Ethics and Malpractice

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Introduction:
Manuscripts submitted to Current Horticulture are evaluated solely based on their scientific content. The journal follows the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures to prevent malpractices. Authors submitting papers to our journal affirm that their work is original, unpublished, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere. Additionally, authors confirm that their paper is their own original work, free from any form of plagiarism, and that appropriate citations and attributions are provided for works of others. Our publication ethics and malpractice statement is based on the guidelines for journal editors developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Duties/Responsibilities of Editors:
The Editorial Team of Current Horticulture, comprising the Editorial Board and the Editorial Staff with the Publisher, is responsible for making decisions about which articles submitted to the journal are to be published. The Editors have complete discretion to reject or accept an article. The Editorial Team may confer with other reviewers or editors in arriving at their decisions. Manuscripts are evaluated solely based on their scholarly and intellectual content, without any consideration of the authors' identity, gender, race, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. The journal adheres to a policy of fair play in its editorial evaluation. The editors are expected to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and ensure that they have no such conflicts with respect to the articles they accept or reject. The editors and editorial staff are committed to maintaining strict confidentiality and will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, and the publisher. Authors are encouraged to address any errors found during the review process while preserving the anonymity of the reviewers.

Duties/Responsibilities of Reviewers:
Editorial decisions are based on peer review. Reviewers are expected to maintain absolute confidentiality regarding the contents of manuscripts. Reviews are to be conducted objectively, and reviewers should provide clear and well-supported feedback. Reviewers should have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the subject matter of the research. Reviewers are required to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors and alert the editors to any observed similarities or overlaps with other published papers. Information obtained through peer review is privileged and must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should decline review invitations for manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties/Responsibilities of the Authors:
Authors are required to present an accurate account of the original research work and provide an objective discussion of its significance. The paper should contain sufficient details of the literature and references. All authors must have significantly contributed to the research. Fraudulent and knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Authors must ensure that the submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere. If the authors have used the work of others, appropriate citations and attributions must be provided. Copyrighted materials should be reproduced only with permission and proper acknowledgment. Authors should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to multiple journals concurrently. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be made. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the submitted paper. All contributors should be listed as co-authors. Those who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the paper's development should also be acknowledged. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All sources of financial support should be disclosed. In the event of discovering any significant error in the published work, it is the responsibility of the authors to promptly notify the editors and cooperate in the retraction or correction of the paper.

Publication Responsibility:
The journal takes reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of manuscripts involving research misconduct. In the case of seriously flawed articles, complete retraction will be carried out. The journal demonstrates its commitment to maintaining high ethical and professional standards. Editors will promptly respond to any possible misconduct in the publishing process, including by authors and reviewers. Copyright and licensing information shall be clearly described on the journal website. The journal will outline plans for electronic backup and preservation of access to the journal content in the event that the journal is no longer published.

Corrections and Retractions:
In the case of errors identified in published articles, the publisher will consider appropriate action, consulting the editors and the authors' institution(s) as needed. Errors by the authors may be corrected by a corrigendum, while errors by the publisher may be corrected by an erratum. If errors significantly affect the conclusions or evidence of misconduct is found, retraction or an expression of concern following the COPE Retraction Guidelines may be required. All authors will be asked to agree to the content of such notices.

Peer Review Policy for Current Horticulture:
The practice of peer review is integral to maintaining the high standards of Current Horticulture. All manuscripts are subjected to peer review, where reviewers' identities remain anonymous to authors throughout the process.

How the Reviewer is Selected:
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, matching their subject areas with the manuscript under review. The reviewer database contains contact details and subject classifications, continually updated to ensure accuracy.

Reviewer Reports:
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript's originality, methodological soundness, adherence to ethical guidelines, clarity of results and conclusions, and appropriate referencing of previous relevant work. Reviewers are requested to refrain from giving their personal opinion on whether the paper should be published in the "Reviewer blind comments to the Author" section. Personal opinions can be expressed in the "Reviewer confidential comments to the Editor" section.

How Long Does the Peer Review Process Take?
Typically, manuscripts will be reviewed within 2-8 weeks. In cases where reviewers' reports contradict or are significantly delayed, additional expert opinions may be sought. Revised manuscripts are usually returned to the Editors within 3 weeks, and further advice from the reviewers may be sought. The Editors may request more than one revision of a manuscript.

Final Report:
A final decision, along with any recommendations made by the reviewers and any verbatim comments, will be communicated to the author.

Editor's Decision is Final:
Reviewers advise the Editors, who are ultimately responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Special Issues / Conference Proceedings:
Special issues and conference proceedings may involve different peer review procedures, such as Guest Editors or scientific committees. Authors contributing to such projects will receive full details of the peer review process from the editorial office upon request.

Becoming a Reviewer for Current Horticulture:
If you wish to be considered as a reviewer for Current Horticulture, please contact the editorial office at acspublisher@gmail.com and provide your contact details. If approved, you will be added to the online reviewer database, and you will be asked to add details of your expertise in the format of subject classifications.