PUBLICATION ETHICS GUIDELINES
1. FOR EDITORS AND SCIENTIFIC BOARD
- Be impartial in handling of manuscripts submitted to Geogaceta for publication.
- Acknowledge the author's right to a new review process if their manuscript has been negatively assessed.
- Keep the texts that have been submitted and their contents confidential while under review. The data and interpretations contained in unpublished manuscripts shall not be used nor allowed to be used by third parties in any fashion whatsoever.
- Ensure that all manuscripts submitted to Geogaceta have been peer reviewed by experts in the manuscript topic, who must be impartial in their reports. If the recommendations of the two referees are in conflict, the Editor shall ask for the opinion of a third referee.
- Be transparent in the methodology used for manuscript revision, showing which parts remain anonymous (authors vis à vis referees; referees vis à vis authors).
- Impartially analyse the reasoning of authors' reports on a reviewer's refusal.
- Clearly indicate to referees the importance of valuing the originality of manuscripts, as well as the need of bringing to light partial or total plagiarism and the use of invented, distorted, or falsified data.
- Send a letter thanking referees for their review.
- Explain the decision for acceptance or rejection of any manuscript sent to Geogaceta. The report should be supported by the referees' proposal.
- A submission may be directly rejected when:
- Ensure that any Editors/members of the Scientific Board who sign a manuscript submitted to Geogaceta will not be involved in its revision. The Special Editors, appointed for the management of special volumes, will strictly adhere to the issues presented in these guidelines. They shall consult the Editor about any decision taken. Then, they will make an open call of papers to all the authors interested in the publication of their research related to the topic of the special volume.
- Ensure that the instructions for authors are easily accessible from any media.
2. FOR AUTHORS
- Submit manuscripts with original and unpublished results of your own research.
- Do not submit manuscripts under revision in other journal. Neither can manuscripts be sent to another journal until a rejection from this journal is sent to the authors or you voluntarily withdraw the manuscript.
- Indicate, according to the journal instructions, the bibliographic sources used to extract ideas, literal sentences, or data in the research presented in the manuscript.
- Indicate the source of any images or figures used if they are not originals. If necessary, the authors should show the reproduction permit.
- Very long papers may be divided into several parts; each should develop a topic of the research. Therefore, each part should be self-supporting.
- When there are several authors, a corresponding author shall be responsible for correspondence with the Editor. The corresponding author will also guarantee that all the authors have actively participated in the research. He will inform them of the decisions adopted by the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board related to the manuscript submitted.
- If an author finds an erratum in their manuscript, they must inform the Editor in order to make a correction. If the manuscript was published, the correction should be made as soon as possible.
3. FOR REFEREES
- Handle manuscripts as a confidential document while it is under review.
- Objectively review the full manuscript (text, figures, and tables).
- Provide constructive, well-founded reviews.
- Verify that the references of the reviewed manuscript are appropriate for the topics analysed in it.
- Warn the Editor about any signs of plagiarism or the existence of falsified, distorted, or invented data.
- Submit the report of the reviewed manuscript in the document form supplied and within the period agreed on with the Editor. If it is not possible to comply with the date agreed on, the referee should inform the Editor as soon as possible.
- Communicate to the Editor any close professional or personal relationships with the authors of a submitted manuscript or strong scientific differences on the topic under review that could affect your impartiality.
Páginas alojadas en el servidor de la Universidad de Salamanca