Publication Ethics

The editorial and publishing ethics of the collection “Geochemistry of Technogenesis” is based on:

Ethical Obligations of Editors of the Journal

  • The editor should consider all manuscripts offered for publication without prejudice, evaluating each on its merits without regard to race, religion, nationality, status, or institutional affiliation of the authors.
  • Is not allowed to publish the information if there is sufficient reason to believe that it is plagiarism.
  • All submitted materials are carefully selected and two-way “blind” reviewed. An editorial board reserves the right to reject a paper or return it for required improvement. The author is obliged to improve the paper according to the remarks of the reviewers or the editorial board.
  • Rejected papers are not re-reviewed.
  • Decision of the editor about paper publication is based on such characteristics of paper as the importance of results, originality, quality of presentation and conformity to the journal profile. The manuscripts may be rejected without external review if the editor considered that it is inappropriate for the journal profile. When making such decisions the editor may consult with members of the editorial board or reviewers.
  • The editor and editorial board members should not hand over any information related to the content of the submitted manuscript to other persons, than those who are participating in professional evaluation of this manuscript. After a positive decision regarding the manuscript, it should be published in the journal and in the website of the journal.
  • Publication and/or distribution of materials from the journal by third parties or organizations in print and electronic media are prohibited. In case of use of the published materials in context of other documents, references to the primary source are required.
  • Responsibility and rights of the editor regarding any submitted manuscript, written by the editor himself, should be delegated to any other qualified person.
  • All unpublished materials represented in the submitted paper will not be used in the own researches of the editor or editorial board members without the written consent of the author. Authors must disclose any conflicts of interests and publish corrections if the conflict of interest was discovered after publication. The editor regulates the conflict of interest of authors, reviewers, and members of the editorial board.
  • If there are any conflicts of interest (financial, academic, personal) all participants of review process must inform the editorial board. All disputes are considered at a meeting of the editorial board.
  • The editor willingly considers a convincing critique of papers published in the journal.
  • The papers approved for publication are placed in free access on web-site of the journal. Copyrights are saved for the authors.
  • Thoughts and opinions of authors, readers, reviewers, and editorial board members relating to the methods of the journal improvements are essential for the editor.

Ensuring the integrity: involvement and cooperation

"Geochemistry of Technogenesis" will respond to all claims or doubt of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or others. If concerns about the conduct or validity of academic work are raised, the Editorial Board with an involvement of relevant experts, as appropriate, will assess cases of possible plagiarism or duplicate/redundant publication. 

In cases when concerns are very serious and the published work is likely to influence the scientific knowledge or practical applications, "Geochemistry of Technogenesis" may consider informing readers about these concerns, by issuing an “expression of concern”, and then publish explanations the findings of the investigation. Otherwise "Geochemistry of Technogenesis" may decide to retract a paper if the Editorial Board is persuaded that severe misconduct has happened. Retracted papers will be retained online, and conspicuously marked as a retraction for the readers’ benefit.

Ethical Obligations of Authors

  • The authors should ensure that they have written absolutely original papers, and if the authors have used the work or words of others, it was duly executed as links or citations in quotation marks. The editorial board reviews the articles on plagiarism.
  • Submission of identical paper in more than one journal is considered as unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.
  • The authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to  implementation of the claimed research.
  • The data in the paper should be represented accurately.
  • A paper must be well structured, contain enough references and be designed according to the requirements.
  • Unfair or known inaccurate assertions in the paper represent the unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
  • The author, making correspondence with the editors, has to guarantee that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its publication.
  • In case of disagreement with the reviewer’s guidelines, authors give to the editor board a comprehensive answer for reviewer.
  • Authors have opportunity to respond to criticisms of papers.
  • Authors are wholly responsible for the content of papers and for the fact of their. Editor board is not responsible for probable damages of authors or third parties caused by publication of a manuscript. Editors have the right to withdraw the already published paper in the case when somebody’s rights are abused or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics are violated. Editors inform authors of the paper, persons who gave recommendations and representatives of organization, where the research was held, about the fact of withdrawal.
  • The author does not have the right to reproducing the article in other editions without the consent of the editorial staff. If someone uses material from an article – should make a link to the article by the author

Ethical Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts

  • To ensure the objectivity of evaluation of manuscripts the editor board follows the two-way “blind” review.
  • As the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, and thus in the operation of the scientific method, every scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
  • If a chosen reviewer feels inadequately qualified to judge the research which is described in a manuscript he should return it promptly to the editor.
  • A reviewer should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript, its experimental and theoretical work, its interpretations and its exposition. Additionally the reviewer should evaluate how the paper corresponds to the high scientific and literary standards. A reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
  • A reviewer should be sensitive to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, pointing to the editor on the conflict of interest.
  • A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown nor discussed with others persons except in special cases, when the reviewer needs someone’s specific consultation.
  • Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation or reference.
  • A reviewer should point on any cases of insufficient author’s citation of works implemented by other scientists.
  • A reviewer should call to the editor’s attention to any substantial similarity between the reviewed manuscript and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
  • A reviewer should act promptly, submitting a report in a timely manner.
  • Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a reviewed manuscript, except with the consent of the author.