At AG Editor, the integrity of the academic content and the publication process is fundamental, which is why we adhere to the standards and guidelines proposed by The Committee on Publication Ethics - COPE (https://publicationethics.org/). This document describes the principles of good practice that we apply to our publications.
At Environmental Research and Ecotoxicity, we maintain high standards of research integrity. We expect publications to adhere to the following principles:
If anyone believes that research published by Environmental Research and Ecotoxicity has not been conducted in accordance with these principles, they should communicate their concerns to the appropriate editor by emailing editorial@ageditor.org. Concerns will be addressed in accordance with COPE guidelines.
We are committed to editorial independence and strive to prevent it from being compromised by competing interests, fear or any other corporate, commercial, financial or political influence.
We do not discriminate against authors, editors or reviewers based on personal characteristics or identity. We promote diversity and inclusion at all stages of our publication process.
Peer review is fundamental to maintaining the standards of our publications. We provide appropriate systems, training and support to facilitate rigorous, fair and effective peer review. We offer training and support systems for editors and reviewers. We protect the confidentiality of participants in the double-blind peer review process.
We recognize that different disciplines and publication formats have varying rules about who is included as an author. Where no other guidelines are specified, we recommend applying the following principles:
The corresponding author has specific responsibilities, such as proofreading manuscripts, handling revisions and resubmissions, and responding to post-publication queries.
Article affiliations should represent the institutions where the research was conducted, supported or approved.
At Environmental Research and Ecotoxicity, we do not tolerate plagiarism in any of our publications. Plagiarism is defined as the use of ideas, words, data or other material produced by others without acknowledgement. Submissions containing suspected plagiarism will be rejected. If plagiarism is discovered after publication, we will follow our guidelines for Retractions, Corrections, and Expressions of Concern described in COPE.
We seek to ensure that our publications are free from undue influence. Authors, employees, editors, and reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest that could interfere with the objectivity or integrity of a publication.
If there is no conflict of interest, authors should declare in the corresponding section: "Conflicts of interest: none".
In the case of conflicts of interest, the authors of the articles should declare it in the corresponding section (Conflicts of interest) and attach the declaration of Conflicts of Interest according to the model proposed by the ICMJE (https://www.icmje.org/downloads/coi_disclosure.docx). The information in the declaration must coincide with that of the manuscript submitted.
Editors will consider retractions, corrections or expressions of concern in line with the COPE Retraction Guidelines (https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4). If an error is discovered, a corrigendum or erratum will be issued as appropriate. Retractions are reserved for articles containing serious errors or substantial plagiarism.
We expect authors to avoid modifying images in a way that leads to falsification or fabrication of their results. We recognize that there may be legitimate reasons for modifying images, but these should not distort the results. If identified, the policies proposed by COPE (https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.21) will be followed.
If research fraud or misconduct is discovered, we will work with the relevant publishers and other appropriate institutions to investigate. Any publication found to contain fraudulent findings will be retracted following COPE guidelines for retraction (https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.4).
Our publications are distributed in different cultural, environmental and economic contexts. We can issue different versions of some articles to suit these contexts without compromising the quality or accuracy of the materials.
We strive to follow the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practices in Scholarly Publishing and encourage our authors to uphold these same principles (https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12).
We support transparency and openness around data, codes, and other materials associated with research. We expect authors to maintain accurate records of supporting evidence necessary to enable others to understand, verify and replicate new findings.
Social media and email communication should maintain the integrity of the content and the academic record. Promotion and marketing strategies must maintain the integrity of the content and must not influence editorial decisions. We use ethical communication channels to promote our publications and ensure that academic content is accessible and respected.
The editors and publisher will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and falsification/fabrication of data, has occurred. In no case will an editor or publisher encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow it to occur. In the event that any allegation of research misconduct related to a published article becomes known, the COPE guidelines (or equivalent) for dealing with the allegations will be followed (https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.12).
At AG Editor, the integrity and quality of our academic publications are paramount. Our publication ethics policy sets out the principles and standards we follow to ensure that our publication processes are fair, transparent and ethical.
Duties of the Editor
• The editor of a scholarly journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers should always underpin these decisions.
• The editor's decisions should be based on the quality of the manuscript and its relevance to the journal, without undue outside influence. The editor should ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial, and timely. Research articles should be reviewed by at least two external, independent reviewers, and the editor should seek additional opinions if necessary. The reviewers selected should have appropriate expertise in the relevant field and should be free of conflicts of interest.
• The editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. In addition, the editor should encourage transparency and full and honest reporting in the journal's editorial policies. The editor must protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers. Unless otherwise agreed with the authors and reviewers, the editor should not disclose any information to third parties without the express consent of the parties involved.
• The editor should not use generative or Al-assisted Al technologies to assist in the evaluation or decision-making process of a manuscript, as the critical thinking and original evaluation necessary for this work is beyond the scope of this technology. Editors are responsible for and must maintain the confidentiality and integrity of the editorial process.
• Any potential conflicts of editorial interest should be declared to the editor prior to appointment and updated if new conflicts arise. Editors should not be involved in decisions about articles they have written themselves or that have been written by family members or colleagues.
Duties of Reviewers
• Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and can help the author improve the article through communication with the editor. Reviewers should treat authors and their work with respect and professionalism, and observe good review etiquette.
• Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers should not share the review or information about the manuscript with anyone, nor contact authors directly without the permission of the editor. The use of unpublished material in the reviewer's own research without the express consent of the author is prohibited. Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical problems in the manuscript and should report these to the editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work of which the reviewer is aware.
• Reviews should be conducted in an objective manner. Reviewers should be aware of any personal bias they may have and take this into account when reviewing an article. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should declare any potential conflict of interest and excuse themselves from the review if necessary.
Duties of Authors
• Authors should present an accurate report of the work performed, as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data must be accurately presented in the article. Fraud or deliberately inaccurate statements are unacceptable.
• Authors may be asked to provide research data in support of their article for editorial review and/or to comply with the open data requirements of the journal. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data if possible and retain such data for a reasonable period after publication. • Authors should ensure that they have written completely original work, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, this should be properly cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical editorial behavior and is unacceptable.
• An author should generally not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one primary journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable. The secondary publication of an article should reflect the same data and interpretation as the primary paper, and the primary paper should be cited in the secondary publication.
• Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as coauthors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate and inappropriate coauthors are included in the article, and that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its submission for publication.
• Authors may use generative and Al-assisted Al technologies in the writing process only to improve the readability and language of the paper. The application of the technology should be done under human supervision and control, and authors should carefully review and edit the output. Authors should declare the use of these technologies in their manuscript in the "Methods" section and this statement will appear in the published work.
• It is not acceptable to enhance, darken, move, remove or introduce a specific feature within an image. Adjustments to brightness, contrast or color balance are acceptable as long as they do not obscure or remove any information present in the original. Manipulating images to improve clarity is acceptable, but manipulating for other reasons could be seen as ethical abuse and will be dealt with accordingly. Authors should align to the best industry standards in the registration and submission of clinical trials, such as the CONSORT guidelines. Authors should provide full details of clinical trials, including methods and results, to ensure reproducibility and transparency.
• All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial and personal relationships with other individuals or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid testimonials, registered applications/patents, and grants or other sources of funding. Sources of financial support for research and article preparation should also be disclosed.
• When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper if deemed necessary. If the editor or publisher discovers an error in the published work, the author must cooperate with the editor to correct the paper.
The peer review of the articles received in AG Editor is a crucial task for the selection of articles that meet the required standards of quality and impact in the scientific and professional community targeted by this publication.
This essential task, in a rigorous peer review process, falls on external reviewers, recognized experts in their field, unrelated to each other and unaware of the authorship of the work to be evaluated, through a double-blind peer review system.
The external reviewer's task is to collaborate with the Editorial Committee in verifying the originality and quality of the manuscript, its relevance in the areas of interest of the journal, and compliance with the necessary formal requirements for its publication. For this, the reviewer's task will focus on the rigorous analysis of the content and form of the manuscript, with a critical and constructive attitude.
The reviewers of AG Editor make up a constantly expanding international list of specialists with a doctoral degree or persons of recognized prestige in the fields of research, giving priority to authors who have published in journals indexed in Web of Science and Scopus.
The documents submitted for evaluation are confidential information, so reviewers must refrain from divulging them in any way, or using the information contained in the text for their benefit or that of third parties. If it is necessary to contrast data or advice from specialists on the subject, the authors will be informed.
1. The article will be received by the journal, which will send you a receipt by email with a unique reference number.
2. The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Editor initially considers newly submitted articles.
3. Within 72 hours, you will receive an email if the manuscript is rejected at this stage. Manuscripts could be rejected at this stage if they do not fit the scope of the journal, if they are incomplete, if the findings are not sufficiently described, or if the content is plagiarized.
4. The remaining articles are sent for a double-blind peer review. You will receive an initial decision on the manuscript in an average of 30-45 days.
5. If a revision is required, all comments from the editor and reviewers will be sent to the author along with the original version of the manuscript. You should send the revised version along with your response to the editorial office within 15 days.
6. If accepted, your article will be published online approximately 15 days after acceptance. All accepted articles will be published online and will be citable by the digital object identifier (DOI). The editorial team will take care of sending the published articles to the indexed databases or registering them as necessary.
The interaction between the evaluators and the editorial team is carried out through the journal's web portal, in order to maintain a digital record of all the events that occurred during the process (traceability).
Once the reviewers receive the editorial invitation in their email, they will have a maximum period of 7 days to accept or decline the review proposal. This proposal includes the title and abstract of the text, as well as the schedule established for the review. Only in case the proposal is accepted, the link to the full text of the work to be evaluated will be enabled, along with the corresponding review form.
The reviewers should issue their report and recommendations within a period of 4 weeks (28 days) from the date of acceptance. As an alternative to sending the report, the reviewers can add their own document with the notes or comments they deem pertinent. The recommendation that the reviewer finally decides should be in accordance with the observations he has written in his qualitative evaluation and/or, if applicable, with the numerical score awarded.
In case of a significant discrepancy between the recommendations of the two reviewers, a third opinion (third reviewer) will be requested.
If, based on the recommendations of both reviewers, the editorial decision were to subject the article to a second round of peer review, this would be carried out by the same people who conducted the first evaluation.
At AG Editor, we firmly believe in the free circulation of scientific knowledge. Our Open Access Policy ensures that all content published across our journals, books, and conference proceedings is freely accessible to anyone, anywhere in the world.
This policy reflects our commitment to democratizing knowledge, promoting wider visibility, and enhancing the impact of research, thereby contributing to scientific progress and societal development.
Open Access (OA) means that anyone can:
Authors publish under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of authorship of the work and initial publication in this journal. Unless otherwise noted, associated published material is distributed under the same license.
You are free to:
Share copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt-remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. This license is acceptable for Free Cultural Works.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
Attribution - You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions- You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Authors, who retain their rights after publication, are permitted and encouraged to disseminate their work electronically, as it may lead to productive exchanges as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
The journal encourages authors to deposit their articles in repositories such as Sherpa/Romeo, Dulcinea, Diadorim or institutional repositories.
To ensure the long-term preservation and accessibility of our published content, AG Editor implements a robust e-journal preservation policy.
All articles published by AG Editor are preserved through partnerships with CLOCKSS (Controlled Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) and LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe). These trusted digital preservation systems guarantee that all publications remain secure and accessible for future generations of researchers and students, regardless of technological changes or unforeseen circumstances.
At AG Editor, we promote a transparent and ethical publishing model, aligned with international best practices such as those recommended by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). Our mission is to act as a bridge between South American science and the global research community, ensuring that the knowledge produced in our region gains the visibility and recognition it deserves.
Some of our editorial products may involve Article Processing Charges (APCs) to cover peer review, editing, formatting, and dissemination costs.
However, AG Editor is committed to offering flexible and accessible models, especially supporting researchers from low- and middle-income countries through fee waivers or reductions where applicable.
The Editorial Team of AG Editor guarantees that all academic articles published are original, unpublished, and have not been previously published in any other format (in whole or in part), and does not participate in any evaluation process or decision-making of another journal or any other type of publication.
To enforce these policies, the Journal uses the Crossref similarity checker (iThenticate), Turnitin, and Plag.es to evaluate the similarity of articles; complementary, other tools such as DupliCheker, Plagium, Copyscape, etc., may also be used when deemed appropriate.
Plagiarism control will be carried out before peer review begins. When the similarity report is higher than 20%, the authors will be informed by e-mail where the complete similarity report and the expert's reflection will be included. All this, with the purpose that they offer the comments they consider pertinent so that the journal can determine if it is a behavior linked to plagiarism or not, being in the first case the work rejected for evaluation.
The editors may offer authors alternative online programs so that they can analyze their papers before submission.