Nakhara: Journal of Environmental Design and Planning (NJEDP) is committed to upholding high ethical standards throughout the review and publication process, following the principles and processes suggested in the Core Practices Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Manuscript review. It is the responsibility of the Editors to ensure that the peer review process is transparent, timely, unbiased, and fair. NJEDP adopts a double-blind review process, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. The Editors are committed to selecting Reviewers who have demonstrated appropriate expertise in the relevant topics and fields.
Fair process. The Editors have the responsibility to evaluate submitted articles solely for their intellectual content and contribution to the body of knowledge, regardless of the Authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. To ensure transparency and record-keeping compliance, the Editors shall use the online submission system for all communications among the Editors, Reviewers, and Authors.
Confidentiality. The Editors are responsible for protecting the confidentiality of all submitted materials, as well as all communications among the Editorial Team, Reviewers, and Authors, unless the disclosure is permitted by relevant parties. In case of potential misconduct, the Chief Editor and the Editorial Team may share specific information among them, following the COPE guidelines on Sharing of Information Among Editors-in-Chief Regarding Possible Misconduct.
Conflicts of interest. The Chief Editor and the Editorial Team shall declare any potential conflicts of interest to the Publisher, and shall recuse herself/himself from being involved in the review process and in making decisions about the articles in question.
Publication decisions. The Chief Editor is responsible for making publication decisions, in consultation with Reviewers and other Editors, guided by the policies of the Editorial Board and other legal and ethical standards such as libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
Confidentiality. Reviewers are expected to keep confidential all information in the manuscripts received for review, as well as information about the review process and decisions.
Peer review. Reviewers shall follow generally observed reviewing etiquette guidelines. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified or unable to review the submitted work in a timely manner is expected to notify the Editorial Team and decline to join the review process. Reviewers are expected to assist the Chief Editor in making editorial decisions and may provide suggestions to the Authors how to improve the submitted papers.
Objectivity. Reviewers shall be objective in evaluating the submitted papers, while providing clear arguments that support the review results. Reviewers are expected to notify the Chief Editor if they feel there are potential conflicts of interest in reviewing the requested manuscripts.
Alertness to ethical issues. Reviewers are expected to notify the Chief Editor of potential ethical issues that they observe in a submitted work. These issues include substantial similarity, overlapping content, and other forms of plagiarism and misconduct.
Content originality and acknowledgement. It is the responsibility of the Authors to ensure the complete originality of the submitted manuscripts and to make proper acknowledgement of sources from which the work of others is used. Authors are also responsible for citing publications that influence the submitted work, as well as other publications that provide essential context for the reported content. All forms of plagiarism are considered unethical and unacceptable.
Reporting. Authors are to ensure accurate description and objective discussion of the reported work. Accurate and sufficient data and references are expected in the submitted manuscripts to allow future assessment and replication by other scholars.
Data access and retention. Authors are responsible for retaining relevant data for a reasonable duration after publication, in case an editorial review becomes necessary.
Confidentiality. The Authors are responsible for ensuring confidentiality of the information and sources that are obtained through confidential channels. Explicit written permission is required if such information is to be included in the submitted work.
Conflicts of interest. The Authors shall disclose any potential conflicts of interest in the submitted manuscript at the beginning of the submission process. These conflicts may include but not limited to financial sponsorships and personal relationships with other individuals or organizations that could be regarded as inappropriately influencing the submitted work.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication. It is unethical and unacceptable for Authors to submit same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time. Redundant or “salami” publishing so as to artificially inflate quantity of publications is also unacceptable.
Authorship. The article shall list all those who have substantially contributed to the essential process in conducting the reported work. Other contributors shall be included in the acknowledgement section. The corresponding Author is responsible for ensuring that all co-Authors have approved the final version of the submitted manuscript and agreed to the submission.
Should there be any suspicion or allegations of possible misconduct pre-publication and post-publication, including plagiarism, data fabrication and falsification, and redundant publications, Journal Editor will act in accordance with the principles and processes recommended in the relevant COPE guidelines.