Ethics, Integrity & Retraction Policy

Ethics, Integrity & Retraction Policy

The Journal of Agricultural Policy and Transformation (AgriPaT) is committed to maintaining high standards of publication ethics, research integrity, editorial independence, transparency, and accountability. The journal follows the principles and relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and applies these standards to authors, reviewers, editors, guest editors, editorial board members, and publishing staff.

This policy applies to all submissions, including original research articles, review articles, policy briefs, invited contributions, and manuscripts submitted to special issues.

1. Authorship and Contribution

Authorship must reflect substantial intellectual or scholarly contributions to the research, including its conception, design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or manuscript preparation and critical revision.

• All listed authors must approve the final manuscript and agree to its submission to AgriPaT.
• Individuals who have not made a substantial contribution must not be listed as authors. Conversely, eligible contributors must not be excluded.
• Supervisory roles, administrative responsibilities, funding provision, or project leadership alone do not automatically justify authorship.
• The corresponding author is responsible for confirming that all authors meet the journal's authorship requirements and have approved the submitted manuscript.
• An author-contribution statement must identify the respective contributions of all authors.
• Changes to authorship, including adding, removing, or reordering authors after submission, require a justified written request and the agreement of all affected authors. The journal may suspend processing while an authorship dispute is investigated.

AgriPaT prohibits gift authorship, ghost authorship, purchased authorship, and any misleading representation of authorship or contribution.

2. Initial Screening and Peer Review

All submissions undergo an initial editorial assessment for scope, relevance, originality, presentation, ethical compliance, and research integrity. Similarity screening is conducted using Turnitin or an equivalent tool.

Manuscripts considered suitable for external assessment undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers. The editorial office checks that identifying information has been removed from the review files, including author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, and relevant document metadata, as far as practicable.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the journal independently verifies reviewer suitability and retains full authority over reviewer selection. Suggested reviewers are not automatically appointed.

Reviewers must assess manuscripts objectively, maintain confidentiality, disclose conflicts of interest, and provide evidence-based recommendations. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, the reviewers' assessments, ethical compliance, and the journal's scope and standards.

Further details are provided in AgriPaT's Peer Review and Reviewer Policy.

3. Research Integrity and Misconduct

AgriPaT does not tolerate research or publication misconduct, including:

• Plagiarism and inappropriate text reuse: Using another person's work, ideas, data, or wording without appropriate acknowledgement, including unacceptable forms of self-plagiarism.
• Fabrication and falsification: Inventing, manipulating, selectively misrepresenting, or improperly altering research data, methods, images, results, or findings.
• Redundant or duplicate publication: Publishing substantially overlapping work without appropriate disclosure or submitting the same manuscript simultaneously to multiple journals.
• Authorship misconduct: Gift, ghost, purchased, or otherwise fraudulent authorship, as well as improper exclusion of eligible contributors.
• Citation manipulation: Inappropriate or coercive citation practices intended to inflate citation counts or misrepresent scholarly relevance.
• Peer-review manipulation: Creating fake reviewer identities, supplying fabricated reviewer contact details, impersonating reviewers, submitting fraudulent reviews, or arranging paid-for or otherwise improperly influenced reviews.
• Undisclosed competing interests: Concealing financial, institutional, personal, or professional interests that could compromise the integrity of the research or editorial process.
• Unethical research practices: Conducting research involving human participants, animals, personal data, or other protected subjects without required ethical approval, consent, safeguards, or permissions.

Suspected misconduct will be assessed fairly and confidentially. AgriPaT may request original data, research records, ethical approvals, contribution statements, reviewer-verification information, or other relevant evidence. Where appropriate, the journal may contact the authors' institutions, funders, or other relevant authorities.

Depending on the seriousness and findings of an investigation, actions may include rejection, suspension of editorial processing, correction of the scholarly record, retraction, restriction from future submissions, or notification of relevant institutions and authorities. Any action will be proportionate to the evidence and the nature of the breach.

4. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence

Authors must disclose financial, institutional, professional, personal, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived to influence their research or its interpretation. Reviewers and editors must also disclose relevant conflicts and withdraw from assignments where impartiality may be compromised.

4.1 Submissions by Editors, Editorial Board Members, Guest Editors, and Publisher Staff

Submissions authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Editor, editorial board members, guest editors, or the publisher's staff must be handled by an independent editor who has no relevant connection or conflict of interest with the authors.

The submitting editor must have no access to confidential peer-review materials, reviewer identities, reviewer reports, or editorial deliberations and must not participate in or influence the decision on their own manuscript. Their manuscript must undergo the same independent editorial assessment and peer-review requirements as any other submission.

Where the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest, responsibility for the submission must be assigned to an independent, appropriately qualified editor or external academic decision-maker.

4.2 Guest Editors and Special Issues

Guest editors must not handle, review, recommend a decision on, or decide upon their own manuscripts or those submitted by close collaborators, co-authors, institutional colleagues where a conflict exists, or other individuals with whom they have a relevant personal or professional relationship.

Such manuscripts must be managed by an independent editor who is not involved in the submission and has no relevant conflict of interest. They must undergo the journal's standard independent peer-review process.

Special-issue status, an invitation to contribute, or a relationship with an editor does not exempt a manuscript from the journal's editorial and ethical requirements.

4.3 Management of Other Conflicts

Reviewers and editors must disclose conflicts promptly and recuse themselves where necessary. AgriPaT may appoint an alternative reviewer or editor, seek additional independent assessments, or take other reasonable steps to protect the integrity of the process.

5. Data Availability, Research Transparency, and Funding Disclosure

5.1 Data Availability

Authors must include a Data Availability Statement in their manuscript. The statement should explain whether the data supporting the findings are publicly available, available on reasonable request, restricted for ethical or legal reasons, or not applicable to the study.

Where data are publicly available, authors should provide a repository name, persistent identifier, DOI, or other working link, where applicable. Authors are encouraged to use reputable repositories and provide sufficient information to support verification and reproducibility.

Where data cannot be shared because of confidentiality, privacy, contractual restrictions, intellectual property, or ethical obligations, the statement must explain the restriction without disclosing protected information. Authors must not make unsupported claims of data availability.

Authors are expected to retain relevant underlying data, research records, and supporting documentation for at least five years after publication, or longer where required by institutional, funder, legal, or ethical obligations. Such material may be requested during editorial assessment or an investigation into research integrity.

Data sharing must comply with applicable ethical approvals, informed-consent conditions, privacy protections, and legal requirements.

5.2 Funding Disclosure

All authors must disclose financial support received for the research or manuscript, including grants, institutional funding, contracts, sponsored research, and other relevant support.

The Funding Statement must identify the funding organisation and, where applicable, the grant or project number. Authors must also disclose the funder's role, if any, in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, and decision to submit the work for publication.

If the research received no specific external funding, authors must include an appropriate statement, such as: “This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.”

Funding disclosure does not replace the requirement to declare competing interests.

6. Ethical Approval and Informed Consent

Research involving human participants, animals, personal data, or other subjects requiring ethical oversight must comply with applicable laws, institutional requirements, and recognised ethical standards.

Authors must provide relevant ethics committee or institutional review board approval details, including the approving body and reference number where applicable. Authors must also confirm that informed consent was obtained when required.

For research involving animals, authors must identify the applicable ethical approval and animal-care standards. Where approval was not required, authors should explain the basis for that determination.

The journal may request documentary evidence of ethical approval, consent, or relevant permissions. Manuscripts that fail to demonstrate appropriate ethical safeguards may be rejected or subject to further investigation.

7. Complaints, Appeals, and Independent Ethics Review

AgriPaT takes complaints about research integrity, authorship, peer review, editorial conduct, conflicts of interest, and publication decisions seriously.

Complaints should be submitted in writing and should provide a clear description of the concern, relevant supporting evidence, and any available documentation. Complaints will be assessed fairly, confidentially, and without retaliation against individuals who raise concerns in good faith.

7.1 Routine Complaints and Appeals

Complaints about authorship, research misconduct, peer review, or editorial handling may initially be directed to the Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor. Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision must submit a reasoned written appeal, normally within two weeks of receiving the decision, explaining why the decision should be reconsidered and providing relevant evidence.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision. The journal may seek an independent assessment before reaching a final conclusion.

7.2 Complaints Concerning the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Leadership

A complaint involving the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, another editor, or a potential failure of editorial independence must not be investigated or decided solely by the individual whose conduct is being challenged.

Such complaints may be submitted directly to AgriPaT's designated Independent Ethics Contact, appointed by the publisher. The contact must be sufficiently independent of the individuals involved to assess the complaint impartially. Where necessary, the publisher may appoint an external independent investigator or qualified academic to review the matter.

Independent Ethics Contact: Ayesha Mansoor, CEO, The AgEcon Frontiers (sPvt) Ltd. Email: ceo@ageconfrontiers.com 

The Independent Ethics Contact will acknowledge the complaint where contact details are available, assess whether an investigation is warranted, preserve relevant records, and refer the matter to an independent decision-maker where appropriate. The complainant will be informed of the outcome to the extent permitted by confidentiality, privacy, and applicable requirements.

If the complaint concerns the Independent Ethics Contact, it may be submitted directly to the publisher or another independent authority designated by the publisher.

8. Fake Reviews, Paid-for Reviews, and Fraudulent Authorship

AgriPaT prohibits the purchase, sale, fabrication, or manipulation of peer-review reports, reviewer identities, authorship positions, or editorial decisions.

Where credible evidence indicates that a manuscript has been supported by fake or paid-for reviews, fraudulent reviewer accounts, impersonation, purchased authorship, or a paper-mill arrangement, the journal will suspend the editorial process while the allegations are assessed.

The journal may verify reviewer identities and institutional affiliations, examine review correspondence and submission records, request evidence of author contributions, and seek explanations or supporting documentation from the authors and other relevant parties.

If misconduct is established, AgriPaT may reject the manuscript, cancel an acceptance, invalidate compromised reviews, arrange a new independent review where appropriate, notify relevant institutions or authorities, and restrict future submissions where justified.

If the affected article has already been published, the journal will assess whether a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or another action is necessary to protect the scholarly record. A new review may be arranged only where doing so can provide a genuinely independent assessment and does not conceal or excuse established misconduct.

Allegations will be handled in accordance with the principles of fairness, confidentiality, proportionality, and due process.

9. Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

AgriPaT is committed to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the published scholarly record.

• Corrections: Minor errors that do not invalidate the principal findings may be corrected through a correction notice, erratum, or corrigendum, as appropriate.
• Expressions of Concern: Where credible concerns require investigation and the available evidence is not yet conclusive, the journal may publish an Expression of Concern to alert readers.
• Retractions: An article may be retracted where substantial evidence establishes serious errors, fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, fraudulent peer review, authorship fraud, unethical research, or other misconduct that undermines the reliability or integrity of the published work.

Retraction decisions are based on the evidence available and are not intended to punish authors merely for honest errors. Authors will normally be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations, unless doing so would compromise an investigation or is otherwise inappropriate.

Retraction and correction notices will explain the reason for the action as clearly as practicable and will be linked to the original article. Retracted articles will remain identifiable as retracted to preserve the scholarly record.

AgriPaT will consider the relevant COPE guidance when determining the appropriate action.

10. Responsibilities of Authors, Reviewers, and Editors

Authors must submit original work, provide accurate data and disclosures, obtain required approvals and permissions, identify all eligible contributors, respond honestly to editorial queries, and cooperate with legitimate investigations.

Reviewers must provide independent and constructive assessments, protect confidentiality, disclose conflicts, avoid inappropriate use of unpublished information, and report suspected misconduct to the editorial office.

Editors and guest editors must maintain editorial independence, protect confidential information, manage conflicts of interest, ensure fair peer review, and act appropriately when ethical concerns arise.

The publisher must support the implementation of this policy, facilitate independent investigation when required, and ensure that complaints concerning editorial leadership can be considered without undue influence from the individuals involved.

11. Policy Application and Review

This policy applies to all AgriPaT submissions and published content. The journal may revise its procedures in response to developments in publication ethics, recognised industry guidance, and applicable legal or institutional requirements.

For further guidance on publication ethics, AgriPaT refers to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and its relevant guidance for editors, authors, and publishers.