The Code of Ethics of the semiannual GeoProgress Journal conforms with the best practices guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for an ethical approach to scientific publications. The editor of the GeoProgress Journal – that is editor in chief, associates editors and members of the editorial board and office –  subscribes to the spirit of the COPE recommendations and aims to ensure a sustained and scrupulous application of the best international practice in relation to the ethical propriety of the journal’s publication processes.
All interested parties – the editor, authors and reviewers – are expected to understand and share the following ethical principles.

Responsibilities of the editor
The editor of the GeoProgress Journal guarantees the propriety of the processes used to evaluate, accept or reject articles submitted by authors. In particular, they oversee the peer review process and the anonymity of reviewers in relation to every article reviewed.
All external reviewers are selected by the editor according to criteria of scientific experience, competence and professionalism.
In the case of serious errors, conflict of interest or plagiarism – also ascertained with anti-plagiarism tools – in a published article, the editor will add an erratum which will be published  in the first available issue of the journal.
The editor responsible for a particular edition or section of the journal will exercise the requisite control over its content to prevent any offences being committed in the publication.

Publication Decisions
The editor in chief is responsible for ensuring pursuance of the journal’s alignment in terms of content, for making a preselection from the received articles and deciding which to submit to the review process.
The editor in chief decides whether or not articles submitted to the journal should be published, on the basis of:
– A double blind peer review carried out by an external reviewer who has an expert knowledge of the themes addressed in the article and is able to give the fullest assurance that the article will be appropriately evaluated for publication;
– A single blind review carried out by a member of the Editorial Board whose disciplinary background is compatible with the thrust of the article. The anonymity of the authors vis-à-vis any internal reviewers is guaranteed by the editor-in-chief.

Two negative reviews are binding for the refusal of an article. Whereas in the event of diverging reviews, the editor should give precedence to the opinion of the external reviewer in making their decision, or may request a further evaluation by a second external reviewer. The authors are encouraged to take the observations and comments of the reviewers into consideration and adapt their articles accordingly. The decision of the editor in chief is final.
Where an editor is author of a proposed manuscript, this should be passed to another editor for the referee process.

Editorial amendments to the article
The editor may request the author to incorporate corrections or additional material if deemed appropriate, including after the reviewers’ anonymous evaluation, which will be made known to the author while respecting the reviewers’ anonymity. In this event, authors may express their own observations or objections; the editor will make the final judgement, which may not be contested.
The editor reserves the right to make editorial changes after the proofs have been corrected, including changes to preserve a consistent house style.
In is decision making, the editor is bound to respect the journal’s strategies and editorial approach, as determined by the editorial board, which meets together with the editor in chief in plenary session no less than once each calendar year.

Principles of propriety and non-discrimination
Taking into account the observations and evaluations of the reviewers, the editor makes his decision exclusively on the basis of the scientific value, relevance and originality of the content of articles submitted for publication, without discriminating on the basis of the author’s sex, race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, sexual orientation, gender identity, age or political orientation.

Confidentiality, conflict of interest and prohibition of use or disclosure
The editor and all the editorial staff are prohibited from disclosing any information about the submitted articles to anyone except the respective author and reviewers of the article. The identity of the author remains anonymous and may not be disclosed prior to publication of the article. The anonymity of the reviewers is likewise guaranteed, including after publication of an article they have reviewed respectively after an author is informed of the refusal of the article.
They further undertake not to use the content of unpublished articles for their own research without the author’s express consent in writing.
Where an editor is author of a submitted manuscript , this should be passed to another editor for the reviewing process.

Responsibilities of authors
The author is responsible for the contents of the article submitted for publication and should submit the article according the guidelines and the style format of Geoprogress edition

The article’s scientific originality
The author guarantees that the article submitted for evaluation was written entirely by the author or authors, is unpublished and scientifically original. It must not be simultaneously submitted to any other journal, volume, or periodical, unless with the express prior consent of the editor of GeoProgress Journal. If the article is to be published elsewhere later, the editor of GeoProgress Journal must be informed, and their consent must be sought: any such consent will be subject to a specific reference to its first publication in GeoProgress Journal.
The author is also required to cite references appropriately and in accordance with the editorial rules that apply to publication in GeoProgress Journal, taking care that the work and/or the words of other authors are adequately paraphrased or literally quoted with suitable evidence of sources.

Replicability of the work
The authors are required to provide, in their manuscripts, sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work analyses. In addition, the authors are required, if asked by referees, to provide data and information used to create their manuscript for verification purposes.

Authorship of the article
The authorship of every article must be clearly apparent: all those who have made a substantive contribution to the article must appear as co-authors. Substantive contributions made by others during the research phase must also be recognised explicitly. Where a number of contributors are involved, the extent of each author’s contribution must be clearly defined.

Conflicts of interest
The author must not submit material in which a conflict of interest could have influenced the results obtained, the theories developed or the interpretations proposed. The author must also disclose any financial support for the research or project from which the article derives.

Correcting inaccuracies in the article
If an author becomes aware of an error or inaccuracy in the published article, the editor of GeoProgress Journal must be informed immediately and supplied with all the information necessary to enable appropriate corrections to be made in a footnote or appendix to the article.

Responsibilities of the reviewers
The scientific value of the article is assessed by a process of peer review which allows the editor to evaluate its potential for publication while giving authors the opportunity to reinforce the quality of their work. Each reviewer shall identify bibliography that is not cited in the respective article but nevertheless relevant to the topic, suggests possible improvements to the submitted paper, and point out any existing weaknesses of the article.
The purpose of the peer review process is to ensure the scientific quality of each submission and  provide suggestions for improvement if necessary. Reviewers should therefore consider the following questions while filling out  the evaluation form of the Journal: what changes could make the article clearer  and more coherent? With what adaptations could the article represent a more relevant contribution on the topic? How might potentially debatable or controversial passages be rephrased

Timeliness
The reviewers undertake to adhere to the deadlines for submission of their review reports as agreed with the journal. Any reviewers who conclude that they are not sufficiently qualified to review the research discussed in the submitted article, or who believe that they will be unable to complete the review in the time required, must promptly inform the journal’s editor and withdraw from the review process.

Propriety and objectivity
The peer review must be carried out with propriety and objectivity. Reviewers are required to justify and document their assessments of the article under review in an appropriate fashion. Personal opinions about the author are unacceptable. Comments must be technically expressed in a meticulous manner and must not take the form of criticism of an ideology or reflect scientific or cultural premises of a personal nature. Every observation, comment and argument expressed should preferably be accompanied by an associated reference and/or documentation.

Further textual references
Reviewers are required to provide precise bibliographical references for any key works that the author has not mentioned in the article. Reviewers should also indicate any similarities or overlaps between the work being reviewed and other works known to them.

Conflicts of interest and disclosure
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with anyone, except with the prior written permission of the editor of GeoProgress Journal. Any confidential information received during the peer review process must be held on trust and remain confidential: it cannot be used for the reviewer’s own benefit.
Reviewers should not accept articles for evaluation where there may exist a conflict of interest arising from a specific prior collaboration or competition with the author (who though anonymised may be identifiable through a process of deduction) or from connections with the author or with organisation and institution linked to the manuscript.