Editorial Policies

Licensing and Copyright

Forests Monitor is an open-access, web-based journal, with abstracts and articles appearing in hypertext meta-language (HTML) and full articles downloadable for free as Adobe portable document format (PDF) files. Forests Monitor fulfils the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) definition of open access. This means that users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, search them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, and users can use, reuse, and build upon the material in the journal for non-commercial purposes as long as attribution is given when appropriate or necessary. Forests Monitor offers web-based submission and review of articles.

The articles published in the Forests Monitor are publicly available on the Internet according to the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY).

Page Expenses

Authors who submit articles intended for publication in FM are expected to cover page expenses. These funds will cover costs associated with proofreading by staff, file management, and publication infrastructure.

This arrangement provides sustainable funding so that we can continue to provide high-quality, peer-reviewed articles without charge to readers on the web – ensuring that articles receive the highest exposure and potential impact associated with open access publishing.

The page expense amounts are as follows (request amounts last set on 1st January 2024):

  • The rate is EUR 95 per published page. The fee is paid after the acceptance of the manuscript and before its publication.
  • 25% page discount for lower-middle income and low income countries, based on the World Bank’s country income classification, will apply.

Although estimated expenses are subject to change, the rate associated with a specific article remains fixed based on the information that was posted on this site at the time of submission. The number of pages is based on the published version of an article, not on the submitted version (for instance, when page breaks are changed and when images are enlarged for easier viewing).

Payment methods

Direct bank transfer (recommended) – the invoice will be sent to the corresponding author for individual or institutional payment.

PayPal – the link will be sent to the corresponding author where the credit card can be directly used. PayPal system can be used even if the author does not have a PayPal account. FM will add 5% surcharge for authors selecting this form of payment.

Peer-review process and reviewers guidelines

The editors of the Forests Monitor are committed to providing a high-quality scientific journal that promotes the exchange and validation of ideas, leading to progress in fields related to the business side of sustainable and responsible forest investments and management. Scientific research articles and scholarly reviews are subjected to a conventional peer-review process, using a double-blind procedure. Journal’s editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors, peer-reviews are not published and are owned by authors of the reviews.

The peer-review process in the Forests Monitor is following:

  1. Manuscript arrives to the Editorial System operated by OJS software that manages the submission and review processes.
  2. Managing Editor anonymize manuscript authorship by removing author(s) names, affiliations, document details or any other information that potentially could recognize author(s). Also, in this step the Plagiarism Checker powered by Grammarly software is performed to check the originality of manuscripts.
  3. Next, subject editors review the article and vote if it fits the scope of FM and fulfils minimum requirements for peer-review. The decision takes into account the Grammarly report indicating manuscript metrics (e.g., reading time, number of words and sentences), its overall score, writing issues and plagiarism evaluation.
  • If article is clearly outside the scope of the journal, or it is too similar with earlier published work, the article is desktop rejected and does not enter the peer-review stage.
  • If author(s) do not adhere to the author guidelines at FM, or the manuscript is scientifically incomplete and/or lacks a significant, novel contribution to the field, or it is difficult to understand due to e.g., linguistic problems, the manuscript is returned to authors for revision. If the authors decide to resubmit the revised version, it will be considered as a new submission.
  • If article fulfills minimum requirements for peer-review, the leading Editor is assigned to the manuscript.
    1. Leading Editor of the manuscript selects the reviewers and submits the manuscript to peer-review. Leading Editor and the authors know each other’s identity but the reviewers work under anonymity. As a standard of FM, two qualified scientists are assigned for each manuscript. The reviewers must follow reviewers guidelines and are asked to submit the review report using OJS, and have the opportunity to provide one of the following recommendations:
  • Accept Submission (no revisions required; this is quite rare).
  • Revisions Required (manuscript will be acceptable after either minor or major revisions; please provide an explanation of the revisions required in your review report).
  • Resubmit for Review (manuscript requires major revision, possibly with the addition of new experiments, and the reviewer wishes to evaluate the revised version).
  • Resubmit Elsewhere (manuscript is technically sound, but limited in scope or a better fit for a different journal).
  • Decline Submission (manuscript is flawed in such a way that it should not be published).
  • See Comments (for any other recommendation that does not fit any of the above categories).

After considering all review reports, the Leading Editor will ultimately determine if the manuscript is suitable for publication. The journal also encourages contribution of editorial opinion pieces, which may be selected, on a limited basis, at the Editors’ discretion.

Before accepting or declining a review, please consider whether or not the manuscript is within your area of expertise, whether or not you have a conflict of interest, and whether or not you have the time to invest in a proper review. Please respond, to either accept or decline, as soon as you can.

To start your review, please provide a short summary of the article. Then, give your primary impressions of the article. Is it novel? Is it interesting? Will it have a significant impact on this area of research? Is it up to the standards of FM?

Specific comments and suggestions will also help the authors improve the manuscript. It is helpful to concentrate on the methodology, the discussion of the results, and the conclusions reached by the authors. The editorial staff will handle issues such as grammar and formatting, so you do not need to spend time on these aspects of the manuscript. To facilitate the revision process, comments about specific items in a reviewed article should be listed according to the line numbers.

Conflict of interest and Publication Ethics

Conflict of interest/Competing interests

The Forests Monitor expects authors, reviewers, editors, and readers to conduct themselves with the highest level of professional ethics and standards.

At the end of submitted manuscript, authors must include a “Conflict of interest” section, listing all competing interests (financial and non-financial). Where authors have no competing interests, the statement should read “The author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest.”

A peer review is an essential component of the scientific process. It should be an objective evaluation of the facts presented in the manuscript. Any personal criticism is unwarranted and inappropriate. You should be able to support your judgment of the article in such a way that the Editors and authors will be able to incorporate your feedback to improve the article. Any relevant published work that has been omitted should be pointed out.

Reviewers and editors are expected to provide a bias-free evaluation of the work under consideration. Any personal interest or relationship that could potentially affect the review should be declared before agreeing to review the manuscript. If a competing interest exists editors and reviewers will be excluded from the peer review process.

Reviewers should call the Editor’s attention to any irregularities in the manuscript, including suspected plagiarism of text or figures, or any other type of suspected scientific misconduct.

Reviewers should treat the manuscript as a confidential document. It should not be shown to others, or its contents disseminated in any way before publication.

The editors may always ask for further information relating to competing interests. Please contact the journal at [email protected] if you think you may have a competing interest. FM handles competing interests by following COPE guidelines and ongoing debate on this subject (link).

Publication Ethics

Forests Monitor expects authors, reviewers, editors, and readers to conduct themselves with the highest level of professional ethics and standards.

Authors must make clear any personal interest or relationship that could potentially be affected by the publication of their manuscript. All sources of funding should be disclosed in the Acknowledgments section.

Your article should present a clear and concise account of the research performed, as well as an objective discussion of the results and their significance. The article should have sufficient details and/or references to publicly available information such that a reader could reasonably expect to reproduce the experiment.

Authorship should be limited to those who were directly responsible for a significant portion of the research or writing. This includes the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of results. All persons who provided such input should be given the opportunity to be listed as an author, and no one who was not involved in these ways should be given credit as an author. Individuals who have contributed in ways other than those given above, e.g., by providing funding, may be mentioned in the Acknowledgments section.

All authors should be given the chance to review the manuscript before submission. FM expects the names of all authors and their current email addresses to be provided upon submission of an article to OJS. Failure to do so will delay, and in some cases prevent, publication.

It is the responsibility of all authors to ensure the manuscript is accurate and complete. Any error discovered in a published article should be immediately brought to the attention of the journal.

The work of other researchers should be properly acknowledged. In most cases, this involves citing previous publications. Private correspondence or discussion should not be reported without the express permission of the party involved. Authors must provide proof that permission has been obtained to reuse figures that have been previously published, and proper attribution should be included in the text of the manuscript.

FM considers plagiarism—the use of previously published or openly accessible material without citation or permission for use—including self-plagiarism, to be unethical scientific behavior. Manuscripts that contain plagiarized text or figures will not be accepted. We use Plagiarism Checker powered by Grammarly and Artificial Intelligehttps://www.grammarly.com/plagiarism-checkernce content detector software to check the originality of manuscripts. For more information on Plagiarism Checker, visit their website.

The editors reserve the right to reject or delete articles for which irrefutable evidence of unauthorized copying becomes known to them.

FM also considers the concurrent submission of a manuscript to different journals to be unethical scientific behaviour.

Research misconduct

In the Forests Monitor, the misconduct refers to fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. The research misconduct, as defined by the Office of Research Integrity, may include:

(a) Fabrication is making up data or results and recording or reporting them.

(b) Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

(c) Plagiarism is the appropriation of another person's ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit; this also includes the use of artificial intelligence.

(d) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion.”

Addressing research misconduct

FM takes seriously all allegations of potential misconduct. Our Editors evaluate each potential research misconduct on case-by-case basis and follow the it may be necessary for the Editors to contact and share manuscripts with third parties, for example, author(s)’ institution(s) and ethics committee(s) in cases of suspected misconduct relating either to research or publication. The Journal may also seek advice from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and discuss anonymised cases in the COPE Forum.

In cases of proven research misconduct involving published articles, or where the scientific integrity of the article is significantly undermined, articles may be retracted.

The peer-review process helps Editors to investigate of possible research misconduct and verify that submitted to FM research is characterized by research integrity, while also ensuring confidentiality, fairness, and prompt attention, maintaining public trust in the research results. FM uses Plagiarism Checker powered by Grammarly and Artificial Intelligence content detector software to perform the manuscript originality check.

If reviewers suspect plagiarism, fraud, or any other type of scientific misconduct, please let the Editor know. Please provide as much detail as possible in these cases, e.g., citations of previously published material.

Complaints process

Anyone with a concern or complaint should contact the Journal at [email protected] and provide details of their complaint.

Authors may complain on the editorial decision to one of the Editor who is not leading the manuscript. Authors must present detailed justification why they do not agree with Journal decision on their manuscripts.