Code of conduct
Please note that this Code of Conduct is constantly evolving and may differ from the one you read last time (last update: 12/05/2022).
Tektonika is a community-led journal that makes tectonics and structural geology research accessible to everyone worldwide. There is no cost to publish in Tektonika, and no cost to read our articles: this is Diamond Open Access. We work to provide an inclusive, equal, and diverse environment for scientific discussion that all can engage with and enjoy. To ensure an open and safe scientific environment, we expect all participants to conduct themselves courteously and professionally when engaging with or representing the Tektonika community. We will not tolerate abuse or intimidation of any form, and we will take swift action on any reported incident involving the breaking of our ethos.
Three primary groups will interact through Tektonika: authors, reviewers, and editors. In addition to following the overarching ethos outlined above, each group is expected to read and abide by the guidance below.
1.1. Authors of original research articles must present an accurate report of the work as it was carried out, as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
1.2. Authorship should be extended to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of submitted work. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that all individuals who deserve authorship are listed as co-authors. An author contribution statement must be included in the manuscript, or added as a separate file (if selecting double-blind peer-review); this information will be added to any published manuscript. Please, check “Contributor Roles - Attribution, Credits & Accountability”.
1.3. All authors must approve the submission of the initial manuscript and the publication of its final peer-reviewed version.
1.4. Submitting the same manuscript at the same time to more than one journal constitutes a violation of ethical publishing behaviour and will not be tolerated. Manuscripts which have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere cannot be submitted to Tektonika for consideration. Similarly, manuscripts under consideration for publication in Tektonika cannot be submitted or resubmitted to another copyrighted publication.
1.5. Any Executive or Associate Editor who is a sole, lead, or co-author on a manuscript submitted to Tektonika will not be involved in handling their paper and agrees to not use their position as a means to track or alter the review process
1.6. Research submitted by the author(s) must be original, and the work of others must be appropriately cited or quoted. Published material that has been influential in determining the nature of the submitted research should also be cited or quoted. Authors should be aware that their manuscripts will be systematically checked for plagiarism using appropriate software.
1.7. It is the responsibility of the author(s) to ensure that all research was undertaken with appropriate ethical approval, any fieldwork and sample collection were carried out in line with local codes of practice, and that permissions were granted by relevant bodies where appropriate.
1.8. Tektonika requires that all data necessary to understand, evaluate, replicate, and build upon the submitted work must be made available and accessible whenever possible. This includes full georeference information for maps, and locality information for sections, samples or field outcrops. See the Tektonika Manuscript Guidelines for guidance on what information should be provided.
- Authors will check to ensure that their manuscript has fully met data availability and metadata/documentation standards. Authors will also ensure that all data and relevant information are presented clearly so that readers can easily determine what data are published therein, the geographic and the geologic context for all samples, and where such information may be accessed.
- Authors are recommended to make relevant data accessible in line with FAIR principles, and available to readers either in the article itself, as supplementary information, or by referring with the relevant deposit’s DOI to an accessible data repository (e.g., Pangea, Mendeley Data, Zenodo…).
- A statement regarding data availability must be provided within the manuscript. If for any reason data cannot be shared (for example due to pre-existing confidentiality agreements or legal rights concerning proprietary data), this must be stated explicitly in a “Data Availability” statement of the manuscript. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements about data availability and collection constitute a breach of ethical behaviour.
- An “Ethics approval” statement is required to confirm proper protocols and permissions have been followed. For example, if relevant, this statement should indicate sampling and site access was permitted and followed appropriate codes of practice.
1.9. Authors must disclose and acknowledge any and all funding sources relevant to the publication of the manuscript or the content therein.
1.10. Deceased authors that made a significant contribution to the manuscript may be included. Corresponding authors should include a short statement to request the inclusion of the deceased author, exposing and demonstrating their contribution. Thereafter, corresponding authors are the representative and point of contact for any issues relating to the deceased author.
1.11. In the event that a manuscript is accepted and published by Tektonika, the author(s) retain(s) the rights to the published material. Unless otherwise stated, all work on the Tektonika platform is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0). This means that the author(s) and others are able to share (copy and redistribute) or adapt the material in any medium or format (even commercially), provided the original work and author(s) thereof are given appropriate credit.
1.12. In the case that an author or authors becomes aware of a significant inaccuracy or error in any of their work published in Tektonika, it is their obligation to notify the handling editor or an executive editor of the journal as soon as possible. They must then work with the Editor in order to retract the published work or issue an erratum or corrigendum.
1.13. If authors are found to have breached the Code of Conduct described in this document, either during review or after publication, their manuscript will be retracted and any future contributions to Tektonika will require permission from the Executive Editor panel.
2.1. The peer-review process is to advise and assist editors in making editorial decisions and serve author(s) by improving the manuscript.
2.2. All reviewer duties should be carried out in a timely manner, that we generally frame as 4 weeks, although it is and should be acknowledged that all reviewers are volunteers and have other pressures on their time. Tektonika also encourages reviewers to maintain a good work-life balance that suits them. If a reviewer cannot complete their duties, for whatever reason, they should contact the editorial board member assigned to the manuscript concerned.
2.3. Reviewers should not accept to review submitted manuscripts if this may raise any kind of conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest is defined as a situation in which the relationship between the reviewer and the author(s) could bias the evaluation of the manuscript. Such conflicts may include but are not limited to, handling manuscripts from present and recent students, from present and recent employees/employers, from colleagues with whom the reviewer has recently collaborated, and from those at the same institution. Another type of conflict of interest may arise when the reviewer and the authors are engaged in an active scientific controversy, which may induce negative evaluation biases.
2.4. By agreeing to review a manuscript, the reviewer acknowledges that their review will be published and their name revealed alongside the published manuscript, unless they have requested to remain anonymous and their request was approved by the Editor. Should a manuscript be rejected, the review will remain confidential.
2.5. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. The reviewer must not disclose any non-public information about a manuscript under consideration, nor its contents, to anyone. Exceptions may be applied upon request. For example, an exception may be applied to allow co-evaluations of submissions aimed at initiating other colleagues (commonly early career scientists) in the peer-review process. Exceptions ought to be authorised by the associate editor after the selected reviewer requests it and provides specific details.
2.6. Reviewers should give due and unbiased consideration to their assigned manuscripts. Reviewers must use the Tektonika review form and judge a manuscript based on the scientific merit, originality, clarity, and validity of its content, as well as its relevance to the journal's scope. No regard should be given to gender, race, age, career stage, ethnic origin or citizenship, religious belief, or political or scientific alignment of the author(s).
- All reviews should be respectful to the author(s) and unacceptable behaviours will not be tolerated (see section 4: Unacceptable behaviour, complaints, and consequences). Personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate. Reviewers should remember that what they consider appropriate may not be considered appropriate by the editor(s) or author(s).
- Reviewers should identify cases wherein relevant published research has not been cited by the author(s), or where observations or arguments derived from other published research are not accompanied by an appropriate citation of the original source(s).
- Reviewers should notify the editor if they detect a substantial similarity between the manuscript being reviewed and any other published research of which they have personal knowledge.
2.7. Reviewers must respect the intellectual independence of authors. Moreover, unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript cannot be used in the research of any reviewer without express consent of the author(s).
2.8. By agreeing to review a manuscript, the reviewer acknowledges that any deemed failure on their part to meet the standards outlined in this document will result in: (1) an editor requesting modification to their review; or (2) discarding their review. Any future contributions from the offenders to Tektonika will require permission from the executive editor panel.
3.1. There are two types of editors forming the Tektonika Editorial Board: Executive Editors and Associate Editors. Manuscripts submitted to Tektonika shall be handled by one or more Tektonika editors. All editors are expected to read and follow this Tektonika Code of Conduct document.
3.2. Throughout the review process, from submission to revision, editors should give due and unbiased consideration to all manuscripts. Manuscripts are judged based on the scientific merit, originality, clarity, and validity of its content as well as its relevance to the journal's scope, by means of Tektonika's review form and other comments by reviewers. Legal and ethical concerns (copyright infringement, libel, and plagiarism) will also be considered. No regard should be given to gender, race, age, career stage, ethnic origin or citizenship, religious belief, or political or scientific alignment of the author(s) or the reviewer(s).
3.3. All editorial duties should be carried out in a timely manner, although it is and should be acknowledged that all editors are volunteers and have other pressures on their time. Tektonika encourages editors to maintain a good work-life balance that suits them. If an editor cannot complete their duties, for whatever reason, they may transfer editorial responsibility to another suitably qualified editor within Tektonika.
3.4. Editors will not handle submitted manuscripts that may raise any kind of conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest is a situation in which the relationship between the editor and the author(s) could bias evaluation of the manuscript. Such conflicts may include, but are not limited to, handling manuscripts from present and recent students/employees/employers, from colleagues with whom the editor has recently collaborated, and from those at the same institution. Another type of conflict of interest may arise when the editor and the authors are engaged in an active scientific controversy, which may induce negative evaluation biases.
3.5. All editors are encouraged to develop and maintain positive relationships with authors and reviewers.
- Editors are responsible for timely and transparent communication with authors about the status of the review and publication process. Open dialogue between authors and editors about reasonable concerns and questions related to the review process should be welcomed and encouraged.
- Editors should provide advice and mentorship to reviewers who feel they would benefit from it.
- Editors will inform reviewers of final decisions on manuscripts.
3.6. Manuscripts submitted to Tektonika will initially be handled by an executive editor who will assess the scientific content and its fit to the journal's scope, as well as the overall clarity of the writing and figures. The executive editor may solicit the opinion of an associate editor to aid with this initial assessment. At this stage, the article may be (i) considered as not appropriate for publication, (ii) returned to authors for improvement, or (iii) passed to the associate editor that will handle the review process thereon.
- During the review stage, associate editors are expected to solicit external reviews from experts in fields relevant to the content of manuscripts submitted to Tektonika. Editors will abide by the authors wishes as to the peer-review mode, open transparent or double-blind (see Tektonika's peer-review mode), and ensure the correct reviewing procedure is implemented. Editors are recommended to solicit at least two (2) impartial reviews, but the total number of reviews solicited will be determined on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the editor. In some situations, if only one review is obtained from an external reviewer, the handling editors themselves will provide a second review and the decision on the manuscript will pass to an executive editor. In no case shall an original research article be published in Tektonika without being subject to peer review from at least 2 colleagues.
- Editors, guided by reviewers advice, will assess whether the level of self-citation (if any) by authors within a manuscript is appropriate and justified.
- If additional references are suggested during the course of peer-review, the editor should ensure that these are relevant and well-reasoned by the reviewer(s) in question. Balance should be sought, within reason, with regards to authors, journals, institutions, and working groups. If the editor has valid concerns regarding excessive or unbalanced reference suggestions by the reviewer(s), they may contact the reviewer(s) in question directly to request an explanation and/or justification for the inclusion of the additional references. Editors maintain the right to recommend suggested references not be included in revisions. Similarly, members of the editorial board should avoid suggesting the inclusion of additional literature, unless its exclusion comprises an untenable omission.
- Editors will check to ensure that authors of all published manuscripts have fully met data availability and metadata/documentation. Editors will also ensure that all data and relevant information are presented clearly so that readers can easily determine what data are published therein, the geographic and the geologic context for all samples, and where such information may be accessed.
3.7. In the event a returned review or author response does not meet the standards laid out in this document in its entirety (particularly in Section 4: Unacceptable behaviour, complaints, and consequences), the handling editor will report the incident to the executive editor panel. The panel has the right to: (1) ask the reviewer/author(s) to rephrase their comments, explaining how it does not meet this Code of Conduct document; (2) discard a review, but distil the key points into their own words for use in making a decision; (3) discard the review and solicit another review; or (4) outright deem the submission as not appropriate for publication. In all instances, the offending reviewer will be notified of the decision.
3.8. The associate editor has ultimate responsibility for acceptance or rejection of manuscripts, but in all cases will discuss their decision with one or several executive editors. The decision should take into account advice obtained from solicited peer review(s). An editor may confer with additional referees before making a decision if deemed necessary. In doing so, it is mandatory that the editor and any non-editorial members must not disclose any non-public information about a manuscript under consideration, nor its content, to anyone other than reviewers and potential reviewers. Reviews and reviewer identities may be shared with another editor if the responsibility of the manuscript is transferred to another editor at any time. The editor must respect the intellectual independence of authors. Moreover, unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in the research of any member of the editorial board without express consent of the author(s).
4. Unnaceptable behaviour, complaints, and consequences
4.1. This document provides the framework for what we hold as unacceptable behaviour. All individuals who interact through Tektonika are expected to behave professionally to provide a constructive, supportive, and inclusive environment for all. All individuals are also reminded that what they consider appropriate may not be acceptable to others. Ignorance is no excuse for unprofessional behaviour.
4.2. Actions in response to breaching this Code of Conduct will range from a warning to immediately discarding a review/manuscript. Tektonika also reserves the right to prohibit any future participation, in any form, with the journal.
4.3. Harassment and/or sexist, racist, or exclusionary comments or jokes are inappropriate and will not be tolerated. Harassment includes sexual attention or innuendo and deliberate intimidation. It also includes offensive comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, or religion. We particularly emphasise that demeaning comments directed at authors, reviewers, or editors at early career stages will not be tolerated.
4.4. Plagiarism of any form will not be tolerated. A plagiarism check will be conducted after the initial submission of the manuscript.
4.5. Anyone requested to stop unacceptable behaviour is expected to immediately cease and desist.
4.6. If an incident of prohibited conduct occurs, then the aggrieved person(s) or witness(es) to the prohibited conduct are encouraged to report it to an Executive Editor.
4.7. Once notified, the Executive Editor panel will discuss the details first with the complainee, and then the alleged offender before determining an appropriate course of action.
4.8. Confidentiality will be maintained to the extent that it does not compromise the rights of others.