Last reviewed 03/05/2024

AGC aims to have transparent policies and procedures to maintain ethical standards for our publication following the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Below are outlined the ethical obligations and procedures covering all aspects of the journal’s work, which all authors, reviewers and editors and editorial board members are expected to adhere to. We also outline guidelines for handling misconduct allegations and complaints, as well as procedures for appealing editorial decisions.

Ethics Committee:

AGC’s editorial board will be supported by an Ethics Committee who will advise executive and handling editors on navigating conflict of interests, breaches of the journal’s code of conduct, or the publication of datasets with specific ethical challenges. Complaints and allegations of misconduct will be handled by the Ethics Committee, it will be tasked to report and advise the Executive Board that will then make the final decision and determine the appropriate disciplinary actions. Members of the Ethics Committee will not be involved in the editorial or production processes.

Diversity Statement:

Advances in Geochemistry and Cosmochemistry is committed to fostering an inclusive editorial and publishing experience aiming to reflect all aspects and lived experiences of the geochemistry and cosmochemistry research community. AGC aims to create an atmosphere that welcomes diversity and inclusion, freedom of thought and does not discriminate or tolerate discrimination against an individual on the grounds of age, ancestry, religious creed, physical or mental disability, marital status, medical condition, genetic information, ethnic origin, race, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual identity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, nationality, or any other characteristics protected by law. 

Expectations and duties of journal contributors:

All contributors to the journal are expected to act with honesty, integrity, transparency and with respect towards each other, the readers and the communities interested in and/or impacted by submitted studies. Failures to meet this expectation and further specific expectations outlined below may lead to investigation by the Ethics Committee.

Further expectations specific to each roles are as follows:

Editors: Editors will treat all manuscripts fairly and maintain strict confidentiality within the peer review process. They will provide their expertise without bias and judge the submitted contributions solely on their scientific merit. Editors will also ensure that all comments to authors are constructive and justified, aimed at assessing the manuscript readiness for publication as well as improving its content.

Editors are expected to notify either the Production Editor responsible for a manuscript (for Handling Editors) or the other Coordinating Editor (for Production Editors) at the first opportunity if they cannot handle a manuscript due to a conflict of interest. Other instances of code of conduct violation should be directly referred to the Ethics Committee.

Reviewers: Reviewers will treat all manuscripts fairly and maintain strict confidentiality within the peer review process. They will provide their expertise without bias and judge the submitted contributions solely on their scientific merit, focusing on its readiness for publication as well as providing constructive and supported comments aimed at improving its content. Any personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Reviewers should clearly identify any relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. They should also report any substantial similarity or overlap between manuscripts and published studies they are aware of.

Reviewers are expected to notify the Handling Editor at the first opportunity if they cannot handle a manuscript due to a conflict of interest, ideally before accepting the assignment. If reviewers suspect any instances of code of conduct violation (e.g. plagiarism, libel, copyright violation,…), they should contact the Handling Editor at the first opportunity. If not possible or appropriate, the reviewers may contact the Ethics Committee directly.

Authors: Authors are expected to present an accurate, objective, and reproducible account of their research. They also must ensure that all relevant literature work is cited and discussed appropriately. It is the author's responsibility to ensure that the submitted manuscripts conforms to this code of conduct as well as journal policies on plagiarism; data, code and output availability; inclusion of copyrighted material and ethical research.

Authors should not attempt to submit manuscripts that are either published or submitted to another journal. Electronic pre-prints (i.e. manuscripts that have been deposited on a preprint server or institutional website prior to peer-review) are not considered previous publications. Authors should however inform the editorial team in the cover letter at the time of submission and provide a link to the pre-print as well as any relevant related information. If and when the manuscript is accepted for publication, the pre-print must be updated to include a reference to the published article, including url and doi links.

If authors detect any violation of the code of conduct or journal policy post-submission, they are expected to notify the Ethics Committee at the first opportunity. While it would be expected that the corresponding author initiates contact, this obligation is extended to any author aware of the violation.

Conflicts of interest:

AGC conflict of interest policy applies to all individuals involved in the manuscript evaluation processes. COIs may arise during research, writing, and publication processes, and can be briefly defined as being any influential factor which interferes with the objective integrity of research publication. 

Authors, reviewers and the editors should be transparent about their conflicting interests and reveal them to the appropriate editor at the first opportunity (see specific expectations). Authors who have financial interests in any subject of a manuscript should be disclosed at the submission process, and in the declaration of competing interest section of the manuscript. Generally, information about who funded the research should be made available to the readers in the acknowledgement section.

If the authors wish to submit a request for certain experts not to be included as the reviewers, they should support their request in the cover letter accompanying manuscript submission. The final decision to exclude specific reviewers, however, lies with the editor.

Data retention and future access:

Authors should prepare to retain and provide the raw data connected to submitted and published articles. AGC may request access to the raw data either for the purpose of assisting peer review or investigation post publication in case a complaint is raised.

Ethical Research:

Research must comply with the appropriate institutional, national, or international guidelines.  Collection of research material, including natural samples, cultural artifacts, or human biological material (and their derivatives) should comply with any legal requirements for permitting, and should follow best practices in relevant disciplines.  Examples of best practice for geological sampling include the Geological Society of America Position Statement on Responsible Fieldwork practices, the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology Ethics Code for Paleontology. Studies based  on human samples should ensure that the privacy of human subjects is not breached and follow code of ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki). Authors are encouraged (and at the discretion of AGC’s editorial team, may be required) to disclose the mechanism by which they have obtained permission to conduct sampling or conduct research on any materials.

AGC encourages research to follow a process of meaningful engagement and reciprocity between the researcher and the individuals and communities involved in research. This includes all research that impacts on or is of particular significance to indigenous communities, including the planning, collection, analysis and dissemination of information or knowledge, in any format or medium, which is about, or may affect, Indigenous peoples, either collectively or individually.

AGC may refuse publication of any manuscript that contains samples or data collected illegally or unethically.

Plagiarism and copyright:

Reproducing previously published work of others, including text (even paraphrased), images, data, or ideas, without attribution, while giving the appearance of original work, is plagiarism and is not permitted at AGC.  All manuscripts will be submitted to plagiarism check before peer review.

Duplicate publication, where previously published work by the author (or authors) of a submitted manuscript is typically prohibited. However AGC, at the discretion of the Executive Editors, may allow such submissions if original manuscripts are written in language other than English and provide content not overlapping with other published studies. Submitted manuscript should also clearly specify it is a strict translation of a previously published manuscript, involve the same authors and include a link to the original non-English language manuscript.

Authors are encouraged to discuss with an editor prior to submission if they wish to duplicate previously published work.  Duplicate publication of any component of a manuscript (including text, figures and data) that has been previously published will typically require permission from the copyright owner and from AGC. Authors are responsible for obtaining copyright permission, and are expected to obtain permission prior to manuscript submission, and disclose it during the submission process.

Allegations of misconduct and complaint handling processes:

The following falls under misconduct: offensive and/or inappropriate communication; data manipulation or falsification; citation manipulation or fraud; breach of confidentiality; failing to uphold editorial policies and standards; copyright violation; duplicate publication; misinformation (e.g. fake affiliation, falsified consent); image duplication or manipulation; authorship misconduct (data or idea appropriation after initial rejection); breach of research ethics; bribery. Other cases may be considered as misconduct at the discretion of the Ethics Committee.

Any suspicions of misconduct during the pre-publication and post-publication process raised by the editors, reviewers, authors or third person may be investigated by the Ethics Committee and will follow guidance provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics. Multiple complaints coming from the same source towards the same journal contributor will be further investigated for their merit to avoid professional harassment. The identity of the complainant will remain confidential.

Complaints will first be acknowledged and handled by the Ethics committee and the Coordinating Editor (or another Executive editor as appropriate) and checked for its merits (e.g. specific, evidenced) before being allowed to progress. Complaints may be rejected before further investigation if too broad, lacking evidence or deemed not credible. If allowed to progress, the process will be as follows:

The Ethics Committee will have the task of investigating the complaints by gathering relevant facts in order to make a recommendation to the Executive Board. The Ethics Committee will contact the alleged offender to address the complaint in detail. The Ethics Committee may contact any parties directly involved in the complaint and may request further documentation (e.g. raw data files, email communications,…). Further individuals might be assigned by the Ethics Committee to assist investigation of the complaint depending on expertise. Information shared will be restricted to factual contents only, avoiding conjecture, supposition, or inference. Communications will be made in such a manner as to preserve confidentiality to the fullest extent possible. The Ethics Committee will report its findings to the Executive Board and provide it with a recommendation as to whether the complaint should be upheld or not. The Executive Board will review the Ethics Committee’s recommendation and, if the complaint is upheld, determine the appropriate steps to be taken such as requesting corrections, retractions or adding note of concerns to a published article or any other disciplinary actions against an individual or group of individuals as deemed appropriate. AGC will aim to resolve complaints within 45 working days of their submission, although the timeline will depend on the complexity of the investigation.

Complaints about a member of the Ethics Committee should be directly addressed to the Coordinating Editor and will be handled by the Executive Editors. The executive editors might assign an independent third party to assist with the investigation to ensure it is unbiased.