Serambi Biologi publishes peer-reviewed articles. Serambi Biologi the best standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractices. It is important to agree upon standards of proper ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the authors, the editors, the reviewers, the publisher and the society

Duties of author(s)

sources: http://www.publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf

1. Authorship of the paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the reported study. If there are others participant who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
2. Originality and plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if there were the work and/or words of others, so it has been appropriately cited.
3. Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication: The authors should not submit same manuscripts in more than one journal or primary publication.
4. Acknowledgement of sources: Proper acknowledgment to others are always written.
5. Disclosure and conflicts of interest: The authors must include disclosure of all relationships to prevent a potential conflict of interest.
6. Fundamental errors in published works: When the authors discover significant error or their own published work, they have to notify and be cooperated to the journal editor or publisher to retract or correct the paper.
7. Reporting standards: The Authors should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion.
8. Hazards and human or animal subjects: If the work involves unusual hazards inherent and/or the use of animal or human subjects, so the authors have to state and write it clearly in their paper.
9. Use of patient images or case details: Studies on patients or volunteers require ethics committee approval and it should be documented in the paper.

Duties of Editor(s)

1. Publication decisions: The editor(s) may be guided by the policies of the journal's Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
2. Fair play: The editor(s) should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
3. Confidentiality: The editor(s) must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
4. Acknowledgement of sources: Proper acknowledgment to others are always written.
5. Disclosure and conflicts of interest: The editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
6. Journal self-citation: The editor(s) should direct authors to relevant literature as part of the peer review process, however this should never extend to blanket instructions to cite individual journals.
7. Involvement and cooperation in investigations: Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. The editor of the Journal of Degraded and Mining Lands Management should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society).

Duties of Reviewer(s)

sources: http://www.publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf

1. Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
2. Promptness: Any selected peer reviewer who feels unqualified to peer review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
3. Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for peer review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
4. Standards of objectivity: Peer reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
5. Acknowledgement of sources: Peer reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
6. Journal self-citation: The editor(s) should direct authors to relevant literature as part of the peer review process, however this should never extend to blanket instructions to cite individual journals.
7. Disclosure and conflict of interest: Peer 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.