All those involved in the publishing of scholarly journal articles are expected to behave in accordance with ethical standards. This refers primarily to the authors, editors, peer reviewers and the publisher. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) makes resources available for identifying and encouraging ethical best practice for those involved in the publication of scholarly journals. Guidelines for codes of ethics for professional publishing are also provided by major international publishers. This statement has been formulated using COPE’s resources and the guidelines provided by international publishers. For more information, please consult www.publicationethics.org
Ekistics and the New Habitat is committed to professionalism, transparency, and high standards of critical review. Scholarly articles are subject to double-blind peer review, managed within an OJS/PKP platform that ensures workflow transparency for authors, editors, and reviewers. As an interdisciplinary journal based primarily in the fields of architecture, planning and urban design, the journal editors agree to act in an ethical manner which respects the principles and established editorial practices of authors’ respective disciplines.
By submitting an article to this journal, you agree to comply with ethical standards and editorial requirements of the journal set out in the following Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
Editor’s Duties and Responsibilities
Decisions regarding the selection and composition of published content are made by the Editor-in-chief, Deputy Editor, and Guest Editor (in the case of special and themed issues). Editors shall make decisions based on the quality and relevance of the content for the journal without regard for the personal qualities or affiliations of the author(s): qualities which may relate to gender, race, ethnicity, religious or political affiliation, or personal philosophy.
Within the review process, the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to make the final decision on the form and content of material submitted for publication by the journal, and is solely and independently responsible those decisions.
Responsibility for content
Prior to publication the author(s) must ensure that their article is accurate, complete, and original. Editors may consult on decisions, but the ultimate decision lies with the Editor-in-Chief who is guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board and Executive Committee and constrained by laws relating to copyright infringement, libel, and plagiarism.
IT tools, such as those provided by https://www.ithenticate.com/, will be used to screen submissions. Editors are expected to make some effort to ensure the originality of content, but are neither responsible nor liable for the views expressed in each article; those remain the sole responsibility of the author(s).
Editors should regard submitted manuscripts as confidential. Any information pertaining to submissions should not be communicated to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editors and their assistants. If deemed necessary by the Editor-in-Chief, relevant information may be shared with other journal editors for the purposes of an investigation into plagiarism or other misconduct.
The editors must make sure the peer review process is fair, objective, and completed within a reasonable timeframe. Reviews must be completed by a minimum of two external independent reviewers, and if required, other additional reviews may be sought. Editors select reviewers with the appropriate expertise in a relevant field. These decisions should be in accordance with principles of inclusiveness and diversity of representation.
Best practice should be followed to avoid fraudulent peer review; the Editor-in-Chief should review declarations of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation by reviewers.
In cases where materials from a submitted manuscript remain unpublished, these cannot be used by the editors for their own research without the express permission and written consent of the author of the original manuscript.
Investigations and Right to Appeal
In cases where editorial decisions are disputed, following a review by the editors concerned, the author(s) may appeal to a specially convened committee including members of the Executive Board, which must be held within three months of the dispute being communicated in writing to the Editor-in-Chief.
In the event of an unresolved dispute, complaints are to be submitted in writing via email to the Editor-in-Chief Any complaints to the journal will be investigated in the first instance by the editors, then in consultation with the members of the Executive Board and any external institutions as deemed necessary.
Essential journal communications should go through the journal’s OJS/PKP platform to ensure a record of the submission, review, copyediting and production process.
No attempt should be made to manipulate the journal’s ranking by artificially inflating any journal metric. Specifically, there is to be no requirement that authors include references to articles published in Ekistics and the New Habitat, for any reason other than intellectual rigor. Editors must not seek to promote the metrics of their own research publications or any other product in which they have an interest through their position as an editor.
Declaration of Competing Interests
All potential editorial conflicts of interest must be declared to the editorial board in writing before an editor’s appointment. If new conflicts arise, these declarations must be updated. Declarations of a conflict of interest may be published in the journal for transparency.
An editor cannot be involved in decisions about papers authored by someone who is a relative, colleague, member of a research group, or who is associated with and has in interest in any product or service. Where an interest has been declared, any such submission will be subject to the standard reviewing, copyediting, and production processes. A clear statement indicating the potential conflict of interest shall be published. Vigilance over the Published Record
Safeguarding the Public Record
The editor should remain vigilant for erosion of the integrity of the published record. Editors can review and assess reported or suspected misconduct in consultation with the editorial board and the wider public. This may include following up of complaints regarding plagiarism or misconduct with the author(s) of the submission in question. Editors may also reach out to institutions and research bodies to ensure that the integrity oof the journal and the public record remain intact. Editors should use appropriate technologies to detect instances of plagiarism or other forms of scholarly misconduct.
Any editor provided with convincing evidence of misconduct must coordinate with the publisher to arrange the timely notification of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other correction to the record.
AI Content Generation or Assistance
Work created using AI tools remains the responsibility of the author(s). AI can create seemingly convincing but erroneous materials that should be checked by human authors. AI programmes cannot be listed as author(s) of submissions. If AI programmes such as chatGPT are used in the creation of a submission, a declaration regarding the extent of its use must be visible at the outset of the submission. Editors must ensure they understand the role played by AI in the creation of any published submission and be confident that it does not constitute evidence of scholarly misconduct.
Reviewers’ Duties and Responsibilities
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review is fundamental to the scientific-method and enables editors to make decisions when accepting submissions. Reviewers are selected by the editors due to their expertise in a relevant field. They should provide comments on the content and form of the submission, as well as constructive recommendations for any changes. Reviewers must be fair-minded and objective in their assessments. Regarding review etiquette, as a rule of thumb reviewers should treat submissions with the respect and care they would consider appropriate to their own research.
Objectivity and Conflicts of Interests
The editors will send a review request to a possible reviewer who will have a chance to assess the task prior to accepting to review. Before accepting the task of reviewing a particular submission, reviewers must feel that they are suitably qualified, and have time available for task. Reviewers should check for potential conflicts of interest and ensure they can complete the review within the set timeframes. A conflict of interest may occur when reviewers have competitive, collaborative, or established relationships with authors, and / or connections with any of those authors’ companies, products or services, or institutions with links to submissions. Reviewers should discuss any potential conflicts prior to accepting a review task. If anything is found that would impede their objectivity or timeliness, reviewers should decline to review. In cases where objective and timely review becomes impossible after having accepted the task, they should notify the editors immediately.
Reviewers should remain objective, and to the best of their ability, understand and account for the effects of any personal bias they may have. Ad hominem criticisms are inappropriate. Comments should be clear, and criticisms of form and content should be accompanied by explanations and supporting arguments.
Reviewers may suggest that an author include citations to their own or an associate’s research, however, in doing so, they should act scrupulously to ensure that the citation is based on intellectual rigor and not for boosting their own or another researcher’s citation count or general visibility.
Reviewers should regard submitted manuscripts as confidential. Any information pertaining to submissions should not be communicated to anyone other than the editors and their assistants using the OJS/PK platform. While some journal editors allow discussion with colleagues or encourage collective reviewing, reviewers should float this idea with the editors before engaging in such practices that may breach confidentiality or deny those who participate in review discussions any credit for their contribution.
Unpublished materials shared in a submission cannot be used in a reviewer’s own research unless the corresponding author(s) provides express written consent. Privileged information or ideas disclosed through peer review are confidential and must not be used for personal advantage.
Vigilance and ethical concerns
Reviewers play a part in preventing plagiarism and other forms of scholarly misconduct. They should make efforts to recognize instances of misconduct. In cases where misconduct is reasonably suspected, reviewers must contact the editor as soon as possible.
Transparency and the Public Record
Essential communication with editors should be undertaken using appropriate channels in the OJS/PKP platform. Reviewers do not communicate directly with authors, but messages are relayed via the online platform.
Authors’ Duties and Responsibilities
Authors should ensure that their submissions meet reporting standards. Reports of original research should be an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its importance. The data on which reports are based must be presented accurately, and sufficient detail and references must be provided to enable the study to be reproduced. Purposefully or negligently inaccurate statements, falsified or deceptively represented data, and / or fraudulent claims are unethical and cannot be accepted.
Reviews, articles by industry professionals, and editorial opinion pieces should also meet standards for originality, accuracy, and completeness, while signaling clearly that they do not represent a report of a scientific study.
Data: Retention and Access
Authors may be required to share the data on which their research is based for the purposes of editorial review and/or to comply with the open data requirements of the journal. Public access may be required. If so, and where feasible, data should be retained by the author for some years following publication.
Originality and Acknowledgement of Sources
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their work is their own, original, and properly acknowledges the use of others’ research through accurately referenced paraphrase, quotation, and summary. Suitable and accurate acknowledgement must always be provided. It is necessary to cite all sources that have influenced the manuscript and that provided a wider scholarly context for the work. Privately obtained information, such as in personal communications or via in-direct discussions should not be used without the express written permission of the communicating or interested parties.
Plagiarism can be both deliberate and accidental. Lack of correct referencing can result in instances of plagiarism due to the unacknowledged use of sources, others’ research data and ideas. Authors are responsible for meeting the requirements of correctly acknowledging their sources.
Authorship of the Paper
Only those who make a significant contribution to a submission should be included as an author. Significant contribution refers to study’s conception, design, execution, and analysis of the data, as well as preparation of the text, tables, graphs, and images for the representation of the study.
All significant contributors are to be listed as co-authors, with the main authors listed first. However, in this area, disciplinary conventions may apply, in which case those conventions will be followed. Other contributors, such as experts consulted or copyeditors and technicians involved in the production of the submission should be acknowledged at the end, but not listed as authors.
The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the submission. The corresponding author must also ensure that all co-authors approve of the final version of the manuscript before publication.
Submissions should include a definitive list of authors at the time of submission. In exceptional circumstances, the Editor-in-Chief may consider adding, deleting or rearranging the presentation of authors. However, this is done only at the request of the corresponding author and any changes require the written consent of all the mentioned authors in the original list.
Authors are collectively responsible for the submission. They must ensure the accuracy, completeness, and originality of their work. They are also required to make sure their submission adheres to the style guide set out in the ‘For Authors’ section of the website.
Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publication
Submissions describing essentially the same research should not be submitted to more than one journal publishing primary research. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is both unethical and unacceptable. Generally, authors are discouraged from submitting the same or similar texts for publication in another journal, including work that has been published previously., unless it had been presented as an abstract, part of a lecture or thesis, or as an electronic preprint. The publication of certain texts such as translations are acceptable, given they are produced with the consent of the original authors, and presented as secondary publications with references to the original.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest and Financial Support
Authors should disclose any financial or any other substantive conflict of interest that might influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. Individuals or organizations that have provided financial support for research must be acknowledged in the acknowledgement section at the end of the submission.
AI Content Generation or Assistance
AI programmes cannot be listed as author(s) of submissions. If AI programmes such as chatGPT are used in the creation of a submission, a declaration regarding the extent of its use must be visible at the outset of the submission. Work created using AI tools remains the responsibility of the author(s). AI can create seemingly convincing but erroneous materials that should be checked by human authors. Authors must ensure that editors understand the extent of AI use in the creation of the submission and must demonstrate that it is not a basis for allegations of misconduct.
Image Integrity and Resolution Requirements
Enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or introducing any feature within an image is unethical and unacceptable. Modifications to brightness, contrast, or colour balance are acceptable, if and only if, such changes do not obscure or eliminate any information from the source image. It is acceptable, however, to improve image clarity by adjusting the brightness, contrast or colour balance. Authors may not alter an image in ways that would be considered scholarly misconduct by their peers.
Authors must provide .jpeg images and sources for all images included in a submission. Images must meet the minimum resolution requirements for online publication.
Notification of Basic Errors
In the case that an author discovers an important error in their own published work, it is the author’s responsibility to inform the editors as soon as possible, and to correct or retract the published text. The author is obliged to work cooperatively with the editor to rectify the publication.