The Global Scientific Publishers ("GSP") commits itself to serve the scientific community and promote the communication of science and technology among researcher world wide. It is the purpose and policy of the GSP to provide ethical guidelines to the authors, reviewers and editors, and all those involved in the publication process, in order to ensure the advancing of the goal above.

All parties involved in the publication process should recognize that honesty is the key to establish and maintain mutual trust among the entire scientific community, which is critical to the best advancement of science and knowledge. The authors are obligated to present new results of original research or review, without duplicate submissions. The editors and reviewers are obligated to judge work submitted to the GSP unbiasedly and solely based on its merits, without regarded to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, institutional affiliation and position of the author(s).

The following are the minimal standards of ethics for authors, reviewers and editors. No acts compromising these codes are acceptable.

AUTHORSHIP PRACTICES

  1. The authors are obligated to present new results of original research with sufficient, concise and accurate detail, or review, without duplicate submissions.
  2. All those who made contributions to the work submitted to the GSP may be listed as authors or acknowledged.
  3. A submission of manuscript should be agreed and/or approved by the primary investigator of the project, and the funding resource should be disclosed.
  4. All previously published results, except common knowledge, used in the submitted paper for consideration of publication in GSP journals should be credited to their original publication by citing and providing references.
  5. When criticizing a previously published work, no personal criticism is allowed.
  6. The authors should provide contact information in the paper.
  7. The authors should respond to reviewer's comments and requests from editors promptly. In their response, authors should avoid unsupported assertions and subjective comments.
  8. When considerable error is found, the authors should submit and erratum for publication.
  9. The authors may suggest reviewers who do not have personal or professional relations.
  10. Plagiarism will result in the deprivation of the privilege of publication.
  11. The authors should communicate with editors always in a positive and constructive tone.

REVIEWERSHIP PRACTICES

  1. A reviewer should respond promptly to a review request, whether agrees to review or not.
  2. A reviewer should keep a review request and the paper that he is requested to review confidential. No disclosure of these contents should be made to the authors of the paper under review and any other third parties.
  3. A reviewer should immediately and completely discard the manuscript, abstract, author(s) information and any other information that are contained in a review request, if the reviewer doesn't agree to review the paper in the review request, without disclosing any information above to any other third parties.
  4. A reviewer is obligated to judge, comment on the work submitted to the GSP unbiasedly, objectively, and solely based on its merits, without regarded to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, institutional affiliation and position of the author(s). Suggestions should be clearly made to the authors and the editors.
  5. No personal criticism should be made to the authors.
  6. A reviewer should not use the unpublished work contained in the paper under review.
  7. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript if the reviewer has a personal or professional connection with one or more of the authors.
  8. A reviewer should advise the editor any conflict of interest and plagiarism of the manuscript under review.
  9. The reviewers should communicate with the authors and the editors always in a positive and constructive tone.

EDITORSHIP PRACTICES

  1. An editor should respond promptly to all submissions and communications of the authors and the reviewers.
  2. An editor is obligated to judge the work submitted to the GSP unbiasedly, objectively, and solely based on its merits, without regarded to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, institutional affiliation and position of the author(s).
  3. An editor should choose reviewers solely based on the reviewers' expertise and experience relating to the submitted work, without respect to personal or professional relations.
  4. It is the sole responsibility of the editor in make a decision for a manuscript. A manuscript may be rejected without external review if considered by the Editors to be out of the scope of the journal.
  5. After a decision for a manuscript is made to be either "accepted with revisions" or "accepted", the title and the authors of the manuscript may be disclosed, but no more than those.
  6. The editor should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the reviewers.
  7. The editor should not disclose any information about any reviewer to the authors or anyone else.
  8. The editor should not use the work under review before its publication.
  9. An editor may allow authors to suggest and exclude reviewers, but it is the editor's decision whether to use the suggested reviewers or not.
  10. The editors should communicate with authors and reviewers always in a positive and constructive tone.

© Global Scientific Publishers 2012-2014. All rights reserved.