Publication Ethics
GEOSCIENCE follows the recognized publication ethics (COPE, Committee on Publication Ethics, http://www.geoscience.net.cn/), continues to strengthen industry self-discipline, promotes the construction of academic integrity and improves the mechanism of long-term development.
Duties of the Publisher
1) GEOSCIENCE, as an excellent publisher in the field of geology in China, takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.
2) One of the important roles of publishers is to support the work of journal editors and to maintain their independence. GEOSCIENCE is adopting these policies and procedures to support editors, reviewers and authors in performing their ethical duties under these guidelines.
Duties of Author
1) The author of the original research report should give an accurate description of the work done and an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data should be accurately expressed in the paper.
2) Authors should ensure that all their writing is original and that if the author USES the work and/or text of others, the work and/or text have been appropriately quoted or quoted.
3) Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. The author should cite publications that have influenced the work and give the work proper context in the larger academic record. Do not use information that is not clearly sourced or obtained privately.
4) Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
5) One author will act as the corresponding author for multi-authored manuscripts. All authors involved in the work approved the paper and agreed to its submission. All authors must verify their information and involvement when the paper is submitted (an email is sent through the Editorial Manager system).
6) All authors should disclose any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
7) When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.
Duties of Editor
1) The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is solely and responsible for deciding which articles to submit to the journal for publication and, in addition, for everything published in the journal. In making such decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarisms. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making a publication decision. The editor shall maintain the integrity of the academic record, avoid compromising intellectual and ethical standards by commercial necessity, and be willing to issue corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies whenever necessary.
2) The editors should ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased and timely. Research articles must usually be reviewed by at least two external and independent reviewers, and editors should seek additional advice if necessary.
3) The editor should select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field to serve as reviewers and follow best practice to avoid selecting fraudulent peer reviewers. The editor should review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest, as well as self-cited suggestions by reviewers, to determine whether there is any potential bias.
4) The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
5) The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.
Duties of Reviewer
1) Peer review helps editors make editorial decisions and, by communicating with an author’s editor, helps authors improve their papers.
2) Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that it cannot be reviewed in a timely manner should notify the editor immediately so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
3) The reviewer must not use unpublished material disclosed in the submission for his or her own research without the author’s express written consent. Confidential information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and must not be used for personal advantage.
4) Any manuscript under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers are not allowed to share comments or information on a paper with anyone or to contact the author directly without the editor’s permission.
5) The reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and any previously reported statements of observation, deduction or argument should be accompanied by relevant citations. The editor should be informed of any material similarities or overlaps between the articles reviewed and other published papers with which he is familiar.
6) The reviewers should review the papers objectively and present their views clearly with appropriate supporting evidence. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable.
7) Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The reviewer should not consider the evaluation of the manuscript with conflict of interest.
