A fair, evidence-based, and transparent procedure for investigating research misconduct and protecting the integrity of the scholarly record.
Green Economics Review (GER) is committed to maintaining the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the scholarly record. The journal takes allegations of research misconduct and serious publication irregularities seriously and handles them fairly, confidentially, and in accordance with applicable ethical standards.
The Editor-in-Chief and editorial team follow relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when assessing allegations, conducting editorial investigations, and determining appropriate actions. The purpose of these procedures is to establish the facts, protect the interests of all parties, and ensure that published research remains reliable.
Research misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, citation manipulation, and other serious irregularities in conducting, reviewing, writing, or reporting research. The following practices may constitute misconduct or a serious breach of publication ethics:
Inventing data, observations, experiments, participants, or research results and reporting them as genuine.
Manipulating research materials, processes, data, images, or results in ways that misrepresent the research record.
Using another person's words, ideas, methods, data, or findings without appropriate acknowledgment.
Inappropriately adding, requesting, or arranging citations to inflate citation counts or manipulate scholarly impact rather than improve the research.
These may include duplicate publication, manipulated peer review, unauthorized use of research materials, serious authorship misrepresentation, undisclosed competing interests, or unethical research practices.
Allegations are assessed individually. An honest error, a difference in scholarly interpretation, or an isolated similarity in wording does not automatically establish research misconduct.
Allegations may be submitted to the editorial office by authors, reviewers, readers, researchers, institutions, or other parties who have relevant information concerning a manuscript or published article.
To support a fair assessment, complainants are encouraged to provide:
Allegations will be considered on the basis of their substance and supporting evidence, not solely on the identity, position, or personal interests of the complainant. Confidentiality will be maintained as far as reasonably possible, subject to the requirements of a fair investigation.
GER follows a structured procedure to assess allegations and determine the appropriate editorial response.
The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor reviews the allegation to determine whether it falls within the scope of research or publication misconduct and whether there is sufficient information to justify further inquiry. The editor also considers possible conflicts of interest involving the complainant, the authors, or other parties.
The editorial team examines the available evidence, which may include similarity reports, source documents, publication histories, data, research records, peer review documentation, or other relevant materials. Where necessary, independent subject experts or statistical reviewers may be consulted.
Where the allegation warrants further investigation, the corresponding author will normally be informed of the concern and invited to provide a reasoned response and relevant supporting evidence on behalf of the author group. The authors should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond before an adverse conclusion is reached, except where immediate action is necessary to protect the scholarly record.
If the concern remains unresolved, the journal may seek additional expert advice, request original data or supporting records, or contact the authors' affiliated institution or relevant research body. Institutions are generally expected to investigate allegations concerning the conduct of their researchers and communicate relevant findings where appropriate.
After considering the available evidence, the authors' response, and any relevant expert or institutional findings, the editor determines the appropriate action. The decision should be proportionate to the seriousness of the issue and its implications for the validity, attribution, or ethical acceptability of the research.
The journal maintains appropriate records of the allegation, correspondence, evidence, and editorial decision. Where action affecting a published article is required, the journal will publish the appropriate notice and ensure that the notice is linked to the original article.
Depending on the stage of publication, the strength of the evidence, and the seriousness of the concern, GER may take one or more of the following actions:
Seek further explanations, original data, documentation, or corrections from the authors.
Reject a submission when the findings or research practices fail to meet the journal's ethical or scholarly standards.
Correct a material error when the affected part can be amended and the overall reliability of the article remains intact.
Alert readers to a significant unresolved concern when available evidence is inconclusive or an investigation is ongoing or substantially delayed.
Retract a published article when the evidence establishes that its findings are unreliable or serious ethical or publication violations undermine the integrity of the scholarly record.
A manuscript found to involve substantiated research misconduct or serious publication irregularities will be rejected. Depending on the circumstances, the journal may request additional documentation, inform the relevant institution, or take other appropriate steps consistent with publication ethics. A rejection decision does not prevent the journal from pursuing further action where necessary to address serious concerns.
Published articles may be considered for retraction when there is clear and sufficiently substantiated evidence that the reliability, integrity, or ethical acceptability of the publication has been seriously compromised.
Grounds for considering retraction include:
Retraction is intended to correct the scholarly record and alert readers to unreliable research, not to serve as punishment. The editor will assess the evidence and determine whether retraction or another corrective action is appropriate, even where the authors do not agree with the decision.
When a retraction is warranted, GER will publish a clearly identified retraction notice that explains the reasons for the action in factual and objective terms. The notice should:
The original article will ordinarily remain accessible as part of the scholarly record, clearly marked as retracted, except where removal is required by applicable law or exceptional circumstances.
If the evidence is insufficient to establish misconduct but serious concerns remain about the reliability or integrity of a published article, the journal may issue an Expression of Concern while further inquiries are pursued. The notice will explain the nature of the unresolved concern and will be linked to the original article. When additional evidence becomes available, the journal may issue a correction, retract the article, or publish a further notice clarifying the outcome.
Research institutions are generally responsible for investigating allegations concerning the conduct of their researchers. GER may communicate with an author's institution, research organization, funder, or another relevant body when the seriousness of the allegation or the available evidence warrants such action.
The journal may request information about the outcome of an institutional investigation where relevant to the reliability or integrity of a submission or publication. The journal retains responsibility for editorial actions concerning its own publication record, taking institutional findings into account alongside the evidence available to it.
Allegations will be handled confidentially to the extent reasonably possible. Information will be shared only with individuals or organizations whose involvement is necessary to assess the concern, protect the scholarly record, or meet applicable legal and ethical obligations.
Editors must assess evidence impartially and disclose or manage conflicts of interest that could compromise the investigation. Where an editor is implicated or otherwise unable to act independently, the matter should be assigned to an independent editor or appropriate authority.
All relevant parties should be treated fairly and given an appropriate opportunity to provide information or respond to concerns. The journal will avoid making public allegations of wrongdoing before the evidence and circumstances justify an editorial notice or other disclosure.
GER's procedures are informed by the following guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE):
Green Economics Review is committed to addressing research misconduct responsibly, correcting the scholarly record when necessary, and maintaining the trust of authors, reviewers, readers, research institutions, and the wider academic community.
