JOURNAL OF PLANNING

JOURNAL OF PLANNING has been devoted to publishing academic and open research which about planning thoery and practice. If manuscript involved plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabrication, ghostwriting, unspecified conflicts of interests, and other inappropriate conduct, it will not be published.

JOURNAL OF PLANNING consults the Publishing Ethics advised by Elsevier, A Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors and Cope-ethics-toolkit-journal-editors-publishers advised by COPE, then incorporates standards about professionalism and ethical behavior into the entire process of publishing a scholarly article. This process includes the roles of the author, journal editor, as well as the reviewer. The duties of these stakeholders in the publishing process are described in the following.

Author

• All the content of the manuscript must comply with our specifications of calling for papers.
• If the research has self-statistical data information, it should be preserved for our editorial review.
• The manuscript should not exhibit any of the inappropriate conduct that is above-mentioned.
• All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors, and the corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
• When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify us or publisher and cooperate with us to retract or correct the paper. If we or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the author’s obligation to cooperate with us to retract or correct the paper.

Journal editor

• Record trufully in the manuscript record sheet when editing the journal, and the unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript and comments from peer review must not be used in the editors’ own application without the written consent of the author.
• Ensure that all manuscripts will be evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
• Based on the outcome of peer-reviewed and the relevancy and the significance of the research topic, editors are responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted should be published. Bsides, editors hold full authority to reject/accept a paper.
• 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. This step not only complies with confidentiality but also cooperates with our double-blind peer review.
• Editors should take responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Reviewer

• Declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests, seeking advice from us if you are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
• Decline to review if you feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review.
• Not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review.
• Notify us immediately and seek advice if you discover either a conflicting interest that wasn’t apparent when you agreed to the review or anything that might prevent you providing a fair and unbiased review. Refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material while awaiting our instructions on issues that might cause the request to review to be rescinded.
• The names of any individuals who have helped you with the review should be included with the returned review.
• Keep all manuscript and review details confidential.
• Not contact the authors directly without our permission.
• Be objective and constructive in your reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. Not make derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.
• Contact us if anything relevant comes to light after you have submitted their review that might affect your original feedback and recommendations.