Ethical Standards and Procedures

For all parties involved in the process of publishing (Authors, Reviewers and Editorial Board), it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour. To guarantee high ethical standards, Indian Society for Plantation Crops (ISPC) has developed international standards for all the parties. ISPC is committed to meeting and upholding standards of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process and expects all the parties to commit to these standards.


The authorship should be based on the following criteria:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data;
  • Drafting/revising the work critically for important intellectual content to be published
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part are appropriately investigated and resolved.

All who meet the above criteria should be identified as authors. It is the collective responsibility of the authors, not the journal to which the work is submitted, to determine that all people named as authors meet all criteria; it is not the role of journal Editors to determine who quali?es or does not qualify for authorship or to arbitrate authorship con?icts. If agreement cannot be reached about who quali?es for authorship, the institution(s) where the work was performed should be asked to investigate. If authors request removal or addition of an author after manuscript submission or publication, journal Editors should seek an explanation and signed statement of agreement for the requested change from all listed authors and from the author to be removed or added.

The corresponding author is the one individual who takes primary responsibility for communication with the journal during the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication process, and typically ensures that all the journal's administrative requirements, such as providing details of authorship and gathering con?ict of interest forms and statements. The corresponding author should be available throughout the submission and peer review process to respond to Editorial queries in a timely way, and should be available after publication to respond to critiques of the work and cooperate with any requests from the journal for data or additional information should questions about the paper arise after publication.

The Editor initially evaluates the originality and potential impact of the work. Manuscripts which fall outside the journal's scope or are substandard in respects of non-merit reasons (crop coverage, inconclusive or incomplete work, merely confirmatory, with scientific or methodological flaws, of insufficient originality or poor presentation) are returned to the author(s) without detailed review. The Editor is fully responsible for further handling the manuscript and ultimate decision about its acceptance/rejection. All submitted papers that meet Editorial criteria for content and minimum quality standard are subject to strict peer-review process by a reviewer who is expert in the area of the particular paper.

The reviewers make an objective, impartial evaluation of scientific merits of the manuscript. Reviewers are asked to comment on the following aspects of the submitted manuscripts:

  • Novelty and originality of the work;
  • Broad interest to the Plantation crop and Spices community;
  • Significance to the field, potential impact of the work, conceptual or methodological advances described; study design and clarity;
  • Substantial evidence supporting claims and conclusions;

The primary criteria for judging the acceptability of a manuscript are its originality, scientific importance and interest to plantation crop sector. If a manuscript is believed to not meet the standards of the journal or is otherwise lacking in scientific rigor or contains major deficiencies, the reviewers will attempt to provide constructive criticism to assist the authors in ultimately improving their work. If a manuscript is believed to be potentially acceptable for publication but needs to be improved, it is invited for reconsideration with the expectation that the authors will fully address the reviewer's suggestions.

Once all reviews have been received and considered by the Editor, a decision letter to the author is drafted. There are several types of decisions possible:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept after minor revision
  • Accept after major revision
  • Reject.

Authors’ Responsibilities

All authors must take public responsibility for the content of their paper.

Authors should confirm that all the work in the submitted manuscript is original and is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere. Only unpublished manuscripts should be submitted.

Authors should acknowledge and cite content reproduced from other sources. It should be stated that all data in the paper are real and authentic. Plagiarism, duplicate, data fabrication and falsification, and redundant publications are forbidden.

Authors should maintain accurate records of data associated with their submitted manuscript and supply or provide access to these data, on reasonable request.

Authors should declare any potential conflicts of interest

Authors should notify promptly the journal Editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified.

Authors should cooperate with the Editor and publisher to publish an erratum, addendum, corrigendum notice, or to retract the paper, where this is deemed necessary.

Author(s) should state that the study they are submitting was approved by the relevant research ethics committee or institutional review board and should include information about research funding in all papers they prepare for publication.

Contributors who do not qualify as authors should also be listed and their particular contribution described which should appear as an acknowledgement.

Authors have a right to appeal Editorial decisions

Reviewer’s Responsibilities

Reviewer should contribute to the decision-making process, and assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the manuscript objectively, in a timely manner providing accurate, unbiased and justifiable reports.

Reviewers must objectively evaluate the manuscripts based only on their originality, significance and relevance to the domains of the journal and should alert the Editor, any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.

Reviewer should ensure that all information pertaining to the manuscript is kept confidential and not retain or copy the manuscript.

Reviewer should be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and communicate to the Editor

Reviewer should ensure that all manuscripts are reviewed in fairness based on the intellectual content of the paper regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry nor political values of author(s).

Reviewer should communicate to the Editor, the reason for the rejection of publication of a manuscript.

Reviewers and Editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors’ permission.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Editor’s Responsibilities

The Editor should consider and accept articles solely on their academic merit and without pressure from the Editor's employer, the journal owner or the publisher or personal interest.

The Editor should act in a balanced, objective and fair way, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.

Editors must treat all submitted papers as confidential.

Editors should aim to ensure timely peer review and publication for papers they receive, especially where, to the extent that this can be predicted, findings may have important implications.

Editors should encourage peer reviewers to identify if they have a conflict of interest with the material they are being asked to review.

Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers and, even if peer reviewer identities are revealed, should discourage authors from contacting peer reviewers directly, especially if misconduct is suspected.

Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article and are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.The decision to accept or reject a paper should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the scope of the journal.

Editors should mediate all exchanges between authors and peer reviewers during the peer-review process. If agreement cannot be reached, Editors should consider inviting comments from additional peer reviewer(s), if necessary.

The Editor should adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflict nature, in accordance with the policies and procedures of the Society where appropriate. The Editor should give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints.

Editors should publish corrections if errors are discovered that could affect the interpretation of data or information presented in an article.

Editor should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.

Editor should treat allegations of plagiarism seriously and should reserve the right to reject papers if there is doubt whether appropriate procedures have been followed.

Editor should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.Readers may be informed if ethical breaches have occurred.

Editor should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.

Editor should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.

Editorial Board’s Responsibilities

The Editorial Board takes responsibility for making publication decisions for submitted manuscripts based on the reviewer’s evaluation of the manuscript, policies of the journal editorial board and legal restrain acting against plagiarism and copyright infringement.

The Editorial Board is responsible for making publication decisions for submitted manuscripts

The Editorial Board must evaluate manuscripts only for their intellectual content.

The Editorial Board must maintain the integrity of the academic record and must strive to constantly improve the journal

The Editorial Board must disclose any conflicts of interest and preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.

The Editorial Board must always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.


In order to encourage transparency without impeding publication, all authors, referees and editor must declare any association that poses a conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript.

Authors should declare whether they have any conflicts of interests that could have influenced the reporting of the experimental data or conclusions in their paper. Such a statement should list all potential interests or, if appropriate, should clearly state that there are none. The Editor may decide not to publish papers when the competing interests are such that they may have compromised the work or the analyses or interpretations presented. It is the responsibility of authors to disclose in the Acknowledgments section any funding sources for the project or other relationships that are relevant.

Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscripts. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Editor should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. Editor who believes that the conflict will preclude an impaired judgment should disclose the nature of the conflict and decline to handle the paper.