Authors
- Authors should present content of a consistently high professional standard and all claims must be verifiable. Papers should be objective and comprehensive.
- Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. PARKS editors expect submitted work to be the author’s original contribution, that it has not been plagiarized, that the work and/or words of others have been appropriately referenced, and that copyright has not been breached.
- PARKS requires that authors disclose the use of any Large Language Models (LLMs) and other AI tools in submitted articles. LLMs and AI tools used for minor copy editing for grammar, spelling, or improved readability and tone do not require disclosure. However, if AI tools have been used to create, draft, or edit content, or to conduct research and data analysis, we ask that authors document this in the Methods section of their manuscripts. AI generated tables and graphics are not accepted (due to inability to attribute credit). If editors of PARKS suspect use of undeclared AI tools (e.g. fabricated citations and unnatural language patterns), the manuscript will be rejected without peer review. LLMs and other AI tools may not be used to undertake peer review of manuscripts for PARKS, except for minor copyediting.
- Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
- The list of authors should accurately reflect who contributed to the work. Authorship credit should be based on substantial contributions, and the corresponding author should ensure consensus of all co-authors before submission.
- Any sources of funding for research should be disclosed in the acknowledgements.
- Authors have a right to appeal editorial decisions (outlined in instructions to authors and see Conflicts of Interest).
Editors
- Editors should evaluate manuscripts based exclusively on their contribution to the stated objectives of PARKS. They are responsible for ensuring the peer-review process is fair, unbiased and timely.
- Editors may ask authors to state that the study was approved by the relevant ethics board. Any human participation must be accompanied by consent statements.
- Editors will exercise sensitivity when publishing images of objects that might have cultural significance or cause offence.
- Editors must recuse themselves from editorial decisions concerning their own work.
- Editors should take reasonable measures to respond to complaints concerning submitted manuscripts or published papers.
Reviewers
- Reviewers should treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.
- Peer reviews are single-blind.
- Reviews should be objective, clear and constructive.
- Reviewers who feel unqualified should notify the editor. Conflicts of interest should be disclosed.
Conflicts of Interest
- Editors, authors, and reviewers have a responsibility to disclose interests that might affect their ability to be objective. These include relevant financial, personal, political, intellectual, or religious interests. For example, reviewers should disclose if they have worked with an author previously and decline to review if there is an extensive on-going collaboration.
- If there is doubt among reviewers or editors about a conflict of interest, it is within their right to request statements of disclosure from authors.
Retractions and Corrections
- PARKS will take seriously the matter of any suspected errors in publications reported by authors or readers.
- PARKS is committed to publishing corrections when errors in a publication could affect data interpretation and study results, and to clarify the cause of the error (i.e. arising from author errors or from editorial mistakes).
- PARKS endeavors to publish ‘retractions’ if any work published is proven to be fraudulent, or ‘expressions of concern’ if editors have well-founded suspicions of misconduct.
Publishing Malpractice and Misconduct
- If peer reviewers raise concerns of serious misconduct (for example, data fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, or plagiarism), these should be taken seriously. However, authors have a right to respond to such allegations and for investigations to be carried out with appropriate speed and due diligence.