Publication Ethics

Publication of a manuscript in a peer-reviewed journal reflects the quality of the authors' work and of the institutions that support them. Authors, editors, reviewers and the publisher each have defined responsibilities at every stage of the publishing process, and all parties are expected to follow the same ethical standards. Plant Archives has adopted the standards below, which are in line with international best practice, and expects every party to commit to them.

Duties of Authors

• Plant Archives does not require every author to sign a submission letter, and it does not impose an order on the author list. All authors are nevertheless expected to observe these standards voluntarily on submitting a manuscript.
• Accuracy and reproducibility. Authors of original research must report their data accurately and discuss the objective, significance and relevance of the work. The manuscript must contain enough detail and references for others to reproduce the work.
• Originality. Authors must certify that the manuscript is their own original work. Plagiarism, duplication, data fabrication, falsification and redundant publication are prohibited, and knowingly inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable.
• No duplicate submission. The manuscript must not have been published before and must not be under consideration elsewhere. The same concept and data must not be published in more than one journal, and submitting a manuscript to several journals at once is unethical.
• Citation and acknowledgement. Where the work or words of others are used, they must be cited or quoted appropriately and credited.
• Correcting the record. If authors find a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, they must promptly notify the Editor or Publisher so that it can be corrected.
• Authorship. Only those who made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the work should be listed as authors. Others who contributed, but do not meet this standard, should be named in the acknowledgements. The corresponding author is responsible for communicating with the journal.
• Funding. Authors must acknowledge all sources of funding.
• Conflicts of interest. Authors must disclose any conflict of interest to the journal (see the Conflict of Interest Policy).
• Use of AI tools. The use of generative AI in preparing a manuscript must follow the journal's AI Policy.

Duties of Editors and the Editorial Board

Editors and members of the Editorial Board are required to follow international standards and will, to the best of their abilities:

• Take responsibility for decisions on the publication of submitted manuscripts.
• Evaluate manuscripts solely on their intellectual content.
• Declare any conflict of interest and step aside from decisions where one exists (see the Conflict of Interest Policy for Editors).
• Select appropriate reviewers to judge each piece of work.
• Maintain processes that ensure the quality of the material published and the integrity of the academic record.
• Strive to meet the needs of readers and authors, and continually improve the journal.
• Actively seek the views of authors, readers, reviewers and Editorial Board members on how to improve the journal's processes.
• Be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
• Ensure that business considerations never compromise intellectual and ethical standards.
• Follow the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) flowcharts in cases of suspected misconduct or authorship disputes.

Duties of Reviewers

• Keep all information about the manuscript confidential.
• Evaluate the manuscript solely on its intellectual content, including its originality, significance and relevance to the scope of the journal.
• Bring to the editors' attention any information that may be grounds for rejecting the manuscript.
• Declare any conflict of interest and decline the review where one exists.

Duties of the Publisher

• Protect the intellectual property and copyright of content submitted by authors.
• Respect the privacy and personal data of authors and peer reviewers.
• Work closely with editors and reviewers to keep the peer-review process transparent and sound.
• In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, cooperate with the editors to take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to correct or amend the article concerned.

Plagiarism and Academic Misconduct

Authors must ensure the originality of their content. Any published or unpublished data that is used must be properly credited and the necessary permissions obtained. For licensed data, authors must submit written assurance that they have signed a data-licensing agreement with the original owner.

All submitted articles are screened for plagiarism using online plagiarism-detection software. If plagiarism is found during review, the manuscript will be rejected and further action may be taken depending on the seriousness of the case. If plagiarism is found after publication, the article will be removed from the journal's website and a notice will be published.

Corrections, Retractions and Complaints

Plant Archives will publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies where needed to keep the academic record accurate. Concerns about a published article, or about the conduct of an author, reviewer or editor, may be sent to the Editor-in-Chief through the Contact Us page. Such cases are handled following COPE guidance.

Copyright and Licensing

Copyright protects the original work of authors and publishers. Authors retain ownership of the copyright in their publications and grant the journal a license to publish the work. Anyone may reuse, distribute and reproduce the content provided the original work is properly cited. Before using any copyrighted material, the safest course is to obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Ethical Guidelines for Research Involving Animals

These guidelines are based on those of the Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology (NENT) and are intended to help researchers plan, assess, report and publish studies that involve animals.

Research with animals may be necessary to bring benefits to people, animals or the environment. At the same time, animals have moral status, and how we treat them must be subject to ethical consideration. This is reflected in three positions:

1. Animals have an intrinsic value that must be respected.
2. Animals are sentient creatures capable of feeling pain, so their interests must be taken into account.
3. How we treat animals, including their use in research, expresses our attitudes and shapes us as moral actors.

Researchers working with animals must follow these principles:

1. Respect for animals' dignity. Respect animals' worth regardless of their utility, and their interests as living, sentient creatures. Be respectful in choosing topics and methods and in disseminating results, and provide care suited to the needs of each laboratory animal.
2. Considering alternatives. Study whether alternatives to animal experiments exist. If the same knowledge can be obtained without laboratory animals, alternatives must be used. If no good alternative exists, consider whether the research can wait until one has been developed. Researchers must be able to justify why no alternative is available and why the knowledge is needed now.
3. Proportionality. Weigh the risk of pain and suffering against the value of the research for animals, people or the environment. Suffering may be caused only if it is counterbalanced by a substantial and probable benefit. Research institutions should provide training in suitable harm–benefit analysis methods, and researchers should use them when planning experiments.
4. Reducing the number of animals. Use only the number of animals needed to maintain scientific quality and the relevance of results. Before starting, review the literature, consider alternative experimental designs and carry out the necessary calculations.
5. Minimising suffering and improving welfare. Suffering includes pain, hunger, thirst, malnutrition, cold or heat stress, injury, fear, illness and restriction of natural behaviour. Consider not only suffering during the experiment but also before and after it, including trapping, labelling, anaesthesia, breeding, transport, housing and euthanasia. Allow an adequate period of adaptation before and after the experiment.
6. Maintaining biological diversity. Ensure that the use of animals does not harm or endanger biological diversity. Consider consequences for the wider stock and ecosystem, and minimise or avoid the use of endangered and vulnerable species.
7. Intervening in habitats. Minimise disruption to the natural behaviour of animals, including those that are not the direct subject of the research. Apply the principle of proportionality, and minimise the negative impact of installations such as radar masts, antennas and measuring instruments.
8. Openness and sharing of data and materials. Be transparent about findings and share data and materials from animal experiments to avoid unnecessary repetition. Negative results should be made public, since reporting experiments that were not worth pursuing exposes poor design and helps reduce the use of animals.
9. Expertise. Anyone who handles live animals must have up-to-date, documented expertise, including knowledge of the biology of the species concerned and the willingness and ability to care for the animals properly.
10. Due care. Follow national laws and rules and international conventions and agreements on the use of laboratory animals. Anyone planning animal experiments must be familiar with the current rules.

Source: NENT, Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics in Science and Technology. Full guidelines (PDF)

IRB Approval and Informed Consent

Plant Archives follows an IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval policy in line with international guidelines and regulations. Researchers conducting any study involving human participants must obtain IRB approval in accordance with those guidelines. Interaction with the IRB may lead to changes in the research methodology, including the protocol, content and data security. Researchers are responsible for the confidentiality, privacy and anonymity of participants.

At the start of any study involving human participants, researchers must obtain written informed consent from each participant. Consent must be given freely, after the risks and benefits of the study have been explained, and without coercion, inducement or concealment of any relevant fact. Participants are free to withdraw at any point.

The consent form should include:

• The full purpose of the study
• What participation and withdrawal involve, including the right to withdraw at any time
• All known benefits and adverse effects of the experimental procedures, during or after the study
• Side effects of the procedures and how they will be managed
• The timeline of the study, so participants know its duration
• Any compensation to participants, which must be openly disclosed
• How confidentiality and private information will be protected
• Details of the people carrying out the experiments and collecting samples or data
• The funding agency for the study
• The participant's signed statement that they understand the study procedures and are taking part voluntarily

For studies based only on surveys or traditional methods, IRB approval may be waived in line with international regulations.

IRB approval for vulnerable populations

Researchers must give the IRB a protocol-specific justification for enrolling children in a study. Where the inclusion of minors is necessary, a legal guardian must make an informed decision and give consent on the minor's behalf. The guardian must fully understand the protocol, the timeframe and any possible after-effects of the study, and must give consent free of repercussion, fear or reward that could cloud the decision.

Researchers must collect written consent from the legal guardian in the format below at the start of the study, keep a record of it, and submit it to the Editor together with the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest Policy

Plant Archives has a strict conflict-of-interest policy. Authors must submit a signed Conflict of Interest disclosure statement before a manuscript is accepted for publication, and must disclose all potential conflicts of interest to the editors at the time of submission, using the prescribed form. Actual, potential or perceived conflicts include:

• Any financial or non-financial interests
• Employment, whether full-time or part-time
• Benefits in the form of goods or services
• Regional, religious or political influences related to the publication
• Paid or unpaid work such as consultancy
• Relationships with anyone who might benefit or be harmed by the publication
• Relationships with anyone who could influence the publication of the paper
• Any other interest that readers would reasonably want to know about in order to assess the manuscript fairly

Every author must sign the Conflict of Interest Statement form, available for download from the journal's website. For multi-author manuscripts, the corresponding author must collect the completed statements from all co-authors and send them with the manuscript.

Authors must state sources of research funding in the acknowledgements, together with anyone who helped with the research or the preparation of the manuscript. Material adapted from earlier printed or digital publications must also be acknowledged.

If a conflict of interest is found to have been withheld, the paper may be rejected or withdrawn from the journal, even at a later stage. Authors should therefore resolve any conflicts before submission and record them properly in the disclosure form.

Conflict of Interest Policy for Editors

The Editor-in-Chief, editors and all others involved in the publication process follow an internationally accepted ethical policy and must make impartial decisions on whether to include a manuscript in the journal. Editors must submit a declaration at the start of their tenure committing to impartiality in publication decisions. Decisions must be free of personal gain, personal relationships, institutional affiliation, academic interests and personal beliefs. Any member of the Editorial Board who is directly connected to the authors of a manuscript must be excluded from the decision-making process for that manuscript.