Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

For all parties involved in the act of publishing (the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for GIS Odyssey Journal are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Publisher Responsibilities

Supporting the editorial process

Our role is multifaceted - supporting, investing in, and nurturing the scholarly communication process, while ensuring adherence to the highest standards of publishing ethics. We provide robust support to our editors, reviewers, and authors in fulfilling their ethical obligations. This includes facilitating communication with other journals and publishers and providing specialized legal review and counsel as necessary.

Commitment to ethical best practices

We actively collaborate with industry associations and other publishers to establish and adhere to best practices in ethical matters, errors, and retractions. This commitment ensures that our practices not only comply with but also contribute to the advancement of ethical standards in scholarly publishing.

Safeguarding editorial independence

It is our fundamental principle to ensure that potential commercial interests or other financial incentives, do not influence editorial decisions. We uphold the autonomy of our editors to make unbiased decisions based solely on scholarly merit.

Educational initiatives in publishing

Ethics recognizing the importance of awareness and understanding of publishing ethics, especially among early-career researchers, we are dedicated to providing education and advice. This initiative aims to enhance the ethical standards across the scientific community.

Managing conflicts of interest

We require transparency and management of any competing or conflicting interests among our editorial staff, including financial and non-financial interests. This approach ensures that editorial decisions are made without bias and upholds the integrity of the publication process.

Publisher’s confirmation

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected work.

Editor Responsibilities

 Accountability

The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which articles submitted to the journal should be published, and, moreover, is accountable for everything published in the journal. In making these decisions, the editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board as well as by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers when making publication decisions. The editor should maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Fairness

The editor should evaluate manuscripts for intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor will not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), reviewers and potential reviewers, and in some instances the editorial board members, as appropriate.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure, conflicts of interest, and other issues

The editor will be guided by COPE’s recommendations when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published in GIS Odyssey Journal. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The editor is committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. The editor should seek so ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Editors should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct. An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Use of AI and emerging technologies

With the advent of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies, it is crucial to establish clear guidelines for their use in the editorial process of our journal. This policy is designed to ensure transparency, and integrity, and maintain confidentiality standards. Editors are responsible for treating manuscripts as confidential documents. Therefore, uploading any part of a submitted manuscript into a generative AI tool is prohibited, as it could violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights. This is particularly important when manuscripts contain personally identifiable information, which could lead to breaches of data privacy rights. The requirement for confidentiality also extends to all communications about the manuscript, including notifications or decision letters. These documents often contain sensitive information and should not be fed into AI tools for purposes such as language improvement or readability enhancement. The editorial evaluation of scientific manuscripts is a process that fundamentally relies on human judgment and responsibility. While AI technologies can provide valuable support, they are not suitable for making evaluative or decision-making judgments about manuscripts. Editors are accountable for ensuring that the evaluation process remains human-centric, guarding against potential biases or incorrect conclusions that AI might inadvertently introduce. As the field of AI technology is rapidly evolving, our journal’s policies will be regularly reviewed and adjusted to stay aligned with emerging best practices and ethical standards. We are committed to adopting AI-driven technologies that support the editorial process while respecting the confidentiality and privacy rights of authors, reviewers, and editors. This approach allows us to embrace the benefits of technological advancements while upholding the high standards of integrity and confidentiality essential to scholarly publishing.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor. GIS Odyssey Journal operate double-blind peer review. Reviewers should be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published data of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

Use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in review

In light of the increasing use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the academic realm, our journal has established definitive guidelines for their application in the peer-review process. This policy aims to uphold the utmost standards of transparency, integrity, and confidentiality.
Reviewers have a responsibility to maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts. Consequently, uploading any portion of a manuscript under review into a generative AI tool is strictly prohibited. Such actions may breach the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary rights, especially when the manuscript includes personally identifiable information. The principle of confidentiality extends beyond the manuscript to encompass all forms of communication pertaining to it. This includes the peer review report itself. Reviewers are therefore advised against using AI tools to enhance language or readability in their reports or any other related communications, as these may contain confidential details about the manuscript or authors.
Peer review, a cornerstone of the scientific method, depends fundamentally on human discernment and judgment. While AI technologies can offer support in various aspects, they are not equipped to supplant the critical thinking and nuanced assessment required in peer review. Reviewers should be aware of the limitations of these technologies and refrain from relying on them for making evaluative judgments about the manuscripts. The responsibility for a thorough and unbiased review rests solely on human reviewers. As AI technology continues to evolve, we commit to regular reviews and updates of our policies to align with the latest developments and ethical standards in scholarly publishing. Our goal is to leverage the benefits of AI-driven technologies in supporting the review process while safeguarding the confidentiality and privacy rights of all involved parties. This approach enables us to embrace technological advancements in a manner that adheres to the high standards of integrity and confidentiality that are pivotal in scholarly publishing.

Author Responsibilities

Reporting standards

Authors reporting results of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Originality and plagiarism

The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgment of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of a manuscript

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be named in an Acknowledgement section.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. The contribution into the research from financing agencies and other institutions should be shown in Acknowledgments.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editor or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

Local regulations

This list is not exhaustive. Authors should be aware of local laws and standards adopted in scientific publications.

Inclusive language

We are committed to fostering inclusivity and respect in scientific communication. We encourage the use of inclusive language that acknowledges diversity, conveys respect to all individuals, and promotes equality. Our content should not assume any specific beliefs or commitments of the reader. It must avoid implying the superiority of one individual over another based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, culture, sexual orientation, disability, or health condition.
Authors are advised to ensure their writing is free from bias, stereotypes, and references to dominant culture or cultural assumptions. We recommend employing gender-neutral terms and avoiding descriptors related to personal attributes unless they are relevant and valid to the content. In contexts where terminology is important, we advise against using terms that could be considered offensive or exclusionary. Examples include replacing terms like ’master’ and ’slave’ with ’primary’ and ’secondary’ or ’blocklist’ and ’allowlist’ instead of ’blacklist’ and ’whitelist’. These guidelines are intended as a reference to help identify and use appropriate language, understanding that they are neither exhaustive nor definitive.

Sex- and gender-based analysis

We recognize the importance of integrating sex and gender-based analyses (SGBA) into research, particularly for studies involving humans, animals, or eukaryotic cells. This integration should be aligned with the requirements of funders or sponsors and adhere to the best practices within the respective field. Authors are encouraged to address the dimensions of sex and/or gender in their research explicitly. If sex and/or gender analyses are not applicable or have not been conducted, this should be acknowledged as a limitation affecting the generalizability of the research findings.
Authors must provide clear definitions of ’sex’ and ’gender’ as applied in their research to avoid ambiguity. Sex typically refers to biological attributes linked to physical and physiological characteristics, while gender relates to socially constructed roles, behaviours, and identities. These constructs are not binary but exist along a spectrum, encompassing a variety of identities and categorizations.
We advise authors to familiarize themselves with the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines and the SAGER checklist guidelines, which offer comprehensive approaches for the inclusion and review of sex and gender information in study design, data analysis, reporting outcomes, and interpreting research. This adherence not only enhances the precision and rigor of the research but also ensures inclusivity and relevance in scientific inquiry.

Use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in writing

The rise of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in scientific writing prompts our journal to offer clear guidelines for authors. These technologies should be used responsibly to enhance the readability and language of the work under human oversight. Authors are responsible for reviewing and ensuring the accuracy and integrity of AI-assisted output, as it may produce results that are incorrect, incomplete, or biased. Authors must disclose the use of AI and AI-assisted technologies in their manuscripts, supporting transparency and trust within the scholarly community. This declaration is crucial for compliance with the terms of use of the technology. It facilitates understanding among authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and contributors. It is important to note that AI tools should not be listed as authors or co-authors, as authorship entails responsibilities and tasks that only humans can fulfil. Authors are accountable for the work’s content, ensuring its originality, and resolving any accuracy or integrity issues.

Use of generative AI and AI-assisted tools in figures, images, and artwork

Our journal does not permit the use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools to create or alter images in submitted manuscripts unless it is an integral part of the research design or methods. This includes the prohibition of AI tools for enhancing, obscuring, moving, removing, or introducing features within an image. However, standard adjustments like brightness, contrast, or colour balance are acceptable as long as they do not obscure any original information.
In cases where AI tools are part of the research methodology (e.g., AI-assisted imaging in biomedical research), their use must be clearly described in the manuscript’s methods section, including detailed information on the tools and models used. Authors may be required to provide original images for editorial assessment in such cases.
The production of artwork, such as graphical abstracts using generative AI tools, is not permitted.