Quick Search:       Advanced Search

Ethics/Malpractice Statement


Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions (SCAR) follows the recognized publication ethics. We firmly oppose plagiarism in any form. Authors submitting articles to the journal should affirm that manuscript contents (including articles, pictures, photos, graphics, layout, list of column names, classification and so on) are original. They should also warrant that their article has neither been published elsewhere in any language fully or partly, nor is it under review for publication anywhere. The editors, authors and reviewers of SCAR should perform the following duties, and adhere to the submission guidelines and other requirements of the journal to ensure the scientific nature and innovation of scientific papers publishing in SCAR.



Duties of Editor

1. Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject or request modifications to the manuscript.

2. Editors should have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject/accept.

3. Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality, making use of appropriate software to do so. After passing this test, the manuscript is forwarded to two reviewers (each from a different institution and not from the authors' institutions) for single-blind peer review, whom will make a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript. The names of reviewers are confidential and not shared, unless express permission is granted by the reviewers.

4. The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by SCAR is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors.



Duties of Authors

1. Authors should present an accurate account of their original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Manuscripts will follow the submission guidelines of SCAR.

2. Author should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. The author should not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal.

3. Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in their research work.

4. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors.



Duties of Reviewers

1. Manuscript reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. If the reviewers find plagiarism or a manuscript cast more phenomenon, they should immediately tell the editor.

2. Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

3. Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders.

4. Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.

5. When a reviewer feels it is not possible to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.



Retractions and Corrections

1. Editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabri­cation) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error); the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication); it constitutes plagiarism; it reports unethical research.

2. Notices of retraction should be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (i.e., in all electronic versions); clearly identify the retracted article (e.g., by including the title and authors in the retraction heading); be published promptly to minimize harmful effects from misleading publications.

3. Editors should consider issuing a correction if a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error); the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e., a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).