Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The Indian Journal of Arid Horticulture is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures to prevent publication malpractice. The journal follows the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines for editors, reviewers, and authors.

We expect all parties involved in the publication process—editors, reviewers, authors, and the publisher—to adhere to the highest standards of ethical behavior.

1. Duties of Editors

a. Fair Play and Editorial Independence

Manuscripts are evaluated solely on their academic merit—originality, scientific quality, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope—without discrimination based on gender, ethnicity, citizenship, or political and institutional affiliation.

b. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are treated with strict confidentiality. Information is only shared with relevant editorial staff, reviewers, or the publisher.

c. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Editors must not use unpublished data for personal research without the author’s explicit consent and must withdraw from handling manuscripts in case of conflicts of interest.

d. Publication Decisions

Submissions undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent experts. Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer recommendations, scientific merit, and compliance with legal and ethical standards.

e. Ethical Oversight

In case of suspected misconduct or unethical practices, editors will initiate appropriate investigations, possibly leading to correction, retraction, or other actions.

2. Duties of Reviewers

a. Contribution to Editorial Decision

Reviewers assist in editorial decisions and help improve the manuscript through constructive feedback.

b. Promptness

Reviewers who cannot complete the review in time must inform the editors promptly.

c. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share or use the information for personal advantage.

d. Objectivity and Standards

Reviews should be objective and supported with clear arguments. Personal criticism is not acceptable.

e. Acknowledgment of Sources

Reviewers should identify uncited relevant work and report plagiarism or substantial similarity to other publications.

f. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest and recuse themselves if necessary.

3. Duties of Authors

a. Reporting Standards

Authors must present accurate data and an objective discussion of its significance. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements are unethical.

b. Data Access and Retention

Authors should retain raw data for a reasonable time and be ready to share if needed for verification.

c. Originality and Plagiarism

All work must be original, with proper citations for any reused content. All forms of plagiarism are unethical.

d. Duplicate or Concurrent Publication

Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal or publish redundant data.

e. Authorship Criteria

Only those who have made significant contributions should be listed as authors. All co-authors must approve the final version of the manuscript.

f. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

All financial or other conflicts must be disclosed at submission.

g. Ethical Considerations

If research involves humans or animals, proper ethical approvals must be obtained and reported.

h. Corrections

Authors must cooperate in correcting or retracting articles found to contain significant errors.

4. Duties of the Publisher

ACS Publisher ensures:

  • Ethical oversight of all published content.

  • Permanent availability and accessibility of content through digital preservation and partnerships.

  • Immediate action in case of unethical publishing behavior such as retraction, errata, or clarification.

Peer Review Policy

  • Type: Double-blind peer review.

  • Process: All manuscripts undergo initial editorial screening followed by peer review by at least two field experts.

  • Timeframe: Reviews are typically completed within 4–6 weeks; delays are communicated transparently.

  • Final Decision: Based on reviewers’ feedback and Editor-in-Chief’s assessment.