Ethics

Articles submitted to the journal should not have been published before in their current or substantially similar form, or be under consideration for publication with another journal. Authors submitting articles for publication warrant that the work is not an infringement of any existing copyright and will indemnify the publisher against any breach of such warranty.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Authors publishing allowed by the journal retain all rights.  All articles are made freely available to readers upon publication. Our open access policy follows the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition. For more information, please read the BOAI statement.


Successful academic publishing depends largely on trust and, therefore, transparency. Editors trust peer reviewers, and authors must trust editors to select these peer reviewers. A successful journal is built on trust and a robust framework of responsibility, accountability and transparency. This ethics statement draws on the recommendations of COPE, the ethical frameworks outlined by Chris Graf et al. in Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics: A Publisher’s Perspective, and the ethical standards of Elsevier. The Editorial Board of the Central Asian Journal of Water Research adheres to the recommendations of the International Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE), a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting integrity in research and its publication. Throughout this statement, relevant COPE resources are linked.

Queries regarding the ethics statement of CAJWR can be sent to cajwr@dku.kz.

Duties of the Editor

The responsibilities of the editor are expansive and cover multiple stages of publication. The editor is solely responsible for deciding which articles submitted should be published. Their decision may be guided by the politics of the journal’s editorial board and limited by external requirements such as libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.[1] The editor’s decision to accept or reject a paper for publication should only be based on the paper’s importance, originality, clarity, quality and relevance to the journal. Moreover, the editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual merit, irrespective of the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnicity, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors. When nominating potential editorial board members, the editor shall account for the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation.

The journal’s editorial policies should encourage transparency and complete, honest reporting, and the editor should ensure that peer reviewers and authors clearly understand what is expected of them. The editor will ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased and timely. Research articles must be typically reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and when necessary, editors should seek additional opinions. Editors shall follow best practices in avoiding the selection of poor or fraudulent peer reviewers and, therefore, must closely review conflicts of interest between the peer reviewer and the author and any suggestions for self-citation by the reviewers. The editor shall, therefore, uphold a transparent mechanism for appeal against editorial decisions and transparency as to the funding and role of funders in the research for readers.

Declared Mechanism for Authors to appeal against Editorial decision

Editors are obliged to declare, and make clear a mechanism by which authors can appeal against editorial decisions. At CAWJR, this mechanism has been lifted from COPE’s recommendations.[2]

Journal Metrics

Editors will not artificially inflate or manipulate journal metrics to benefit or detriment any individual, organisation, or group of individuals.

Confidentiality

Editors will uphold and protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers unless otherwise agreed upon in writing with the relevant authors and reviewers.

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted Technologies

            In line with the obligation to protect confidentiality, a submitted manuscript must be treated as a confidential document. Therefore, editors should never upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool, as this may violate the author’s confidentiality and proprietary rights. Where the paper contains personally identifiable information, it may also breach data privacy rights. This is also the case for letters of acceptance and correspondence mentioning any information about the manuscript.

Declaration of competing interests

            Any potential conflicts of interest involving the editor should be declared in writing prior to the appointment and updated as needed. The editor cannot be involved in decisions about papers they, their relatives, or colleagues have written or papers concerning products affiliated with the editor.[3]

Vigilance over the Published Record

            The editor should uphold the published record’s integrity by reviewing and assessing reported or suspected misconduct. Editors must act if they suspect misconduct, irrespective of whether the paper has been published.  This process includes contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving sincere consideration to the claims made. It may also include communications with the relevant institutions and research bodies. Editors cannot simply reject papers that raise concerns about possible misconduct and are ethically to pursue alleged cases.[4]

Corrigendum

In light of the editor’s responsibility to uphold truth in the journal, a corrigendum will be issued as necessary to correct an error or omission that would impact the interpretation of data or the article but where the article’s scholarly integrity remains intact. The ethics framework of CAJWR delineates between major and minor errors. Major errors, when corrected, will be accompanied by a separate correction notice that should provide precise details of the errors and subsequent changes that have been made. A separate correction notice will not accompany any minor errors. Instead, a footnote will be added to the article detailing that the article has been corrected. This is based on the understanding that minor errors do not impact the reliability of, or the reader’s understanding of, the content.

In cases where authors wish to change their name following publication, CAJWR will update and republish the paper and redeliver the updated metadata to indexing services. Our editorial and production teams will use discretion in recognizing that name changes may be of a sensitive and private nature for various reasons, including (but not limited to) alignment with gender identity or as a result of marriage, divorce, or religious conversion. Accordingly, to protect the author’s privacy, we will not publish a correction notice to the paper or notify co-authors of the change. Authors should contact the journal’s Editorial Office with their name change request.[5]

Duties of the Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

The peer reviewer assists the editor in making editorial decisions and may also assist the author in improving the paper. The peer reviewer’s role embodies the scientific method. Hence, it is of the utmost importance that the peer reviewer observes good reviewing etiquette and should, therefore, treat others and their work as the reviewer themselves would want to be treated. In line with this, should the reviewer feel unqualified to review, they must notify the editor and decline to participate.

Confidentiality

As detailed in the duties of the editor, any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers can only share the review or information about the paper with people within the review process, and they can only contact the authors with express written permission from the editor. Any unpublished materials disclosed in a manuscript cannot be used in a reviewer’s research without the author’s explicit permission.

AI

Just as the editor’s duties outline, since the manuscript or paper is considered confidential, uploading it to AI software or AI-assisted software, as well as any communications that contain information about the manuscript, are explicitly prohibited. Violation of this would result in a breach of confidentiality, and in the case where personal information is included in the manuscript, potentially a breach of privacy codes.

Standards of objectivity

Editors must conduct reviews as objectively as possible, meaning they should be aware of their biases. Reviewers should consult the editors before agreeing to review a paper if they have potential conflicts of interest. Editors must, therefore, refrain from making personal criticisms, as they are inappropriate and deeply unprofessional. If a reviewer suggests the author must cite the reviewer’s work, this decision must be carefully considered and can only be for a genuinely scientific reason.

Duties of the Author

            The author should present accurate and transparent work and data to the best of their ability and knowledge. They must present a precise account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The paper should contain sufficient detail and references so that others can replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

             The underlying data of the research should be represented accurately and easily obtained, whether on request or in the formatting of the paper itself. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data if practical and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable number of years after publication.

Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources

            The authors should ensure that they have written original works, that all the work/words of others used are cited appropriately, and that permission, where necessary, has been obtained. Authors should also cite publications that have influenced the reported work and that give the work appropriate context within the larger scholarly record. Information obtained privately, for example, in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, cannot be used without explicit written permission from the source(s). Plagiarism in all forms constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication

            Generally, an author should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously is unethical behaviour and is unacceptable. Generally, an author should not submit a paper for another journal that has already been published except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, academic thesis or as an electronic preprint. However, there are exceptions: publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. clinical guidelines and translations of articles) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of all journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and conclusions as the primary document. The primary publication must be cited in the secondary publication. 

Authorship

Authorship should be limited to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors. In situations where others have participated in certain aspects of the paper (e.g., language editing or medical writing), they should be recognized in the acknowledgments section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

If the manuscript is submitted with a deceased author listed or an author passes away while the manuscript is being peer-reviewed. A footnote or similar should be added to the published article to indicate this. CAJWR uses a dagger symbol (†) with a footnote explaining the situation. A co-author should vouch for the deceased author’s contribution and their potential conflicts of interest. If the deceased author was the corresponding author, another co-author will be nominated. Note that copyright is considered personal property under the law. If the author had not yet signed a copyright transfer agreement or license or granted a co-author the right to do so on his/her behalf in writing, permission would need to be obtained from the author’s inheritor.[6]

AI

            Declaration of generative AI in scientific writing

Authors must declare the use of generative AI in scientific writing upon submission of the paper. The following guidance refers only to the writing process, and not to the use of AI tools to analyze and draw insights from data as part of the research process:

Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies should only be used in the writing process to improve the readability and language of the manuscript.

The technology must be applied with human oversight and control and authors should carefully review and edit the result, as AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete or biased. Authors are ultimately responsible and accountable for the contents of the work.

Authors must not list or cite AI and AI-assisted technologies as an author or co-author on the manuscript since authorship implies responsibilities and tasks that can only be attributed to and performed by humans.

The use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in scientific writing must be declared by adding a statement at the end of the manuscript when the paper is first submitted. The statement will appear in the published work and should be placed in a new section before the references list. An example:

Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process.

Statement: During the preparation of this work the author(s) used [NAME TOOL / SERVICE] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the published article.

The declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools, such as tools used to check grammar, spelling and references. If you have nothing to disclose, you do not need to add a statement.

Please note: to protect authors’ rights and the confidentiality of their research, this journal does not currently allow the use of Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies such as ChatGPT or similar services by reviewers or editors in the peer review and manuscript evaluation process. We are actively evaluating compliant AI tools and may revise this policy in the future.

[1] Refer to COPE’s flowcharts on Legal and Regulatory Restriction of Published and Unpublished Data: Dealing with Concern.

[2] Refer to COPE’s Ethics Toolkit for a Successful Editorial Office

[3] Refer to COPE’s flowcharts on Undisclosed Conflict of Interest in a Submitted Manuscript and Undisclosed Conflict of Interest in a Published Article for more detail on procedures used in CAJWR to address arising issues.

[4] Refer to COPE’s flowchart on Suspected Ethical Problem in a Submitted Manuscript

[5] For more information on how editors at CAJWR are expected to deal with authorship disputes, please refer to COPE’s flowcharts on authorship

[6] For more information on how CAJWR addresses changes in authorship, please refer to the relevant flowcharts produced by COPE.

Peer review policy

COPE has developed Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, to which CAJWR editors and the editorial board refer for guidance.

Further guidance on the ethics of peer review is available from many sources. For example, Rockwell presents guidance for reviewers. Hames’s book “Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice” presents useful recommendations and checklists.

All peer reviewers must follow these ethical guidelines for CAJWR articles in review:

  • Reviewers must give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted. They should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
  • Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before agreeing to review a manuscript. This includes any relationship with the author that may bias their review.
  • Reviewers must keep the peer review process confidential. They must not share information or correspondence about a manuscript with anyone outside of the peer review process.
  • Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer review report.
  • Reviewers must avoid making statements in their report which might be construed as impugning any person’s reputation.
  • Reviewers should make all reasonable effort to submit their report and recommendation on time. They should inform the editor if this is not possible.
  • Reviewers should call to the journal editor’s attention any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or submitted manuscripts of which they are aware.

To create an efficient, effective peer-review process, editors should:

  • Establish and maintain a secure database of suitably qualified peer reviewers that is compliant with data protection legislation.
  • Monitor the performance of peer reviewers for quality and timeliness. Peer reviewers who repeatedly produce poor quality, tardy, abusive, or unconstructive reviews should not be used again.
  • Carefully consider whether it is appropriate for authors to have the option to nominate peer reviewers or to request that particular individuals do not peer review their paper. Editors should remind authors that they should avoid nominating peer reviewers who have a conflict of interest. Editors are under no obligation to accept the authors’ nominations and it is advisable to ensure at least one peer reviewer not suggested by the authors reviews the paper. Editors should check the qualifications of all reviewers before issuing and invitation to review. It is especially important to verify the qualifications of potential reviewers who have been recommended by authors. Editors should use institutional email addresses when inviting reviewers and should request an ORCID (an online digital identifier that distinguishes researchers from one another) from reviewers whenever possible, and avoid using reviewers whose backgrounds and institutional affiliations cannot be determined by a simple web search.
  • Aim to ensure timely peer review and publication and should avoid unnecessary delays and consider how best to share information with authors about any delays that occur. Online publication can provide the fastest route to publication and, therefore, to placing peer reviewed research (and other) information in the public domain.
  • Give peer reviewers explicit guidance on their role and responsibilities.

Peer reviewers can play an important role in identifying potential questionable research practices such as possible data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, redundant or duplicate publication, image manipulation, unethical research, biased reporting, authorship abuse, and undeclared conflicts of interest.

Editors should remind peer reviewers of this role, and of their requirement to:

  • Respect the confidentiality of peer review, and not discuss the manuscript or contact the authors or any other people about the manuscript.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest.
  • Provide an objective and constructive explanation for their recommendation.
  • Not allow their decision on a manuscript to be influenced by its origin or authorship.
  • Avoid requesting that the author cites the peer reviewer’s own papers, unless there is a strong scholarly rationale for this.
  • Not reproduce information or any part of the manuscript under review in any of their own work prior to publication by the authors.
  • Only agree to peer review manuscripts within their expertise and within a reasonable timeframe.
  • Not delay publication.
  • Not use insulting, hostile, or defamatory language.
  • Destroy submitted manuscripts and all related material after they have reviewed them.