Publication Ethics
Journal of Natural Resources adheres to internationally recognized standards of publication ethics. In accordance with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and taking into consideration the specific practices of the journal, we have established the following ethical standards. Authors, reviewers, and editors should strictly adhere to these standards throughout the academic publishing process:

1. Responsibilities of Authors
(1) Authors must ensure that their submissions are original work that has not been published elsewhere in any form, and that their submissions do not involve any instances of data fabrication, plagiarism, multiple submissions, or other forms of academic misconduct.
(2) When citing others' research results, authors must clearly indicate the sources as required by copyright law. If copyrighted material is used, authors must obtain the necessary permissions.
(3) For collaborative research, the order of authorship should reflect the extent of each author's contribution. All co-authors should review the manuscript before submission, and all listed authors share responsibility for the content of the research.
(4) All listed authors must meet the journal's authorship criteria, which require substantial contributions to at least one of the following aspects: conceptualization and design of the study, data acquisition, data analysis and interpretation, drafting the manuscript, or making critical revisions to its important intellectual content. Providing laboratory space or funding alone does not qualify an individual for authorship.
(5) Authors must ensure that all author information is complete at the time of submission. No changes to the information of authors, affiliations, or funding projects will be accepted after submission.
(6) At the time of submission, authors should disclose their specific contributions to the research as well as any potential conflicts of interest to the editorial office. A conflict of interest exists when an author (or their institution/employer) has financial, personal, or professional relationships that could influence the author's work, decisions, or the content of the manuscript. If the manuscript mentions specific products, authors should also disclose any conflicts related to competing products.

2. Responsibilities of Reviewers
(1) Reviewers are expected to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the manuscript, maintaining objectivity and fairness, and adhering to professional ethics without pursuing personal gain.
(2) Reviewers should recuse themselves if they are aware of any potential conflicts of interest with the authors to ensure impartiality in the review process.
(3) Reviewers are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the review materials and must not disclose any content of the manuscript or review results to others.
(4) Review comments should be based on scientific facts, maintain objectivity, avoid professional bias, and provide constructive suggestions to address weaknesses in the research. If a manuscript is outside their area of expertise, reviewers have the responsibility to decline the review.
(5) Reviewers should complete the review on time. If they are unable to meet the deadline, they must promptly notify the editorial office.

3. Responsibilities of Editors
(1) Editors should handle all submissions fairly, impartially, and in a timely manner.
(2) Editors are responsible for checking all submissions for academic misconduct. If cases of multiple submissions, plagiarism, or other academic misconduct are identified, the submission should be rejected immediately.
(3) Editors must adhere to confidentiality principles and strictly protect the identities of reviewers and the research of authors.
(4) To ensure fairness in the review process, editors should consider authors' requests to avoid certain reviewers. For recommended peer reviewers, editors should verify the authenticity of the reviewers' information and consider factors such as the recommended reviewers' field of study, expertise, and any potential conflicts of interest with the authors when deciding whether to use the recommended reviewers.
(5) Editors must not interfere with the peer review process, ensuring that peer reviewers conduct their evaluations independently to maintain the fairness and impartiality of the review.
(6) Editors should respect the opinions of peer reviewers and provide authors with detailed feedback whenever possible. If authors have objections, they should be allowed to appeal.
(7) Editors must ensure the authenticity of all stages of the review process and maintain the confidentiality of review materials.
(8) Editors should process submissions in a timely manner, ensuring that research meeting journal requirements and quality standards is published promptly, and making efforts to minimize the time between acceptance and publication.

4. Statement on GenAI
The policy on the use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) technology in the submission and review process is as follows:
(1) GenAI cannot assume the corresponding responsibility of an author, and the journal does not accept GenAI, its products or teams listed as authors.
(2) GenAI cannot be used to write entire papers or important parts of papers, such as methods, results, and interpretation and analysis of results. All content falling within the realm of scientific contribution or intellectual work should be completed by humans. If the main content of a paper is completed by GenAI, the editorial office will regard the case as academic misconduct.
(3) GenAI can be used for literature search, topic selection, statistical analysis, language polishing, figures production, format checking, etc., if necessary for the research. Authors are fully responsible for the content produced by GenAI tools, and are thus liable for any breaches of publication ethics or infringement.
(4) In order to improve efficiency and reduce workload, GenAI may be used to assist the daily work of the editorial office, but it is prohibited to assist manuscript evaluation or decision-making process. It must be human editors who are responsible for the manuscript review, decision-making, and communication with authors. To avoid risks of infringement, privacy breach, and confidential breach, it is prohibited to upload manuscripts and supplementary materials to publicly available GenAI platforms during the review process.
(5) If, upon investigation, the editorial office determines that authors have violated GenAI usage policies in their scientific writing, the manuscript will be rejected or retracted. In severe cases, the journal will blacklist the author and report the case to other journals in the field. If reviewers violate our GenAI policies during the review process, which results in information leakage or infringement, they will be prohibited from participating in review work and shall bear consequent responsibilities.

5. Advertising Policy
The journal does not publish any commercial advertisements. All articles, as well as content on the official website and other platforms of the journal, are free of advertising. Review and decisions on acceptance of all manuscripts are not influenced by any commercial considerations.

6. Comments & Feedback
Authors, readers, and experts are encouraged to provide comments or feedback on articles published in the journal, or suggestions regarding the journal's publishing ethics requirements. Feedback can be sent to the editorial office via email. The editorial office will address the feedback promptly and respond as appropriate. The journal welcomes the supervision and comments of readers and authors to foster a positive academic environment.