Publication Guidelines
These guidelines are based generally on the American Geophysical Union’s Guidelines for Publication of Geoscientific Research, which are in turn based on "Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research" of the American Chemical Society. AGU’s statement of guidelines is available on the AGU web site. The guidelines provide recommendations and ethical standards for the preparation, editing and review of manuscripts relevant to any scientific discipline.
Obligations of Authors
The principal obligation of an author is to present a concise, accurate account of their paper’s subject matter.
Publications that have contributed to current understanding of the subject of any paper or will provide readers with relevant background information should be formally cited. Criticism of a published paper may be justified. Personal criticism, however, is not considered acceptable under any circumstances. Information obtained from sources other than the author’s own work or published papers should not be used or reported without the permission of the person or organisation from which the information originated.
Fragmentation of papers should be avoided. Extensive work on a single subject, or closely related series of topics should be published in a manner such that each paper gives a complete account of a particular aspect of the subject.
Publication of manuscripts dealing with essentially the same subject in more than one journal or submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is considered unethical and unacceptable.
Authors should not make changes to papers after they have been accepted for publication unless there is a compelling reason for doing so. The editor has final authority to approve changes of this nature.
Only persons who have made a significant contribution to research or other information presented in a paper should be named as authors. The author responsible for manuscript submission is obliged to, and accepts responsibility for ensuring that all those named as co-authors have seen the final version of the paper and have agreed to it being published.
Obligations of Editors
Editors should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication. All manuscripts should be processed promptly. Editors must respect the intellectual independence of authors. Information relating to any paper being considered for publication should not be disclosed to anyone other than reviewers and potential reviewers by the editor or any person assisting with preparation of papers for publication.
Editorial responsibility and authority for a manuscript submitted by an editor to the editor’s journal should be delegated to some other qualified person such as an associate editor of that journal, Editors should avoid situations of real or perceived conflict of interest. If an editor chooses to participate in an ongoing scientific debate within the journal, the editor should arrange for another qualified person to take editorial responsibility. Unpublished information presented in a manuscript submitted for publication should not be used in an editor’s own research without the permission of the author.
An editor presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a paper published in an editor’s are erroneous should facilitate publication of an appropriate paper pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it.
The editor has complete responsibility and authority to accept a paper for publication, or to reject it. The editor may confer with associate editors and reviewers in making this decision.
Obligations of Manuscript Reviewers
Reviewing manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process. A nominated reviewer who feels inadequately qualified or lacks time to adequately review a manuscript should promptly advise the editor. Reviewers should objectively assess the quality of a manuscript and respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
Reviewers should avoid situations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest. Where a manuscript is closely related to the work of a reviewer, the reviewer should advise the editor of the situation and not proceed with reviewing the manuscript. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with which they have a personal or professional relationship if the relationship would affect assessment of the manuscript.
Manuscripts received for review should be treated as confidential documents which should neither be shown to nor discussed with others, except persons from whom special advice may be sought, and then only with the approval of the editor. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information contained in a manuscript under consideration.
Reviewers should be alert to the failure of authors to cite relevant work by others. A reviewer should call the editor’s attention to any substantial similarity between the manuscript being reviewed and any other publication or manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
Comments made by reviewers should be constructive and adequately supported so that both editors and authors may understand their basis. References to other works should accompany comments where appropriate.