Gnoscience Group adopts the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on publication ethics. Gnoscience Group is committed to endorsing the highest measures of publication ethics and takes all probable actions against publication misconduct as specified in the Code of Conduct, ethics developed by the (COPE) and stick on COPE guidelines for resolving cases of suspected misconduct and irregularities. We request our contributors, editors, reviewers, and people encompassed in different steps of publication to follow the ethical guidelines to progress the significance of academic publishing.
We request our authors to submit only those manuscripts to Geoscience journals which are not being published before and are not in being considered for publication elsewhere.
Plagiarism detection is the process carried out to check the extent of content plagiarized in the article. Any manuscript that has content from manuscripts of other authors whether published or unpublished will come under plagiarism. Submitted manuscripts that may have false experimental results, content or images will be considered as false data. These will be taken as a breach in the policy of the journal. This may lead to the withdrawal of the manuscript or will only be considered involving thorough changes as suggested by the reviewers.
The peer-review process is at the core of the triumph of scientific publishing. As part of our obligation to the enhancement of the peer review process to assist the scientific community in all aspects of publishing ethics, especially in cases of (suspected) duplicate submission or plagiarism. Gnoscience follow the rigorous and standard peer-review process.
It is the responsibility of Gnoscience to publish all accepted articles having satisfied editorial necessities according to the established criteria for publication.
Gnoscience considers only the original research work that has neither been published elsewhere nor under the process of reviewing for publication. If the work or words of others is used this must be appropriately cited or quoted and make sure that the work has not been published and not under consideration elsewhere.
To maintain transparency and help readers to form their judgments of potential bias, authors should declare any competing financial interests related to the work described or presented. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed.
All mention authors should have made a significant contribution towards the research work submitted and should be approving all its claims. It is necessary to list out the specific individual that made a significant contribution, including the students or any laboratory technicians. All individuals who have made noteworthy contributions in the manuscript build up should be listed as co-authors
All the manuscripts dealing with the original human or animal data should include a statement on ethics approval at the commencement of the Methods section. Also, should contain the mentioned information: the name and the address of the responsible ethics committee, the protocol number, along with the date of approval that is attributed by the ethics committee mentioned.
If human participants were involved, the article must be stated by a statement that the experiments were undertaken with the understanding and appropriate informed consent of each. If experimental animals were used, the materials and methods (experimental procedures) section must indicate that appropriate measures were taken to reduce pain or discomfort, and details of animal care should be provided.
If any reviewer is not possible for him/her to complete a review of the manuscript within the specified period, the same must converse to the editorial office so that the article could be assigned to other relevant reviewers. The reviewer should maintain confidentiality regarding the information of authors and manuscripts.
The reviewer should not review the manuscript in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from viable, collaborative, or other relationships or influences with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the assigned article. We encourage reviewers to examine the article based on scientific excellence nevertheless on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry or political values of authors.
Reviews should be directed objectively. There should not be personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments and it helps to enhance the overall quality of the manuscript.
The editor should prepare the journal ethical policies and endorse among reviewers and scientific communities maintaining the highest level of integrity and standards.
Editors should make fair and transparent decisions and should report potential conflicts if any. Decisions must be given based on scientific excellence nevertheless on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenry or political values of authors.
The editor should maintain scientific communication with the editorial office and reviewer and suggesting reviewers and other editorial board members based on academic excellence.
The Editor in Chief/Editors and any Editorial Staff must not disclose any information about a submitted article to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
