Publication Ethics

Muthanna Journal of Agricultural Sciences

Al-Muthanna University • College of Agriculture • Iraq

Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

This statement defines the ethical standards and responsibilities expected of all parties involved in the publication process at the Muthanna Journal of Agricultural Sciences (MJAS). MJAS is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record and follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All manuscripts are subject to rigorous peer review and editorial oversight to ensure the quality, originality, and ethical soundness of published work.

1. Duties of the Editor-in-Chief

1.1 Publication decisions

The Editor-in-Chief of MJAS is solely and independently responsible for deciding which submitted manuscripts will be published. The Editor-in-Chief is guided by the journal’s editorial policies and constrained by relevant legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. Editorial decisions are based entirely on the intellectual merit, originality, clarity, and relevance of the manuscript to the journal’s scope, and are made independently of any commercial considerations.

1.2 Fair play

The Editor-in-Chief shall evaluate manuscripts without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, national origin, or political affiliation. Manuscripts are assessed solely on the basis of their academic and scientific content.

1.3 Confidentiality

The Editor-in-Chief and editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

1.4 Conflicts of interest

The Editor-in-Chief must recuse himself or herself from the editorial handling of any manuscript in which there is a real or perceived conflict of interest arising from a competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or connection with any of the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the manuscript. In such cases, the manuscript will be assigned to another member of the editorial board.

1.5 Integrity of the published record

When errors or ethical breaches are identified in published work, the Editor-in-Chief will coordinate the issuance of corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions as appropriate, in accordance with COPE guidelines. The Editor-in-Chief will take all reasonable steps to avoid publishing work where there are clear indications of research misconduct.

2. Duties of the Editorial Board

Members of the Editorial Board assist the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through peer review, in improving the quality of accepted manuscripts. Board members must:

Maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and associated information.
Disclose and recuse themselves from manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest.
Not use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without the explicit written consent of the authors.
Assist in identifying reviewers with the appropriate expertise for each submission.
Alert the Editor-in-Chief to any suspected ethical violation, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate submission.

3. Duties of Reviewers

3.1 Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making publication decisions and, through editorial communication, may also assist authors in improving their manuscripts. MJAS operates a double-blind peer-review process: neither authors nor reviewers are disclosed to each other during review.

3.2 Promptness

Reviewers who accept an invitation to review a manuscript are expected to complete the review within the agreed timeframe, normally not exceeding four weeks. Reviewers who are unable to review a manuscript within the time agreed, or who feel insufficiently qualified to judge the research, should immediately notify the editorial office and withdraw from the assignment so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

3.3 Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or disclose the manuscript or its contents to any other person without the prior authorisation of the Editor-in-Chief. Manuscripts must not be retained by reviewers after the review is complete.

3.4 Standards of objectivity

Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly and support their assessments with evidence and argument. Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by the authors and note any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published article of which they have personal knowledge.

3.5 Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript. In such cases, reviewers must inform the editorial office and decline the invitation to review.

3.6 Confidentiality of unpublished material

Information or ideas obtained through peer review are confidential and must not be used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. Reviewers must not use unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research without the explicit written consent of the corresponding author.

4. Duties of Authors

4.1 Reporting standards

Authors of original research reports are expected to present an accurate account of the work performed and a clear, objective discussion of its significance. Sufficient detail and references must be given to permit others to replicate the work. Fabricated or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Review and professional articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

4.2 Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data supporting their manuscript for editorial review. Authors should retain such data for a reasonable period after publication and, wherever possible, should make underlying data publicly available in accordance with relevant discipline norms. If authors are unable to comply with a request for data, they should provide a clear explanation to the editor.

4.3 Originality and plagiarism

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works and that they have appropriately cited or quoted the work and words of others. Plagiarism in all its forms — including verbatim copying, paraphrasing without attribution, self-plagiarism, and the appropriation of others’ ideas — constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable. All submissions are screened using Turnitin; a similarity index below 20% is required for further consideration.

4.4 Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication

Authors should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. Submitting the same research to multiple journals simultaneously constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is grounds for immediate rejection. Papers that have been formally published — in any language and in any form — should not be resubmitted. Authors should declare in the submission cover letter that the manuscript has not been published and is not under review elsewhere.

4.5 Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgement of others’ work must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Private communications may only be cited with the explicit written permission of the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written consent of the originator.

4.6 Authorship

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 significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Gift authorship (listing individuals who did not contribute substantially) and ghost authorship (excluding individuals who made substantial contributions) are both considered forms of misconduct and are unacceptable.

4.7 Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves the use of chemical, animal, or human subjects, the authors must ensure that the research was conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and ethical standards of the relevant institution or national body. Authors should clearly state in the manuscript whether ethical approval was obtained, and from which institutional review board or ethics committee. Informed consent procedures must be described where applicable.

4.8 Conflicts of interest and funding disclosure

All authors must disclose any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that might have influenced the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the research must be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be declared include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications or registrations, and grants or other funding. If there is no conflict of interest, authors should explicitly state this.

4.9 Fundamental errors in published works

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’s Editor-in-Chief and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the article. If the editor or publisher receives information from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, the author has an obligation to cooperate with the editor, including by providing evidence to support or refute the claim.

4.10 Copyright and open access

Authors retain full copyright of their work. Upon acceptance of a manuscript, authors grant MJAS a non-exclusive licence to publish the article under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0 — https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Under this licence, readers may freely read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, and link to the full texts of all articles, provided the original work is properly cited. MJAS is a fully open access journal and does not charge readers or their institutions for access to published content.

5. Handling Allegations of Research Misconduct

MJAS takes all allegations of research misconduct seriously. The editorial board follows COPE guidelines when handling suspected misconduct, including but not limited to the following:

5.1 Plagiarism

If plagiarism is identified in a submitted manuscript, the submission will be rejected immediately and the authors notified. If plagiarism is identified in a published article, the article will be retracted following established retraction procedures, and the relevant institutional authority of the authors will be informed.

5.2 Data fabrication and falsification

Fabrication of data (making up data or results) and falsification (manipulating research materials, equipment, images, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results without scientific justification) are serious forms of misconduct. If such behaviour is alleged or confirmed, the editorial board will investigate in accordance with COPE guidance and may retract the article and notify the relevant institutions.

5.3 Duplicate submission and redundant publication

If a manuscript is found to have been submitted simultaneously to another journal, or if a manuscript substantially overlaps with a previously published article, the manuscript will be rejected or retracted and the authors’ institutions will be informed.

5.4 Authorship disputes

If a dispute arises regarding authorship, the editorial board will follow COPE guidance. The journal will not adjudicate authorship disputes but will require the parties to resolve them at the institutional level and to provide written confirmation of the agreed authorship before the article is published or retained.

5.5 Undisclosed conflicts of interest

If a significant undisclosed conflict of interest is identified in a published article, the editor will consider whether a correction, expression of concern, or retraction is warranted.

6. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

MJAS is committed to maintaining the integrity of the published record. When errors or concerns arise in published articles, the following procedures apply:

Erratum / Corrigendum: Minor errors that do not affect the conclusions of the work will be corrected by publishing a formal erratum (publisher error) or corrigendum (author error) notice linked to the original article.
Expression of concern: Where there is inconclusive evidence of misconduct or where an investigation is ongoing, an expression of concern may be published pending the outcome.
Retraction: Articles may be retracted if there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable due to misconduct or honest error, if the work constitutes plagiarism or duplicate publication, if the research involves unethical practice, or if critical authorship disputes are confirmed. Retractions follow the COPE Retraction Guidelines and will be clearly labelled and linked to the original article.

Retracted articles will not be removed from the journal archive but will be clearly watermarked as “RETRACTED” on all versions.

7. Complaints and Appeals

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision or lodge a complaint about the editorial process should contact the Editor-in-Chief in writing at [email protected]. The appeal or complaint should clearly state the grounds and provide any relevant supporting evidence. All appeals and complaints will receive a written response within 30 days of receipt.

If the complainant is not satisfied with the response from the Editor-in-Chief, the matter may be escalated to the Dean of the College of Agriculture at Al-Muthanna University. MJAS does not pursue or encourage the escalation of minor disagreements about editorial decisions; authors are reminded that the peer review process, while not infallible, is the internationally accepted basis for publication decisions.

8. Peer Review Process

MJAS operates a rigorous double-blind peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. The key features of the process are as follows:

All submissions are initially assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor for scope, scientific soundness, and compliance with journal policies. Manuscripts that do not meet minimum standards are desk-rejected without external review.
Manuscripts that pass initial screening are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers who are external to the journal’s editorial board and who have no conflict of interest with the authors.
Reviewers are selected on the basis of their expertise in the relevant field. Neither the authors nor the reviewers are informed of each other’s identity during the review process (double-blind review).
Reviewers are asked to evaluate originality, scientific soundness, validity of methodology, significance of results, and quality of presentation. Reviewers submit structured evaluation forms and are asked to recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
The final decision on publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief on the basis of the reviewers’ reports. Authors are notified of the outcome and, in the case of revision, are provided with the reviewers’ comments.
Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated by the editor and, where major revisions have been requested, may be returned to the original reviewers.
The editorial board aims to notify authors of the outcome of review within four months of submission.
The journal does not guarantee acceptance on resubmission and does not accept manuscripts on the basis of speed of review.

9. Data Sharing and Reproducibility

MJAS encourages authors to make the data underlying their published articles openly available wherever possible. Authors are encouraged to deposit datasets in recognised public repositories and to include a ‘Data Availability Statement’ in their manuscript indicating where and how the data can be accessed. Where data cannot be made publicly available (for example, due to privacy concerns or commercial restrictions), authors should indicate this and explain the reason.

Authors may be asked to provide raw data during the editorial process to support the review of their manuscript. Such data will be treated as confidential and used solely for the purposes of review.

10. Ethical Oversight

For research involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data, authors must confirm in the manuscript that ethical approval was obtained from an appropriate institutional review board or ethics committee, and must provide the name of the approving body and the reference number of the approval. Where ethical approval was not required, authors should state this and explain why. Informed consent must be obtained where applicable and described in the Methods section.

For studies involving animals, authors should confirm compliance with the relevant national guidelines for the care and use of laboratory animals. MJAS reserves the right to reject manuscripts where ethical procedures have not been followed.

11. Intellectual Property

Authors must ensure that their submitted manuscripts do not infringe any third-party intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and copyright. Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission to reproduce any figures, tables, or other material from third-party sources. When submitting a manuscript, authors warrant that the work is original, that they have the rights to submit it, and that publication will not infringe any third-party rights.

12. Post-Publication Discussion and Corrections

MJAS welcomes post-publication correspondence that engages critically with published research. Readers who identify significant errors or concerns in a published article should contact the editorial office at [email protected]. Letters may be published as correspondence in a subsequent issue at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief. Authors of the original article will ordinarily be given the opportunity to respond.

Third parties who believe that published work infringes their intellectual property rights should contact the editorial office in writing with full details of their claim. The editorial board will investigate all such claims promptly.

13. Governing Standards and References

This Publication Ethics Statement is informed by and consistent with the following internationally recognised standards and guidelines:

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices — https://publicationethics.org/core-practices
COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (v4.0, 2022)
Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) application criteria
Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition of open access
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0) — https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This statement was adopted by the Editorial Board of MJAS and is effective for all submissions received from 2025 onwards.

MJAS • P-ISSN 2226-4086 • E-ISSN 2572-5149 • DOI prefix: 10.52113 • [email protected]