Publication Ethics Guidelines of Journal of Geo-information Science
In order to strengthen academic integrity, standardize the manuscript submission, review, and publication processes, and combat academic misconduct, the journal has established the following ethics guidelines for authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers. These guidelines are based on the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China, the Academic Publishing Guidelines: Definition of Academic Misconduct in Journals (CY/T174-2019), requirements of the International Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and specific practices of this journal.
1. Publication ethics refers to the moral norms and codes of conduct that all parties involved in academic journal publishing are expected to follow.
2. According to the Academic Publishing Guidelines: Definition of Academic Misconduct in Journals (CY/T174-2019), academic misconduct refers to behaviors that violate academic norms and ethics, such as plagiarism, fabrication, distortion, improper authorship, multiple submissions, and redundant publication. Plagiarism is defined as the act of inappropriately using another's ideas, data, images, research methods, or written expressions and presenting them under one's own name. Fabrication is the act of fabricating or fictionalizing data and facts, and distortion involves inventing or altering data and facts in a manner that compromises their authenticity. Improper authorship refers to listing or ordering authors in a way that does not accurately reflect their actual contributions to the article. Multiple submissions involve submitting the same manuscript or several manuscripts with only minor differences to two or more journals simultaneously, or re-submitting to another journal within a designated time frame. Redundant publication means republishing content from a work that has already been published (by the same author or as a co-author) without proper disclosure.
3. The journal will reject any manuscript with a similarity index exceeding 20%. For manuscripts with a similarity index below 20%, the following factors will be considered:
·Whether the duplicated portions represent the core results and viewpoints; if they do, the manuscript cannot be accepted.
·Whether, after removing the duplicated content and replacing it with appropriate citations, the remaining content is sufficient to support a complete paper; if not, the manuscript will be deemed unpublishable.
4. Conflict of Interest refers to any situation in which personal or group interests (such as financial gains, friendships, or family ties) conflict with the primary responsibilities of ensuring the objectivity and integrity of the research.
Author Ethics
(1) Authors must ensure the authenticity of their manuscripts. If requested, they are obligated to provide supporting materials such as original images, raw data, grant approval documents and project titles to the editorial office.
(2) Upon submission, authors must commit that their manuscript has not been submitted to multiple journals, does not involve any confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes regarding authorship.
(3) Authors must strictly observe the following principles of "Five No's": No outsourcing of manuscript writing by third parties. No submission on behalf of the author by third parties. No modifications to the manuscript content by third parties. No provision of false information regarding peer reviewers. No violations of authorship norms (see items 4-7 below). In summary, any individual who has not made a substantive academic contribution should not be listed as an author.
(4) Authors are those who have made substantial contributions to the research. This includes individuals who:
· Have significantly contributed to the conception or design of the research, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.
· Have drafted the manuscript or made critical intellectual revisions.
· Have finalized the version to be published.
· Agree to take responsibility for all aspects of the research to ensure the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work.
Those who do not meet all four criteria (e.g., those who merely provided technical assistance or financial/material support) should not be listed as authors, but may be acknowledged for their contributions.
(5) The order of authors should generally reflect the magnitude of their contributions and be agreed upon by all authors at the time of submission. The names of authors and their affiliations should not be changed once the manuscript is submitted. Any necessary changes must be accompanied by a written request from the primary responsible individuals (i.e., the first and corresponding authors), including a clear justification and signed consent from all listed authors. Unauthorized changes to authorship in the revised manuscript are not permitted.
(6) Typically, only one corresponding author should be designated. In cases of multi-center or multidisciplinary collaborative research where there is a genuine need for more than one corresponding author, additional corresponding authors may be added. Such additional corresponding authors should be academic leaders from the collaborating institutions or research groups.
(7) Authors who have contributed equally should be clearly indicated at the time of submission. Typically, no more than two authors should be designated as equal contributors. However, for multi-center or multidisciplinary collaborative studies, if more than two have contributed equally, additional equal contributors may be acknowledged, provided they come from different collaborating institutions or research groups.
(8) Authors must clearly state their names and affiliations at the time of submission. The affiliation should be relevant to the research content. If the affiliation is unrelated, the author must specify their role in the research or provide a statement from their institution confirming their involvement in the study.
(9) If an author's institutional affiliation is different from the institution where the research topic was conceived, the study design was developed, the research was conducted, or the research conditions were provided (such as in cases of graduate students who have left their educational institution, visiting scholars, or collaborative research), the institution that provided the research conditions and facilitated the study should be listed as the primary affiliation.
(10) Upon submission, authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. If such conflicts exist, they should detail all economic interests that might affect the research results (for example, whether there is a commercial relationship with an enterprise involved in the research, or whether any financial support was provided by an enterprise for experimental design, data processing, manuscript writing, or publication).
(11) If authors disagree with the review comments or outcomes, they may submit a written appeal to the editorial office, providing detailed explanations and justifications for each review comment.
(12) For published articles, if authors discover significant errors or have the need for immediate corrections, they must promptly inform the editorial office to issue a correction or retraction.
Reviewer Ethics
(1) Reviewers must provide responsible evaluations of manuscripts based on the principles of fairness, impartiality, confidentiality, and timeliness. They must avoid any bias or discrimination based on the author's research institution, geographic region, qualifications, ethnicity, etc., and must not disclose the author's research content.
(2) If a reviewer has a conflict of interest with an author (such as a familial, teacher-student, alumni, colleague, or competitive relationship), they must promptly inform the editorial office. The editorial office will then decide whether the reviewer should recuse themselves from the review process.
(3) When a reviewer finds that the author's research is closely related to their own, they must not use the review process to suppress or disparage the manuscript.
(4) Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts within the agreed timeframe. If unable to do so, they should immediately notify the editorial office and withdraw from the review, suggesting alternative reviewers if possible. Without prior consent from the editorial office, reviewers must not delegate the review task to their students or colleagues.
(5) Reviewers should not suggest or require the author to cite previously published work by the reviewer or their team, unless the work is directly related to the research but overlooked by the author.
(6) If a reviewer encounters another manuscript closely related to the one under review, they should inform the editorial office of the situation, and submit their review comments in accordance with the journal's standards, leaving the final decision to the editorial office.
(7) Prior to publication, reviewers must not use any information from the manuscript for their own research without obtaining consent from the original author.
Editor Ethics
(1) Editors must handle each manuscript fairly, impartially, and promptly. Decisions to accept or reject a manuscript should be based solely on its significance, originality, scientific rigor, readability, authenticity of the research, and relevance to the journal, and not on factors such as the author's age, institutional affiliation, educational background, professional title, gender, funding status, corresponding author credentials, or manuscript length.
(2) Editors are required to maintain strict confidentiality. They must protect the identities and information of reviewers as well as the research content of the authors. No details about the authors or the manuscript should be disclosed to anyone outside the Editorial Board or the reviewers. Before publication, without the consent of the original authors, Editorial Board members are prohibited from using any data from the manuscript for their own research.
(3) Editors should not interfere with the peer review process for personal gain. For the fairness and impartiality of peer review, editors must ensure that peer reviews are conducted independently.
(4) When considering reviewers recommended by the authors, editors should verify the authenticity of their information. They should assess the reviewer's field of expertise and any potential conflicts of interest with the author before deciding whether to use the recommendation. If an author requests that a particular reviewer be excluded and the request is reasonable, the editor should honor that request.
(5) Editors should avoid choosing reviewers from the same institution as the authors. In addition, individuals listed as authors or explicitly mentioned in the Acknowledgments section of the manuscript should not be selected as reviewers.
(6) If an editor has a conflict of interest with an author (such as a familial, teacher-student, alumni, colleague, or competitive relationship), they should recuse themselves from handling the manuscript.
(7) Editors should treat appeals from authors with due seriousness and, if necessary, have the manuscript re-assessed by the Editorial Board or additional reviewers.
(8) In the case of controversial findings based on rigorous scientific research, editors may consider publishing them in order to promote academic diversity and lively scientific debate.
(9) Editors are responsible for preventing academic misconduct such as multiple submissions and redundant publications. They must conduct plagiarism checks on both the initial submissions and the final versions of manuscripts scheduled for publication.
(10) Editors should remind authors of potential copyright and intellectual property issues that may arise from changes in authorship, affiliation, or the order thereof.
(11) Editors should offer authors detailed revision suggestions or clear reasons for rejection whenever possible.
(12) Editors must respect the authors' perspectives and writing styles. Any significant modifications to key academic content or viewpoints should only be made with the authors' explicit consent.
(13) Editors have the responsibility to verify and investigate any manuscripts (whether under review or already published) and authors that attract reader complaints or are suspected of academic misconduct, and to make the final decision based on their findings.
Publisher Ethics
(1) The journal adheres to the principle of first publication by reporting only original research findings. In principle, academic papers should not be republished in another language for different regional audiences. However, re-transmission, reprinting, or compilation in other non-academic outlets (such as social media, popular science journals, or newspapers) is permitted under the following conditions:
· The republished article must clearly indicate its source, including the original journal (Journal of Geo-information Science), year, volume, issue, page numbers, title, as well as the original URL and DOI.
· To avoid misinterpretation or selective distortion of the original content, any republished or compiled content must be approved by the author or the journal.
(2) If academic misconduct is discovered in a manuscript that has been finalized and accepted, the journal reserves the right to retract the paper, impose appropriate penalties on the involved authors, and notify their affiliated institutions and relevant journals.
(3) If academic misconduct is discovered in a published article, the journal will proceed with retraction, issue a retraction statement, impose penalties on the authors, and inform the authors' affiliated institutions.
(4) The journal guarantees that the publication of articles, and the order in which they appear in an issue, is determined solely by the timing of submission and acceptance of manuscripts, and is not influenced by economic factors such as publication fees.
(5) The journal's website provides comprehensive guidelines for authors (e.g., Guide for Authors) and will update these guidelines in a timely manner.
(6) The journal has established and will periodically update a system to manage conflicts of interest among editors, authors, reviewers, and Editorial Board members.
Conflict of Interest Statement
Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could potentially influence or bias the manuscript. Even if authors do not perceive any conflict, disclosing these relationships and interests ensures a transparent process, enabling an accurate and objective evaluation of the manuscript. Readers have the right to be informed of all interests or conflicts related to the research, which does not imply that economic links between the research and related organizations are inappropriate. Examples of potential conflicts of interest, whether direct or indirect, include but are not limited to:
(1) Receiving remuneration for participating in symposiums;
(2) Attending symposiums through financial sponsorship;
(3) Receiving financial support for education or training;
(4) Employment guidance or consultancy services;
(5) Funding details;
(6) Holding positions on advisory committees, boards, or other types of managerial roles;
(7) Multiple employment relationships across institutions;
(8) Financial ties, such as equity or investment interests;
(9) Intellectual property interests, such as patents, copyrights, or royalties for similar rights;
(10) Spouses or children with financial ties related to the research.
In addition, any non-financial interests that might be relatively significant to readers should also be disclosed, such as personal relationships or competitive interests that are directly or indirectly related to the research, or any professional interests or personal beliefs that might affect the research. The conflict-of-interest statement is included at the end of the main body of the manuscript. Examples of the statement:
Funding: This research was supported by [Funding Project X] (Grant No. X).
Conflict of Interest: Author A has received research funding from Company A. Author B has received speaker fees from Company X and holds stocks in Company Y. Author C is a member of Committee Z.
If no conflicts exist, authors should state:
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Informed Consent
All people have the right not to be violated. Every participant in the research has the right to know how their personal data or identifiable images will appear in the final publication. Therefore, before relevant data or images are included in a manuscript, a written informed consent must be obtained from all participants. Except for the information essential to the study and to which participants have already consented, detailed personal identification data (such as name, date of birth, ID number, and other information) should not appear in the text or images of the final paper.
In some cases, complete anonymity may be difficult to achieve. If there is any doubt, informed consent should be obtained. For example, obscuring the eye region in participants' photographs is considered adequate protection for anonymity. If identifying features (such as genetic characteristics) are altered to preserve anonymity, authors must ensure that these modifications do not distort the scientific meaning.
The informed consent statement should include the following phrases:
Informed Consent: Informed consent has been obtained from all individual participants in the manuscript.
If the manuscript includes any identifiable information about participants, the following statement should be added:
All personal identifying information in this article has been included with the informed consent of the individuals involved.
Procedures for Addressing Misconduct
(1) Identification of Unethical Conduct
Anyone may identify and report improper or unethical conduct at any time, and draw the attention of editors and publishers. Such misconduct may include, but is not limited to, the examples mentioned above in this page.
Anyone reporting such conduct must provide sufficient information and evidence to facilitate an investigation. All allegations will be taken seriously and handled in the same manner until a final decision or conclusion is reached.
(2) Investigation
Editors shall make a preliminary decision regarding the allegations and may consult the publisher for advice.
Editors are responsible for gathering evidence while ensuring that any allegations are confined only to those who need to know.
(3) Minor Violations
For minor instances of misconduct, editors may take immediate action without broader consultation. However, affected parties should be given an opportunity to respond to any allegations.
(4) Serious Violations
Serious misconduct may require notifying the leadership of the accused's affiliated institution. Editors should consult with the publisher as appropriate, and may decide whether to involve the leadership of the accused's affiliated institution based on available evidence or through further consultation with a selected group of experts.
(5) Decisions (in order of increasing severity; actions may be taken individually or in combination)
· Request that the author or reviewer explain behaviors that violate the relevant guidelines or have caused misunderstandings.
· Issue a strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer addressing the misconduct, serving as a warning for future conduct.
· Publish an official statement detailing the misconduct.
· Publish an editorial material in the journal that thoroughly describes the misconduct.
· Send a formal letter to the leadership of the author's or reviewer's affiliated institution or relevant funding agencies.
· Officially retract the implicated manuscript(s) from publication, while notifying the leadership of the author's or reviewer's affiliated institution, relevant databases, and the readership.
· Impose a ban on submission for the offending individual(s) for a specified period.
· Report the case and its outcomes to professional organizations or higher authorities for further investigation and appropriate action.
References:
[1] Academic Publishing Guidelines: Definition of Academic Misconduct in Journals (CY/T174-2019)
[2] https://www.publicationethics.org/
[3] www.icmje.org