Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
- Details
- Category: English
For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author(s), the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer(s) and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for the Geo-Technical Mechanics are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Editor responsibilities
Accountability
The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, as well as accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these 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 plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
Fairness
The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewer(s), and in some instances the editorial board members.
Confidentiality
The editor as well as editorial board members must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewer(s), and the publisher.
Disclosure, conflicts of interest, appeal submission and other issues
The editor will be guided by COPE’s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern as well as issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in the Geo-Technical Mechanics. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal purpose. The editor should seek so ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscripts. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
Editor(s) welcome genuine appeals to editor(s) decision. However, author will need to provide strong evidence or new data/information in response to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments.
If authors want to appeal an editorial decision they should:
a) Detail why you disagree with the decision. Please provide specific responses to any of the editor’s and/or reviewers’ comments that contributed to the reject decision;
b) Provide any new information or data that you would like the journal to take into consideration;
c) Provide evidence if you believe a reviewer has made technical errors in their assessment of your manuscript;
d) Include evidence if you believe a reviewer may have a conflict of interest.
After receiving the appeal, editor(s) may confirm their decision to reject the manuscript, invite a revised manuscript, or seek additional peer- review of the original manuscript.
Editors will consider one appeal per article and all decisions on appeals are final. The timely review and decision-making process for new submissions will take precedence over appeals.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
Editor(s) should maintain the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editor(s) should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. Editor(s) should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewer responsibilities
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor(s) in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Promptness
Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in the manuscript or supposes that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor(s).
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers could identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation in the manuscript. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
Author responsibilities
Reporting standards
Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements are unacceptable since they constitute unethical behavior.
Originality and plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original manuscript, and if the authors have used the paper and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is unacceptable since it constitutes unethical publishing behavior.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported study.
Authorship of a manuscript
Authorship should be limited to those persons who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, implementation or interpretation of the reported study. All the persons who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the study, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Hazards and human subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript 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 study should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
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(s) or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.
Publisher’s confirmation
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editor(s), will take all appropriate actions to clarify the situation and to amend the article. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected study.