Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement — Next Gen World Reviews (NGWR)

NGWR is committed to the highest standards of publication ethics and follows the principles and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The policy below adapts the structure used by NG Agricultural Sciences (NGAS) and defines the ethical responsibilities of authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher. 

1. Responsibilities of Authors

  • Originality & Plagiarism: Submissions must be original and free of plagiarism; all sources must be properly cited. Use of others’ ideas, data, figures, or text must be acknowledged with accurate references. 

  • Authorship Criteria: Only contributors who made substantial scholarly contributions (conception/design; literature search/analysis; interpretation/synthesis; drafting or critical revision) should be listed as authors; all authors approve the final version. 

  • Acknowledgment of Sources & Permissions: Authors must cite relevant work and obtain permissions for copyrighted material when required. 

  • Data Accuracy & Integrity: Claims and synthesized evidence must be accurate, traceable, and presented responsibly; fabricated, falsified, or selectively reported data are unethical.

  • Conflicts of Interest: All financial, professional, or personal relationships that could influence the work must be disclosed in the manuscript. 

  • Multiple / Redundant Publication: Simultaneous submission to multiple journals or redundant publication is prohibited. Prior conference abstracts must be disclosed. 

  • Use of Generative AI Tools: If AI tools assisted with language editing or figure generation, authors must disclose the tool and version, verify accuracy, and accept responsibility for all content (AI tools cannot be credited as authors).

2. Responsibilities of Editors

  • Fair Play: Editorial evaluation is based solely on scholarly merit, relevance, and clarity—irrespective of the authors’ identity or background. 

  • Confidentiality: Editors keep all submission materials confidential and share them only with those involved in the peer-review process. 

  • Conflicts of Interest: Editors do not handle manuscripts in which they have competing interests (e.g., recent collaboration, shared affiliation). Such submissions are reassigned. 

  • Decision-Making: Decisions (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) are informed by reviewers’ reports and journal policies. 

  • Handling Misconduct: Editors follow COPE guidance for investigating concerns about ethics, integrity, or peer-review manipulation. 

3. Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are confidential; do not share, store insecurely, or use them for personal advantage. 

  • Objectivity & Constructiveness: Provide evidence-based, courteous feedback focused on improving rigor, transparency, and readability. Avoid personal criticism. 

  • Promptness: Accept or decline invitations quickly; complete reviews within the agreed time frame or request an extension early. 

  • Conflicts of Interest: Decline review when a conflict exists (e.g., competitive, collaborative, institutional, or financial). 

  • Acknowledgment of Sources: Flag uncited, relevant work and any suspected overlap or plagiarism to the editor. 

4. Research Misconduct Policy
NGWR considers the following to be serious breaches: plagiarism; data fabrication or falsification; improper authorship; redundant/duplicate publication; undisclosed conflicts of interest; peer-review manipulation. Allegations are investigated using COPE flowcharts and journal procedures; substantiated cases may lead to rejection, retraction, and notification of institutions/funders. 

5. Retraction and Correction Policy

  • Retractions are issued when major errors or ethical violations invalidate findings or the integrity of the record.

  • Corrections address errors that do not alter overall conclusions.
    All retraction/correction notices are clearly labeled and permanently linked to the original article to maintain the scholarly record. 

6. Publisher’s Responsibilities
The publisher supports editors in maintaining ethical standards, investigating concerns, and preserving the integrity, transparency, and accessibility of the scholarly record.

7. Additional NGWR Practices (Review-Article Focus)

  • Transparency of Methods for Evidence Synthesis: For systematic/scoping reviews and meta-analyses, authors should describe search strategies (databases, date ranges, query strings), screening criteria, data extraction, quality/risk-of-bias assessment, and synthesis methods (qualitative/quantitative).

  • Protocol Registration: NGWR encourages registering protocols (e.g., PROSPERO/OSF) and citing them in the manuscript.

  • Data/Code/Materials Availability: Where applicable (e.g., meta-analysis datasets, code for analyses, reproducible search strings), authors should provide links to repositories or include them as supplementary materials.

  • Corrections to the Literature: Authors are expected to notify the editor promptly if significant errors are discovered post-publication so that appropriate corrections can be made.

8. How to Raise Concerns or Appeal Decisions
Authors and readers may report concerns about ethics or integrity to the editorial office. Authors can appeal decisions with a reasoned response to reviewer/editor points; appeals are handled by a senior editor not involved in the original decision.

Contact: editorngwr@ngenpub.com