Editorial ethics of Forestry and Forest Melioration is consistent with the ethical standards as prescribed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in Guidelines on Good Publication Practice and Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
Materials that have already been published in other journals cannot be published in Forestry and Forest Melioration.
The authors are responsible for the accuracy of the information in the articles, statistics, names and citations. The authors are fully personally responsible for the authenticity of the content of the articles. They must always refer to publications that have influenced the course of research or the interpretation of the results of the article.
Permission to use tables, figures and large quotations from other sources should be obtained or confirmed by the primary authors.
The list of authors should include persons who participated in the formation of the concept, planning, implementation or interpretation of the research results.
Persons who contributed to the implementation of certain aspects of the research or gave advice should be named in the “Acknowledgments” section.
All co-authors should read the final version of the article and agree with its submission for publication.
Authors should inform about any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be interpreted as influencing the results or their interpretation.
Sources of financial support for the study should be indicated.
If the author reveals a significant error or inaccuracy in his published article, he should immediately notify the editor-in-chief or the responsible secretary of the journal and publish the corresponding amendments in the next issue.
The reviewers assist the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and may help the author in improving the quality of the paper.
The Editor-in-Chief determines whether the article fits the profile of the journal, and sends it to the review expert who is close to the theme of the article scientific specialization. The timing of review in each case is determined by the Editor-in-Chief to create conditions for the most rapid publication of the article.
If, during the review of the manuscript, the reviewer feels that his qualifications are insufficient on the issues covered in the article, or lack of time, he should inform the editor-in-chief, who will have to find another reviewer.
The manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. The reviewers cannot use for own research purposes without the author's clear written consent.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
The reviewers should indicate, if necessary, the titles of additional publications on the subject of the reviewed manuscript, which the authors did not discuss. Any statement that the observations, conclusions or suggestions have already been published must be corroborated by reference.
Reviewers should notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interests.
Requirements for editor-in-chief and editorial board
The final decision on the publication of articles is made by the editor-in-chief, taking into account the journal’s policy, the scientific value of the material and the opinion of reviewers in compliance with modern rules regarding defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism. He can consult with members of the editorial board and reviewers.
The editor-in-chief evaluates the manuscripts without taking into account the previous merits of the authors, race, ethnic origin, gender, religion, citizenship, sexual orientation, age and academic position or the political philosophy of the authors.
The ideas, assumptions, hypotheses, scientific positions expressed in the articles do not necessarily have to coincide with the views of the editor-in-chief and the editorial board.
The editors and any other editorial staff should not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers and potential reviewers.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper should not be used by the Editor-in-Chief or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author's clear written consent.
In the event of conflicts of interest with the authors, the Editor-in-Chief and any member of the editorial board are exempt from the obligation to review the manuscript. If a conflict of interest is found after the publication of the manuscript, the editorial board should publish the relevant amendments as a message in the next issue of the journal.
Forestry and Forest Melioration responds to all claims or doubts about violations related to research or publications that readers, reviewers, or other persons may express.