Research and publishing integrity

The editorial policies of Research and Reviews in Sustainability are written to follow the COPE Code of Conduct for COPE Members and the COPE Core Principles, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published jointly by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME. Where a case is not covered here, we follow the relevant COPE flowcharts.

• The work is original, is not published elsewhere, and is not under consideration elsewhere.
• Every author meets the four authorship conditions set out in this policy, and everyone who meets them is listed.
• Data and results are real, and are reported as they were obtained. Figures are not manipulated to change what they show.
• Sources are cited, including the authors' own earlier work. Reusing your own text without citation is still undisclosed reuse.
• All funding is declared, and all competing interests are declared, including those of every co-author.
• Research involving people, animals or identifiable data was approved by the appropriate body before it began, and the approval is named in the article.

• A manuscript under review is confidential. It is not shared, quoted, or used in the reviewer's own work.
• A reviewer who has a competing interest declines the invitation and says why.
• Reviews address the work, not the authors, and give reasons that an author can act on.
• Manuscripts are not entered into any generative AI system. See the generative AI policy.

• Decisions are made on the scholarly merit of the work and on nothing else.
• An editor with a competing interest in a submission takes no part in its handling, and the submission is reassigned.
• Author identity is not visible to reviewers, and reviewer identity is not visible to authors.
• Editorial independence is absolute. No commercial, institutional or personal relationship influences a decision.

Members of the editorial board may submit to the journal. When they do, they are removed from the handling of their own paper entirely: they cannot see it in the system, cannot select its reviewers, and cannot influence its decision, which is taken by a different editor.

An allegation of misconduct is taken seriously wherever it comes from, including anonymously, and is assessed on evidence rather than on the standing of the person making it.

1. We look first

   The editorial office establishes what is actually being alleged and gathers the record: the submission, the reviews, the correspondence and the published version.

2. We ask the authors

   The corresponding author is told what has been raised and is given a reasonable opportunity to respond in writing before any conclusion is reached.

3. We escalate where it belongs

   Where a matter concerns how research was conducted rather than how it was reported, it is referred to the authors' institution, which has the standing to investigate it. We do not attempt to investigate research conduct ourselves.

4. We correct the record

   Where the published record is wrong, it is corrected, marked with an expression of concern, or retracted. See the corrections and retractions policy.

Cases are handled following the relevant COPE flowcharts. The outcome is communicated to the person who raised the matter.

Research and Reviews in Sustainability applies the ICMJE authorship criteria. An author is someone who meets all four conditions: substantial contribution to conception, design, acquisition, analysis or interpretation; drafting or critically revising the work; approval of the final version; and agreement to be accountable for its accuracy and integrity.

Contributions are recorded on the published article using CRediT (ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022), so a reader can see what each named author actually did. Contributors who do not meet all four conditions are named in the acknowledgements with their contribution described.

• Guest, gift and honorary authorship are not permitted.
• Ghost authorship is not permitted. Anyone who wrote part of the paper is named.
• The author list is fixed at submission. Any change afterwards requires written agreement from every author, including the one being added or removed, and a reason the editor accepts.
• A generative AI system cannot be an author. See the generative AI policy.

Every submission carries a competing interests statement covering every author. Where there is nothing to declare, the article says so explicitly rather than leaving the field out. Financial and non-financial interests are both declarable: employment, consultancy, funding, patents, shareholdings, and personal or professional relationships that a reasonable reader might think could have influenced the work.