Publication Policies

The Journal of Geodesy and Geoinformation uses blind review process. The corresponding author submits the manuscript to the system and Editor-in-chief decides that the manuscript is whether suitable or not to the aim and scope of the Journal and scientific merits. Editor-in-chief decides either “starting the review process” or “reject the manuscript” after the initial manuscript submission.

The Journal of Geodesy and Geoinformation is a member of CrossRef. The Journal makes the similarity check to all submitted manuscripts by using iThenticate service for avoiding plagiarism. The plagiarism check percentage should not exceed 25% (exclude references section).

If your manuscript is accepted for peer review process, it will be send to the section editor, who is an expert in the relevant field removing authors name and addresses. Section editor sends the manuscript to at least two reviewers. Editor-in-chief or section editors may also act as a reviewer. Editor-in-chief decides the revision of the manuscript, rejection of the manuscript or accept as is according to the revision comments uploaded by each reviewer and/or editor.

Once Author’s submission has been approved for publication, it is considered in editing and sent back to the author for proofreading. JGG is an open access and free of charge Journal. There is no charge for use of any part of this publication in research, study, teaching or republications in scientific and technical documents, but the materials must be cited appropriately. Use and reproduction for commercial purposes requires special permission from CSCE.

Publication Ethics

The COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors is designed to provide a set of minimum standards to which all COPE members are expected to adhere. The Best Practice Guidelines are more aspirational and were developed in response to requests from editors for guidance about a wide range of increasingly complex ethical issues. While COPE expects all members to adhere to the Code of Conduct for Journal Editors (and will consider complaints against members who have not followed it), we realise that editors may not be able to implement all the Best Practice recommendations (which are therefore voluntary), but we hope that our suggestions will identify aspects of journal policy and practice that should be reviewed and discussed. In this combined version of the documents, the mandatory Code of Conduct for Journal Editors standards are shown in regular script and with numbered clauses, and the more aspirational Best Practice recommendations are shown in italics.

1. General duties and responsibilities of editors

1.1. Editors should be accountable for everything published in their journals

This means the editors should

1.2. strive to meet the needs of readers and authors;
1.3. strive to constantly improve their journal;
1.4. have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish;
1.5. champion freedom of expression;
1.6. maintain the integrity of the academic record;
1.7. preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards;
1.8. always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Best practice for editors would include:

• actively seeking the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving their journal’s processes
• encouraging and being aware of research into peer review and publishing and reassessing their journal’s processes in the light of new findings
• working to persuade their publisher to provide appropriate resources, guidance from experts (e.g. designers, lawyers)
• supporting initiatives designed to reduce research and publication misconduct
• supporting initiatives to educate researchers about publication ethics
• assessing the effects of their journal policies on author and reviewer behaviour and revising policies, as required, to encourage responsible behaviour and discourage misconduct
• ensuring that any press releases issued by their journal reflect the message of the reported article and put it into context

2. Relations with readers

2.1. Readers should be informed about who has funded research or other scholarly work and whether the funders had any role in the research and its publication and, if so, what this was.

Best practice for editors would include:

• ensuring that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review where appropriate)
• ensuring that non-peer-reviewed sections of their journal are clearly identified
• adopting processes that encourage accuracy, completeness and clarity of research reporting including technical
• editing and the use of appropriate guidelines and checklists (e.g. MIAME,1 CONSORT2 )
• considering developing a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the provenance of non-research articles3
• adopting authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practice (i.e. so that listings accurately reflect who did the work)4 and discourage misconduct (e.g. ghost and guest authors)
• informing readers about steps taken to ensure that submissions from members of the journal’s staff or editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation

3. Relations with authors

3.1. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
3.2. Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission.
3.3. New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
3.4. A description of peer review processes should be published, and editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
3.5. Journals should have a declared mechanism for authors to appeal against editorial decisions.
3.6. Editors should publish guidance to authors on everything that is expected of them. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
3.7. Editors should provide guidance about criteria for authorship and/or who should be listed as a contributor following the standards within the relevant field.

Best practice for editors would include:

• reviewing author instructions regularly and providing links to relevant guidelines (e.g. ICMJE5 , Responsible research publication: international standards for authors6 )
• publishing relevant competing interests for all contributors and publishing corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication
• ensuring that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e. individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests)
• respecting requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are wellreasoned and practicable
• being guided by the COPE flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts) in cases of suspected misconduct or disputed authorship
• publishing details of how they handle cases of suspected misconduct (e.g. with links to the COPE flowcharts)
• publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles

4. Relations with editors

4.1. Editors should provide guidance to reviewers on everything that is expected of them including the need to handle submitted material in confidence. This guidance should be regularly updated and should refer or link to this code.
4.2. Editors should require reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.
4.3. Editors should have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system that is declared to authors and reviewers.

Best practice for editors would include:

• encouraging reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate data manipulation and presentation)
• encouraging reviewers to comment on the originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism
• considering providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications( e.g. links to cited references and bibliographic searches)
• sending reviewers’ comments to authors in their entirety unless they contain offensive or libellous remarks
• seeking to acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal
• encouraging academic institutions to recognise peer review activities as part of the scholarly process
• monitoring the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this is of high standard
• developing and maintaining a database of suitable reviewers and updating this on the basis of reviewer performance
• ceasing to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews
• ensuring that the reviewer database reflects the community for their journal and adding new reviewers as needed
• using a wide range of sources (not just personal contacts) to identify potential new reviewers (e.g. author suggestions, bibliographic databases)
• following the COPE flowchart in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct

5. Relations with editorial board members

5.1. Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on everything that is expected of them and should keep existing members updated on new policies and developments.

Best practice for editors would include:

• having policies in place for handling submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased reviewidentifying suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and good management of the journal
• regularly reviewing the composition of the editorial board
• providing clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties, which might include:

                o    acting as ambassadors for the journal
                o    supporting and promoting the journal
                o    seeking out the best authors and best work (e.g. from meeting abstracts) and actively encouraging submissions
                o    reviewing submissions to the journal
                o    accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews and commentaries on papers in their specialist area
                o    attending and contributing to editorial board meetings 

• consulting editorial board members periodically (e.g. once a year) to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenges.

References:

1. MIAME (Minimum information about a microarray experiment): http://www.mged.org/Workgroups/MIAME/ miame.html
2. CONSORT statement (and other reporting guidelines) can be found at: www. equatornetwork.org
3. BMJ transparency policy: http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/authors/editorialpolicies/transparency-policy
4. Marusic A, et al. How the structure of contribution disclosure statements affects validity of authorship: a randomized study in a general medical journal. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:1035-44
5. ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: http://www.icmje.org/urm_main.html
6. Responsible research publication: international standards for authors (Position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 2010) In press, 2011)
7. World Association of Medical Editors statement on the relationship between journal editors-in-chief and owners: http://www.wame.org/resources/policies
8. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: http://www.wma.net/e/ethicsunit/helsinki.htm
9. American Educational Research Association ethical standards: http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/Default. aspx?menu_id=90&id=222
10. American Psychological Association ethical principles: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
11. British Educational Research Association ethical guidelines http://www.bera.ac.uk/publications/guidelines/
12. Good Clinical Practice: http://www.emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ich/013595en.pdf
13. US Department of Health and Human Services Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/labrats/
14. COPE flowcharts: http://publicationethics.org/flowcharts
15. COPE retraction guidelines: http://publicationethics.org/files/u661/Retractions_COPE_gline_final_3_Sept_09__2_.pdf
16. De Angelis C, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Lancet 2004;364:911-2
17. PubMed Central: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ WWW.PUBLICATIONETHICS.ORG

This revision was developed after wide consultation with COPE Members and approved by the COPE Council on 7^th March 2011.