Publishing Policies

Editorial Roles

The publisher maintains a three-tier editorial structure as part of its publishing practices and policies. These roles include:

Editor-in-Chief (EIC): The EIC is responsible for the overall development of the journal. The EIC makes the final editorial decisions unless co-authoring a manuscript. The EIC, with inputs from the editorial board members, sets the editorial processes and ethical standards for the journal.
Associate Editors (AEs): AE support the EIC by managing submissions within their subject expertise. They oversee the peer review process of the assigned article and make recommendations to the EIC. They may also independently review the manuscript.
Advisors: They are the senior members of the scientific community who provide high-level strategic advice on the journal's mission and vision and offer advice on the journal’s long-term goal.

If an editorial team member submits a manuscript as an author, they will not participate in the decision-making process for their submission. Instead, the manuscript will be reviewed and managed by editors or reviewers with no conflicts of interest to ensure an impartial evaluation.

Responsibilities of Editorial Board Members

The editorial board members have the following responsibilities:

Commitment to the Journal’s Mission: The members shall be committed to supporting the journal’s mission and vision of publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed research in the broader context of environmental science, health, and sustainability.
Peer Review Process: The members shall actively participate in the peer review process by reviewing manuscripts in a timely fashion and providing constructive feedback to authors. Additionally, they shall participate in the manuscript handling process by soliciting external reviewers for independent feedback and recommending their judgment to the editor-in-chief.
Confidentiality: The members shall maintain a high level of confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts, reviewers’ identities (unless they choose to reveal their name to authors), and editorial discussions.
Ethical Standards: The members shall uphold the highest ethical standards in research and publication in line with COPE Guidelines, ensuring the integrity of the peer review process and transparency in handling conflicts of interest.
Contribution to Journal Development: The members shall assist in identifying potential contributors and recommending topics of relevance to the field for regular and/or special issues.
Timeliness: The members shall respond promptly to editorial duties, including manuscript reviews and processing, and attend editorial board meetings or calls when possible.
Adherence to Policies: The members shall follow the journal’s editorial and publication policies, ensuring alignment with its goals and standards.

Editorial Independence

The publisher maintains the ethos of complete editorial independence. The publisher upholds the value of independence in the decision-making process by the journal’s editorial board members and has a clear commitment to no interference in peer review processes. The publisher’s commitment to editorial independence ensures that personal characteristics or identity do not influence how we treat authors, editors, or peer reviewers.

Editorial Processes

The editorial processes can vary across different journals; however, the publisher currently follows a single-blind peer review model across all journals. This model balances transparency with fair assessment to uphold the highest standards. While the publisher and/or its journals encourage reviewers to reveal their identity to the authors upon manuscript acceptance, reviewers may choose to remain anonymous. The names of the handling editor and reviewer are included in the published version of the article if they have agreed upon them. This practice helps build trust and confidence among our readers.

The detailed editorial workflow is shown below:

All submissions undergo initial editorial screening by the journal manager and/or managing editor to ensure that the submitted manuscript meets the journal’s basic requirements, such as whether the submission follows the author's guidelines. AI detection checks were also performed in this stage. The manuscript also undergoes a plagiarism check by the journal manager and/or managing editor and confirms whether the manuscript meets the journal’s quality control of a similarity index of less than 20%. Authors are informed of any changes that are required at this stage. If any changes and formatting are required, the submissions are sent back to the authors for recommended changes before assigning the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC).
EIC is responsible for checking the quality, including thorough plagiarism checks and relevance to the journal’s scope. At this stage, the EIC or an assigned Associate Editor (AE) may provide constructive editorial feedback to authors to help improve clarity, structure, and overall quality before peer review. The EIC determines whether the manuscript has merit and novelty to go through the peer-review process. The EIC can either reject the manuscript or assign that to an Associate Editor (AE) based on the subject matter of the manuscript. The entire process is normally completed within one week from submission unless the manuscript does not pass the initial editorial screening.
The peer review process is handled by the AE. The AE sends the manuscripts to two or more external reviewers for evaluation under the single-blind peer review model. Reviewers are typically given 3 weeks to complete their assessments and submit their detailed recommendations to the associate editor (i.e., handling editor). The AE thoroughly checks the reviewer’s comments and recommendations and makes their initial determination whether to ask for revision or recommend rejection of the manuscript. In cases of required revisions, the AE, with the help of the journal manager, sends authors detailed feedback from reviewers to help guide the revisions. Authors are typically given 1–2 weeks to address minor comments. For substantial revisions, authors may receive 3–4 weeks to make changes and submit a revised version. The revised manuscript may undergo an additional round of review if substantial changes are made or if new concerns arise. Once all revisions are satisfactorily addressed, the manuscript undergoes a final editorial review. The AE then makes a final recommendation on the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript to the EIC. This process normally takes 6 to 8 weeks to finish.
The EIC reviews the AE’s recommendations and makes the final decision. Authors are notified whether their manuscript is accepted or rejected.
Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage for copyediting, language check, formatting, and proofreading and are typically published in the next available issue. Online pre-publication may be available before the issue's release. The production process is done by the copyeditor. During the production stages, authors are required to check and confirm both copyedited manuscripts as well as proofread the final version of the manuscript before being published online.

Manuscript Acceptance Criteria

Manuscripts should be written in a well-structured manner, with a logical flow and clear language, and must align with the journal’s core focus areas. The abstract should summarize the main findings, while the introduction, methodology, experimental, results, and discussion should be coherent. A thorough review of the relevant literature is required, with citations formatted according to the journal’s reference style and proper credit given to prior research.

Research must be based on reproducible study designs, with transparent data collection and analysis. The methodology should allow replication, and results must be presented accurately and supported by appropriate statistical analyses.

Human Subjects and Animal Research

Research involving human subjects must carry approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or from a relevant committee. Research involving animals must also carry approval from the Institutional IRB. In such instances, the submissions must contain the relevant documentation.

Use of Generative AI in Research

Authors must declare the extent of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) use in writing and conceptualization of the manuscript in their cover letter. Generative AI and/or AI technologies can be used during manuscript preparation; however, the authors should not frame their research based on GenAI or ChatGPT. Instead, they can use them at a minimal level to improve the grammar and readability of the manuscript. This must be disclosed in the cover letter. The publisher uses AI detector to identify the extent of AI use in scientific writing.

For more comprehensive information regarding the use AI, please refer to the guidelines provided by Elsevier.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including financial, personal, or professional relationships, they may have. These disclosures help in promoting transparency and trust among the journal's users and further help in making unbiased decision-making.

Authors should clearly disclose funding sources and the role of funders in the research design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and publication.

Editors and reviewers must also declare any conflicts that could compromise the integrity of the review process. Alternative editors or reviewers may be assigned, if needed.

The conflicts of interest disclosure prevents ethical concerns and protects the journal's reputation.

Ethical Practices

We are not a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); however, we adhere to COPE guidelines to ensure integrity, transparency, and accountability in our publishing practices. We take plagiarism and data falsification seriously:

The authors must ensure that all sources listed in the manuscript are cited appropriately, including instances of attribution of their own work. The editorial team will take extreme care in checking the manuscript for plagiarism (using iThenticate software) prior to making an editorial decision.
The author’s responsibility is to provide accurate and unpublished data in the submission. Data falsification in any form (e.g., in figures and tables) will result in rejection of the manuscript. If such an issue arises in a published article, the journal’s ethical committee will take a serious note and investigate the case to a resolution. In an extreme case, the published article will be retracted. Proper citation of data sources is highly recommended.

Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism is defined as the wrongful attribution of publication of someone else's work as one’s own. The publisher strongly objects to such unethical practices. This includes practices such as copying or rephrasing a source without proper citation. Authors can prevent from doing such actions by citing or acknowledging the original source. During submissions, authors must sign a declaration of copyright notice and/or submission agreement and confirming that all sources have been properly cited, that they understand plagiarism and its unethical nature, and that they take full responsibility for their work.

To prevent plagiarism, the journal adopts a single-blind peer review process and uses iThenticate software to check for similarities (typically 20% or less), ensuring high ethical standards in publication.

Retraction, Correction, and Complaint Processes

The journal follows the policy of retractions, corrections, and complaints as stipulated in COPE guidelines:

In the event of a reported or confirmed case of scientific misconduct, data falsification, or ethical violations, the journal issues a retraction notice. A clear explanation for the retraction is provided to maintain transparency. We have a dedicated team of the ethical committee to address these issues.
Minor errors can lead to an erratum. This means that the research outcome is not compromised in any way. In such a situation, a correction notice is tied to the original article.
Complaints are managed through a formal process to ensure fairness and alignment with publishing practices and ethical guidelines. Each case is reviewed thoroughly and transparently.

Misconduct Handling

Complaints related to ethical practices, such as plagiarism, data falsification, and authorship disputes, should be addressed to either the publisher or the journal’s editors-in-chief. The publisher notes these complaints very seriously. Publishers have a dedicated ethical committee to address these complaints and consider resolution following the COPE guidelines.

If misconduct is identified, such as by the reviewer or by the reader, the journal investigates and takes appropriate action based on evidence provided, including notifying authors to explain the issue in writing. In cases of proven scientific misconduct, data falsification, fraud, or plagiarism, the publisher, in collaboration with editors-in-chief, may issue corrections or a retraction of the paper. Efforts will be made to detect and prevent such misconduct, such as plagiarism detection, during the review process. All authors must comply with the publisher’s and/or journal’s decisions on such matters.

Correction and Retraction Policies

The publisher is committed to upholding the integrity of the literature and publishes Errata, Expressions of Concerns or Retraction Notices, dependent on the situation and in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines. In all cases, these notices are linked to the original article.

Information on COPE Retraction Guidelines can be found here: Retraction Guidelines.

CrossMark Policy

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative that provides a standard way for readers to locate the authoritative version of an article or other published content. By applying the CrossMark logo, the publisher commits to maintaining the content it publishes and alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.

Clicking the CrossMark logo on a published article will tell you its current status and may also give you additional publication-record information about the document.

For more information on CrossMark, please visit the CrossMark site.

The content published by Enviro Mind Solutions will display the CrossMark logo. It is restricted to current and future journal content and applies only to specific publication types.