Journal of Forests

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Journal of Forests is committed to publishing high-quality, original, and scientifically sound research in forestry and related disciplines. Peer review is an essential component of the scholarly publishing process and serves to evaluate the quality, validity, originality, and significance of submitted manuscripts.

The peer review process ensures that published articles contribute meaningfully to advancing knowledge in forest science, forest ecology, conservation, biodiversity, climate change, forest management, environmental sustainability, and related fields. Through rigorous peer review, the journal maintains the integrity of the scientific record and promotes excellence in research and scholarship.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor. The assessment considers:

• Relevance to the aims and scope of the Journal of Forests;

• Originality and scientific significance;

• Methodological rigor and validity;

• Compliance with the journal’s submission requirements;

• Ethical and professional standards;

• Clarity of presentation and language quality.

Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal’s standards or fall outside its scope may be rejected without external peer review.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

The Journal of Forests employs a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process. Authors must ensure that their manuscripts are prepared without information that could reveal their identity.

Following editorial screening, suitable manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on scientific merit, originality, methodological soundness, interpretation of results, and contribution to the advancement of forestry and environmental sciences.

The double-blind review system promotes fairness, impartiality, and objectivity while minimizing potential bias.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to conduct evaluations objectively, fairly, and confidentially. Their responsibilities include:

• Assessing the originality, quality, and significance of the research;

• Evaluating the appropriateness of research methods, analyses, and interpretations;

• Determining whether conclusions are adequately supported by evidence;

• Identifying relevant literature that has not been cited;

• Reporting suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, or other ethical concerns;

• Providing constructive comments to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and decline review invitations when such conflicts may compromise their impartiality.

5. Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are based on reviewer recommendations and the independent judgment of the handling editor. Decisions may include:

• Accept;

• Minor Revision;

• Major Revision;

• Reject with Resubmission Encouraged;

• Reject.

The Editor-in-Chief/Handling Editor retains final responsibility for all publication decisions. Additional reviewers may be consulted when necessary to ensure a balanced and comprehensive evaluation.

6. Plagiarism Screening and Originality Verification

Journal of Forests is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and research integrity. All manuscripts are screened for similarity and originality using iThenticate through the Crossref Similarity Check service before publication.

The journal does not accept manuscripts involving:

• Plagiarism;

• Self-plagiarism;

• Duplicate or redundant publication;

• Data fabrication or falsification;

• Manipulation of images, figures, or research data;

• Citation manipulation.

Suspected cases of publication misconduct are handled in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

7. Conflict of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors are required to disclose any financial, professional, institutional, or personal relationships that could influence or be perceived to influence the research, peer review process, or editorial decisions.

All authors must provide a Conflict of Interest Statement at the time of submission. Any potential conflicts will be evaluated by the editorial office to ensure transparency and integrity throughout the publication process.

8. Research Ethics and Environmental Responsibility

Research published in the Journal of Forests must be conducted in accordance with recognized ethical, legal, and environmental standards.

Authors are expected to:

• Comply with national and international regulations governing forestry research;

• Obtain necessary permits and approvals for fieldwork, specimen collection, and protected-area research;

• Follow ethical standards for biodiversity conservation and environmental protection;

• Ensure accurate reporting of research methods and findings;

• Minimize ecological disturbance during data collection whenever possible.

Research involving endangered species, protected ecosystems, indigenous communities, or sensitive environmental resources must clearly demonstrate compliance with relevant ethical and legal requirements.

9. Human Participants and Informed Consent

Where forestry or environmental research involves human participants, including surveys, interviews, community-based research, or indigenous knowledge studies, authors must obtain approval from an appropriate ethics review committee when required.

Authors must also obtain informed consent from participants and ensure that confidentiality, privacy, and participant rights are protected throughout the research process.

10. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Forests are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose manuscript content or use unpublished information for personal, academic, or commercial advantage.

Confidentiality obligations continue even after the review process has been completed.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a misunderstanding or procedural error may submit a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals will be reviewed objectively and may involve consultation with independent experts when appropriate.

Complaints regarding editorial processes, publication ethics, or reviewer conduct are addressed in accordance with COPE Core Practices and ethical guidelines.

12. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

The Journal of Forests adheres to the principles and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers are expected to uphold the highest standards of honesty, transparency, accountability, and professionalism throughout the publication process.

The journal is committed to promoting responsible research practices and ensuring that published work contributes reliably and ethically to the advancement of forest science and environmental sustainability.

References

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2021). COPE Core Practices. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/core-practices

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Available at: https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers

Crossref. (2024). Similarity Check Powered by iThenticate. Available at: https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2024). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Available at: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/

Wager, E., & Kleinert, S. (2011). Responsible research publication: International standards for editors. In T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment (pp. 317–328). World Scientific.

Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities. BMJ, 323(7321), 1103–1105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7321.1103