Publication Ethics and Malpractice Policy

Editorial Policies
Natural Resources for Human Health is dedicated to upholding the scientific record's integrity, Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement. It is based on the Code of Conduct and Best Publishing Practice in scientific publications, which contains the Recommendations for the Conduct Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journal (ICMJE) and the Principal of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (joint statement by COPE, DOAJ, WAME, and OASPSA). Natural Resources for Human Health encourages its editors to adhere to the "Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Plagiarism
Self-plagiarism is the redundant reuse of one's work, "using another's invention without crediting the sources," or "presenting an idea or product derived from an existing source as novel and original." The Natural Resources for Human Health also considers "self-plagiarism" a form of plagiarism. Self-plagiarism occurs when an author plagiarises their previously published work without properly citing it in a newly submitted manuscript. As a part of the technical check in our manuscript submission system (Editorial System), all submissions are screened with iThenticate. Only submissions that pass the technical check are considered for additional editorial and peer review.

Editors Responsibilities:

• Editor of NRFHH is responsible for deciding the publication of articles submitted to the journal. The editor may consult the editorial board, and reviewers, in making decisions and will consider the recommendations of corresponding editors. Also, the editor will consider basic legal requirements for publication, including plagiarism and copyright infringement.
• Manuscripts submitted to the journal are evaluated based on their intellectual and scientific content. NRFHH ensure the publication process is free from any bias without regard to any form of discrimination, including race or gender or religious beliefs or political ideology or citizenship.
• Editor or any other editorial staff should not disclose the status of the manuscript under review in a journal to any individual or organization other than the corresponding author, potential reviewers, editorial advisors and publisher only when appropriate by appropriate means.

Reviewers Responsibilities:

• Reviewers, through peer review, assist the editor in making editorial decisions and the author(s) in improvising their manuscript.
• When an assigned referee feels unqualified for the review of the assigned manuscript or who knows that timely review will not be possible, then the referee should excuse himself/herself by notifying the editor on time to avoid any delay in manuscript review.
• Reviewers should express objective comments without personally criticising the author(s). Also, reviewers shall provide necessary supporting arguments and clearly express their views to the author(s), which should assist the author(s) in improvising their work.
• Reviewers should promptly communicate with the editor over the conflict of interest that may result from undue influence over their ability to evaluate the manuscript professionally. Also, any directly competitive or collaborative relationship between the author and the manuscript review will constitute a conflict of interest. If the editor assumes the presence of such conflict, an alternate review will be assigned for review.

Author’s Responsibilities:

• Author(s) of the manuscript submitting to NRFHH should present an accurate account of the work undertaken and discuss its significance objectively. It is to be ensured by the author that the entire work is undertaken by them and in case of use of work or words of others that need to be cited and referenced and acknowledged.
• Author(s) should not simultaneously submit the same manuscript to multiple journals. In such cases, it will be deemed as unethical behaviour. If found of such behaviour editor of the journal holds the right to remove or reject the manuscript submitted to NRFHH.
• Authorship should be restricted to persons who have contributed significantly to the manuscript, including conception and execution of the work submitted to the journal. The corresponding author should ensure that all co-authors have reviewed the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its publication in the journal.
• Author(s) should cite and acknowledge the work of others properly. Explicit written permission should be obtained in case of information is obtained privately or utilizing confidential services, including through grant applications or referring manuscripts.
• Author(s) should disclose to the editor any possible conflict of interest, including financial or substantive data use or obtained results or interpretation present in the manuscript. All sources of financial support should be disclosed in the manuscript’s acknowledgement section.
• If the authors(s) identify any error or inaccuracy in the manuscript, it should be notified to the editor or publisher. Also, full cooperation is expected from the author(s) to retract or correct the published manuscript in NRFHH.