees or author charges.
  • The journal ensures that its editorial and ethical policies are transparent, clearly defined, and publicly available.

4.2. Copyright and Licensing

  • All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), allowing unrestricted sharing and adaptation with proper attribution.
  • Authors retain copyright of their work while allowing others to use it for educational and research purposes.

5. Handling Complaints and Appeals

5.1. Author Appeals

  • If an author disagrees with an editorial decision, they may submit a formal appeal with a detailed justification.
  • Appeals will be reviewed by the editorial board, and a final decision will be communicated within a reasonable timeframe.

5.2. Complaints Against the Journal

  • Complaints about editorial practices, peer review misconduct, or ethical violations can be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief for investigation.
  • The journal will handle complaints transparently and fairly, following best ethical practices.