Publishing Ethics and Integrity Statement

At its core, the World Journal of Environmental Biosciences is committed to the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct throughout the publication process — from the moment a manuscript is submitted, through publication, and for as long as it remains part of the scientific record afterward. This isn't a formality for us; it's grounded in leading international guidelines, most notably those of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which we consult closely whenever a question of ethics or conduct arises.

Our ethical framework rests on three pillars: transparency, so decisions and processes can be understood and scrutinized rather than hidden; accountability, so everyone involved answers for their role; and trust, built continuously among authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher alike. These three are inseparable — transparency without accountability is just disclosure, and accountability without trust rarely holds up over time.

1. The Foundation of Ethical Research and Publication

We strictly follow the ethical requirements for research involving human subjects set out in the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki. This document has served for decades as the cornerstone of ethical medical research worldwide, and we treat it as a non-negotiable baseline rather than an optional recommendation. Every manuscript submitted to this journal is expected to meet that same standard, regardless of where the research was conducted or which national regulations applied locally.

Reference: the full text of the declaration is available at wma.net.

2. Research Involving Human and Animal Subjects, and Vulnerable Populations

Human subjects: Any research involving human participants, human data, or human-derived materials must clearly demonstrate compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. A passing mention in the methods section isn't enough — authors must explicitly confirm that their study was reviewed and approved by an appropriate institutional ethics committee (such as an Institutional Review Board or its local equivalent), naming that committee and its approval reference where applicable.

Informed consent: Documented, written informed consent from all human participants — or from their legal guardians, where a participant cannot consent themselves — is mandatory and must be explicitly stated in the manuscript. Its absence is treated as a serious gap, not a minor oversight.

Vulnerable populations: Some studies necessarily involve participants who are particularly susceptible to coercion or undue influence — children, patients with cognitive disabilities, incarcerated individuals, or people in institutional care, among others. Because these participants often can't advocate for themselves the way other adults can, we ask for a higher level of documentation whenever such groups are involved. Authors must provide:

• A specific ethical justification for including this particular vulnerable group rather than a less vulnerable population.

• A detailed account of how informed assent was obtained from participants themselves, wherever developmentally or clinically possible, alongside consent from a legally authorized representative.

• A clear description of the concrete measures taken to protect participants' privacy, dignity, and broader rights throughout the study.

Animal subjects: Research involving animals must conform to whichever institutional or national animal welfare guidelines are more stringent. Authors must confirm that every procedure was designed to minimize distress, pain, and suffering, and that the full protocol was reviewed and approved in advance by a relevant ethics or animal care committee.

3. Handling Misconduct, Corrections, and Retractions

We maintain a firm, structured policy for addressing allegations of publication malpractice, following the COPE Core Practices closely rather than improvising case by case. A predictable, consistent process protects everyone involved — the accused as much as the accuser — far better than ad hoc decisions would.

Publication malpractice, as defined by COPE, includes data fabrication, data falsification, plagiarism, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and duplicate or redundant submission of the same work to more than one venue. Any credible allegation in these areas triggers a formal investigation.

Corrections: If a published article contains a significant error that doesn't compromise the overall scientific validity of its findings, we issue a formal correction notice rather than editing the article quietly. This notice is permanently linked to the original article and clearly describes both the nature of the error and the correction made.

Retractions: Articles may be retracted in more serious cases — confirmed research misconduct such as fabrication or plagiarism, or major ethical breaches that undermine confidence in the work. A formal retraction notice is published, stating the grounds for retraction, and it remains permanently visible on the article's page rather than being quietly removed from the record.

Investigating misconduct: Allegations are investigated in line with COPE guidelines, following a defined sequence. The publisher and editors share joint responsibility for launching an investigation once a credible concern is raised, contacting the authors' home institution where necessary, and taking whatever action the findings warrant — a correction, a retraction, or, where the concern doesn't hold up, no action at all.

4. Responsibilities of Stakeholders

Ethical publishing depends on every party doing their part — no single stakeholder can guarantee integrity alone.

5. Authorship, Originality, and Data Integrity

Originality and plagiarism: All submissions must be original, unpublished work. This covers not only wholesale copying but subtler forms of self-plagiarism, where authors recycle substantial portions of their own previously published text without disclosure.

Authorship (ICMJE criteria): Authorship must be based on substantial intellectual contribution — not seniority, funding, or institutional affiliation. Any change to the author list, whether adding, removing, or reordering names, requires the written consent of every author, submitted to the editorial office before the change is made.

Data availability and integrity: Authors must be prepared to provide access to relevant source data upon reasonable request from editors, reviewers, or readers, so others can genuinely verify and reproduce the research. Refusing such requests without adequate justification may itself be treated as a red flag during review.

Use of AI tools: Authors must disclose the use of any AI tools in preparing their manuscript — whether for drafting text, analyzing data, generating figures, or any other substantive contribution — so readers and reviewers have a complete and honest picture of how the manuscript was produced.

Harassment Policy

The journal holds a zero-tolerance policy toward harassment or discrimination directed at authors, reviewers, editors, or staff, in any form and at any stage of the publication process. Concerns raised under this policy are taken seriously and addressed promptly.