Publication Ethics Statement / Policy

All submitted manuscripts must conform to PJB policies. In all instances, PJB closely follows the principles of publication ethics of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Their guidelines include support on handling issues such as conflicts of interest and authorship disputes, misconduct allegations and data issues, overlap and plagiarism, and peer review integrity.

If ethical or legal concerns or conflicts with PJB policies are identified after acceptance of a manuscript, the decision may be changed or the manuscript withdrawn. Manuscripts that do not conform to the PJB ethical policies will not be considered for publication by any means.

PJB checks all manuscripts to confirm compliance with the Publication Ethics Guidelines. Checks are performed both automatically and manually by the Editorial Office. If a manuscript is flagged, a Subject Editor is consulted.

1.1 Originality and Plagiarism

All submissions to Pakistan Journal of Botany must present original research that has neither been published nor is under consideration elsewhere. The journal employs plagiarism-detection tools (e.g., Turnitin) to assess manuscript originality. A similarity index above 19% normally results in immediate rejection or resubmission of the manuscript.

In case of plagiarism (including AI use) or unethical practices discovered during or after publication, the editorial board reserves the right to retract the article following PJB’s and HEC’s misconduct guidelines. Self-plagiarism—reusing one’s own published text or data substantially without disclosure—is not acceptable and may result in rejection, retraction, blacklisting, or sanctions.

1.2 Authorship and Contribution

Only persons who have made significant contributions to conceptualization, experiment design, data analysis, and manuscript writing should be listed as authors. The corresponding author must confirm that all co-authors have read and approved the final manuscript and agree to its submission. Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (financial, professional, or personal), their contribution, and all sources of funding.

1.3 Corrections, Withdrawals, and Retractions

PJB may publish an erratum, corrigendum, or retraction in case of significant post-publication errors or ethical misconduct. Authors are encouraged to promptly notify the editorial office if substantive errors are discovered after publication.

1.4 Peer Review Policy

Overview and Integrity: PJB operates a double-blind peer review system to ensure impartial and independent evaluation. Each submission is reviewed by at least two qualified experts in the relevant field. Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest and maintain confidentiality. In case of differing opinions, a third reviewer may be appointed.

Authors are expected to respond respectfully to reviewers’ comments and revise their manuscripts accordingly. Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific quality, originality, and contribution to the field, not on personal or institutional factors. Authors may appeal to the Editor-in-Chief regarding reviewer decisions.

Desk / Internal Review

Every manuscript first undergoes desk screening by the editorial team to ensure compliance with the journal’s scope, formatting, ethics, and basic scientific merits. Manuscripts failing to meet essential criteria are returned to authors without external review.

External Peer Review

Qualified double-blind peer review (reviewers anonymous to authors and vice versa) is standard. Typically, two to three reviewers (local and international experts) evaluate the manuscript. They assess originality, methodology, data quality, interpretation, relevance, and clarity. Reviewers submit detailed comments, suggestions, and a recommendation (accept, revise, reject) within 2–3 weeks.

Reviewer Selection & Suggestions

Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, academic credentials (preferably PhD or equivalent), and independence. Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but PJB reserves full discretion whether to use them. Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest before accepting the assignment. Papers failing to incorporate substantive comments may be rejected or returned for revision.

Appeal and Complaint Mechanism

Authors may submit appeals or complaints to the Editor with detailed justification. The editorial board will evaluate appeals independently and may reconsider, review again, or uphold the original decision.

1.5 Article Processing and Publication Charges

PJB is open access; all published articles are freely accessible to readers. Authors must pay page and publication charges prior to final publication. Submission is free. Charges are fixed per page based on article length and whether figures are printed in color.

2. Generative AI Policy

The PJB strictly adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position statement on Authorship and AI Tools (2023–2024). The Pakistan Journal of Botany allows only limited and transparent use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools. “Limited use” refers strictly to minor, supporting functions that do not generate, interpret, or replace human intellectual or scientific contributions.

Limited use includes improving language and grammar, enhancing readability, correcting syntax, formatting references, or performing routine data organization that does not involve creative or analytical reasoning. Authors may use AI tools for such technical assistance only if they fully disclose the name, version, and purpose of the tool in the manuscript (e.g., in the Acknowledgment or Methods section).

All AI outputs submitted with the manuscript must be carefully reviewed and verified by the authors to ensure accuracy and originality. This includes the use of AI for drafting, interpreting, or generating research content, as well as the fabrication or manipulation of data, figures, or references. AI tools cannot be credited as authors or co-authors because they lack accountability and ethical responsibility. Authors remain fully responsible for all content in their submissions.

Undisclosed or inappropriate AI use will be considered a violation of publication ethics and may lead to manuscript rejection, withdrawal, or retraction, in line with COPE standards. Manuscripts completely generated through AI tools will be desk-rejected.

2.1 Recommended acknowledgement statement

“During the preparation of this manuscript/study, the author(s) used [tool name, version information] for [description of use]. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.”

The use of GenAI tools for text editing (grammar, structure, spelling, punctuation, formatting) is not covered by this policy and does not need to be declared. Authors are responsible for the originality and integrity of all content, including any generated by GenAI tools.

2.2 GenAI use by reviewers

GenAI tools and other large language models (LLMs) should not be used by reviewers to prepare review reports, as this likely violates confidentiality and data-privacy rights. Limited use for improving written quality or formatting is acceptable if clearly stated. Under no circumstances should reviewers upload any part of a manuscript to AI tools.

2.3 GenAI use in editorial decision-making

Editors-in-Chief, Subject Editors, and Editorial Committee Members must not use GenAI tools in editorial decision-making. Uploading manuscripts or related materials to AI systems violates PJB’s confidentiality policy.

3. Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy

The Pakistan Journal of Botany strictly follows COPE principles to ensure transparency and integrity in research publication. A conflict of interest exists when authors, reviewers, or editors have financial, personal, academic, or professional relationships that may influence—or be perceived to influence—their objectivity.

Authors must declare all potential conflicts at submission, including:

• Financial relationships such as funding, employment, consultancy, stock ownership, honoraria, or paid expert testimony.
• Academic or personal relationships that may bias judgment.
• Institutional or collaborative ties affecting interpretation of results.

If there are no conflicts of interest, authors must state:
“The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.”

Editors and reviewers are also obligated to disclose conflicts and, if necessary, withdraw from handling or evaluating a manuscript. Failure to declare may result in rejection or retraction following COPE guidelines.

4. Authorship / Author(s) Name Change Policy

PJB adheres strictly to COPE guidelines on authorship and contributorship. Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant intellectual contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study.

Any change in authorship (addition, removal, or rearrangement) after submission must be formally requested in writing by the corresponding author. The request must include:

• A clear explanation and justification for the change.
• Written consent (email or signed letter) from all original and proposed authors confirming agreement.

The Editorial Office will review requests under COPE authorship-change guidelines. No requests are accepted after acceptance of the manuscript. Unethical or undisclosed changes may lead to withdrawal, correction, or retraction.

4.1 Author(s) name change policy

Authors may request name changes following publication. PJB will update and republish the article and deliver updated metadata to indexing databases. To protect author identity (e.g., gender, marriage, conversion), a Correction will not be published and co-authors will not be notified. Contact the Editorial Office for requests.

5. Data Availability Policy

PJB promotes research transparency and reproducibility. Authors are required to make all data, materials, and code supporting their findings publicly available at publication unless restricted by confidentiality or ethics. If data cannot be shared, authors must justify the reason in a “Data Availability Statement.”

Example: “The data supporting this study are available from the corresponding author upon formal request.”

6. Research Ethics and Integrity Policy

All research involving plants, animals, or microorganisms must comply with national and international ethical standards. Authors must declare that experiments conform with institutional, national, and international guidelines and legislation (e.g., Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Nagoya Protocol, IUCN regulations).

Studies involving genetic modification, field trials, or biodiversity collection—particularly of plants, animals, algae, fungi, and bacteria listed in CITES—must include permit and ethics details. Fabrication, falsification, or manipulation of data constitute serious violations and lead to rejection or retraction in accordance with COPE procedures.

7. Duplicate Submission and Redundant Publication Policy

PJB only considers original manuscripts that have not been published or submitted elsewhere. Simultaneous submission to multiple journals or republication of previously published work (in whole or part) is redundant publication and violates ethics. Any overlap (e.g., abstracts, preprints, theses) must be disclosed and justified at submission.

8. Retraction Policy

8.1 Purpose

This policy protects the scholarly record by defining why, when, and how published articles may be retracted, corrected, or amended. It ensures transparent and fair handling of reliability concerns, in line with COPE Retraction Guidelines.

8.2 Scope

Applies to all PJB content (research, reviews, short communications, etc.) including corrections, expressions of concern, removals, and metadata updates.

8.3 Definitions

• Retraction: statement that a published article is unsafe or unreliable but remains part of the record, clearly marked as retracted.
• Expression of Concern: temporary notice when integrity is doubted but investigation pending.
• Correction (Erratum/Corrigendum): notice for minor errors not invalidating findings.

8.4 Grounds for Retraction

• Fabrication, falsification, or major error in data or analysis.
• Plagiarism or redundant/duplicate publication.
• Unethical research conduct (lack of permits, ethical breaches).
• Undisclosed or unresolved conflicts of interest.
• Paper-mill, authorship fraud, data manipulation, compromised peer review.
• Legal issues such as libel or privacy violation.

8.5 Who Can Raise Concerns

Editors, reviewers, readers, publishers, institutions, or authors may raise concerns in writing with evidence. Identities may be kept confidential on request.

8.6 Initial Assessment

The Editor-in-Chief reviews allegations for substance and decides on investigation. Manifestly vexatious complaints may be closed. Immediate risk to readers may trigger an Expression of Concern.

8.7 Investigation Procedure

• Inform authors: notified and asked to respond (normally 2–4 weeks) with data and explanations.
• Institutional involvement: serious cases referred to authors’ institutions; findings guide decisions.
• Use of experts: independent experts may be engaged for review or forensic analysis.
• Confidentiality: all parties treated fairly and confidentially while ensuring record integrity.

8.8 Decision and Outcomes

• No action / minor correction published.
• Expression of Concern if doubts remain.
• Retraction if findings unreliable or misconduct proven.
• Removal only if legally required.

Final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the Ethics Committee following COPE recommendations.

8.9 Retraction Notice: Content and Format

• Title prefixed “Retraction:” + original title.
• Full citation and reason for retraction.
• Who is retracting, date, authors’ agreement status.
• Links to institutional reports if available.

8.10 Marking the Article

Retracted PDF and HTML versions watermarked “Retracted.” Metadata and DOI updated for indexing; content retained for transparency except rare legal removals.

8.11 Notification and Indexing

PJB notifies authors, institutions, and indexing services (PubMed, Scopus, etc.) to update records and DOI landing pages.

8.12 Authors’ Request to Retract

Author-initiated retractions are verified and processed transparently using the same procedure.

8.13 Republishing and Corrections of Reliable Subsections

Valid parts may be republished after correction with explicit citation that the original was retracted.

8.14 Sanctions and Bans

• Formal letter to institution and funders.
• Temporary or permanent submission ban.
• Additional editorial actions as appropriate.

8.15 Record Keeping and Transparency

All records (complaints, correspondence, notes) kept minimum seven years. Annual editorial reports summarize corrections and retractions.

8.16 Appeals

Authors may appeal within 30 days with new evidence. Appeals reviewed by an independent panel whose decision is final.

8.17 Handling Historical Articles

Legacy cases handled using COPE guidelines with best-effort investigation and noted limitations.

8.18 Implementation and Review

Editor-in-Chief implements policy wit