Updates to Publication Ethics, Generative AI Policy, and Peer Review Process

Reog: Journal of Ecoethnoscience Education has updated its Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, Generative Artificial Intelligence Utilization Policy, and Peer Review Process to strengthen responsible, transparent, objective, and ethical scholarly publishing practices.

The main updates include the following:

1. Strengthening Publication Ethics Principles

Reog strengthens its commitment to transparency, accountability, confidentiality, fairness, editorial independence, peer-review integrity, authorship responsibility, and the protection of the integrity of the scholarly record. The updated policies provide clearer explanations of the responsibilities of Editors, Reviewers, authors, the Reog Editorial Team, the publisher, and other parties involved in the publication process.

2. Clearer Guidance on Authorship and Authorship Disputes

The updated policies emphasize that authorship must be based on substantive scholarly contribution and human accountability. Authorship disputes must be resolved by the authors and, when necessary, by the relevant institutions or authorities. Reog may suspend the editorial or publication process until the dispute is resolved. Any request for authorship changes after manuscript submission must be submitted in writing, include a clear reason, and be approved by all authors concerned.

3. Clearer Procedures for Allegations of Misconduct and Post-Publication Actions

The updated policies provide clearer procedures for complaints, appeals, allegations of research and publication ethics violations, Correction, Erratum, Corrigendum, Expression of Concern, manuscript withdrawal, article retraction, article removal, article replacement, post-publication changes, and other editorial notices. These procedures are intended to maintain accuracy, transparency, and the integrity of the scholarly record.

4. Clarification of Fees and Post-Publication Changes

The updated policies clarify that author-requested post-publication changes, manuscript withdrawal, author-requested article retraction, certain corrections, and article replacement may be subject to administrative, editorial, review-related, technical, or production-related charges as regulated in Reog’s Publication Fees Policy. Such charges do not influence the peer-review process, editorial decisions, acceptance, rejection, correction, article retraction, article removal, article replacement, or the journal’s responsibility to maintain the integrity of the scholarly record.

5. Strengthening Ethical Oversight

The updated policies clarify ethical requirements for manuscripts involving human participants, communities, schools, students, teachers, vulnerable groups, confidential data, personal data, images, recordings, local or indigenous knowledge, cultural practices, environmental contexts, ecological data, or other sensitive materials. Authors are responsible for obtaining ethical clearance, institutional permission, informed consent, parental or guardian consent, community permission, permission from relevant local or cultural authorities, data access permission, or other approvals required according to the context of the research.

6. More Detailed and Comprehensive Peer Review Process

Reog has also updated the explanation of its Peer Review Process to make the journal’s editorial workflow clearer for authors, Reviewers, and readers. The editorial process of Reog is described through six main stages: Submission, Initial Check, Peer Review, Final Check, Editing & Proofreading, and Publication.

During the Initial Check, the Reog Editorial Team examines the suitability of the manuscript with the journal’s focus and scope, the completeness of manuscript components, compliance with the template and author guidelines, completeness of supporting documents, and the manuscript similarity-checking report. Manuscripts that do not meet the requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before entering the peer review process.

7. Reinforcement of the Double-Blind Peer Review System

Reog emphasizes the implementation of a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and Reviewers are kept confidential during the review process. Each manuscript is assessed by at least two independent Reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s field. When necessary, the Editor may invite additional Reviewers to obtain a more comprehensive assessment.

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on novelty, originality, relevance to the journal’s scope, methodological soundness, data accuracy, clarity of presentation, strength of analysis, relevance of discussion, contribution to ecoethnoscience education, and compliance with research and publication ethics.

8. Provisions on Potential Reviewers and Conflicts of Interest

Authors may suggest potential Reviewers who are relevant to the manuscript’s field and may also propose individuals they prefer not to review the manuscript, provided that a clear reason is given. However, the Editor is not obligated to use Reviewers suggested by the authors. Reviewers must come from institutions different from those of the authors and must not have any conflict of interest with the authors or the manuscript under review.

The entire peer review process is confidential. Manuscripts, data, figures, supplementary files, Reviewer reports, author responses, and editorial communications must not be shared, uploaded, or used outside the authorized editorial and peer review process.

9. Explanation of Final Check, Editing, Proofreading, and Publication Stages

After authors respond to Reviewer comments and revise the manuscript, the Editor conducts a Final Check to ensure that the revisions have addressed the Reviewer comments, that the manuscript has met Reog’s scholarly and publication ethics standards, and that the manuscript is ready to proceed to production.

Accepted manuscripts then enter the Editing & Proofreading stage, which includes checking language, writing style, formatting, references, layout, and consistency of presentation. After final corrections are confirmed, the article may be published online as an Article in Press or directly published in the scheduled issue.

10. Clearer Principles for the Use of Generative AI

Reog emphasizes that generative artificial intelligence or Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI), AI-assisted technologies, and language-assistance tools may only be used as supportive tools. These tools must not replace human responsibility, scholarly judgment, critical thinking, ethical accountability, authorship responsibility, peer-review integrity, editorial independence, or editorial decision-making.

11. Disclosure Requirements for the Use of AI and Language-Assistance Tools

Authors are required to disclose any use of Gen AI, AI-assisted technologies, or language-assistance tools in the manuscript. This disclosure includes tools used for grammar checking, spelling checking, punctuation checking, language polishing, translation, paraphrasing, readability improvement, reference assistance, coding assistance, data processing assistance, figure preparation, or any other manuscript-related support. Reog also requires disclosure of the use of grammar, spelling, punctuation, translation, paraphrasing, and similar language-assistance services.

12. Stronger Restrictions on AI Misuse

AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authors must not use AI to replace scholarly contribution, fabricate or falsify data, manipulate images, conceal plagiarism, manipulate citations, or generate false, inaccurate, unverifiable, non-existent, fabricated, or misleading citations and references. If AI is used as part of the research method, data analysis, programming, visualization, or other substantive research activities, its use must be clearly explained in the Methods section.

13. Clearer Rules for Reviewers and Editors in the Use of AI

Reviewers may use AI or language-assistance tools only for limited language-support purposes in preparing review reports, such as improving grammar, spelling, clarity, readability, or the structure of comments that have already been written by the Reviewer. Reviewers must not use AI to review, evaluate, interpret, analyze, criticize, or determine the scholarly merit of a manuscript.

Editors and the Reog Editorial Team may use local, private, secure, or journal-controlled AI tools only for limited supportive purposes. Editors and the Reog Editorial Team must not use AI to make, replace, or determine editorial decisions.

14. Protection of Confidentiality and Accountability

Authors, Reviewers, Editors, and the Reog Editorial Team must protect the confidentiality of manuscripts, Reviewer reports, author responses, data, figures, supplementary files, editorial communications, and other unpublished materials. Confidential materials must not be uploaded to public, unsecured, cloud-based, or unauthorized external AI tools or systems. Non-compliance with the updated policies may result in editorial action in accordance with Reog’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

15. Reinforcement of Editorial Independence

Reog emphasizes that the publisher has no authority to interfere with editorial decisions. All editorial decisions are the responsibility and authority of the Reog Editor based on the academic quality of the manuscript, peer-review results, editorial policies, and the journal’s publication ethics standards.

Through these updates, Reog seeks to strengthen publication ethics, clarify the peer review process, promote transparency in the use of emerging technologies, protect the confidentiality of scholarly materials, and maintain the reliability and trustworthiness of scholarly publishing. Authors, Reviewers, Editors, the Reog Editorial Team, and all parties involved in the publication process are expected to read, understand, and comply with the updated policies.