THE PALEONTOLOGICAL SOCIETY: ETHICAL GUIDELINES FOR PUBLICATION OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

A. Overview

The Paleontological Society (PS) aspires to publish, through peer review, the highest quality paleontological research. To achieve this, the peer review process must be objective, fair, and thorough. The ethical basis for this aspiration is absolute trust and honesty among Editors, authors, researchers, reviewers, and funding agencies. Decisions about a manuscript should be based only on its importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope and content.

Every Editor of a PS journal has the responsibility to establish and maintain guidelines that adhere to the highest ethical standards set forth in this document for selecting and accepting papers submitted to that journal. Every submitting author, coauthor, and reviewer has specific responsibilities in these activities, as well as the overall responsibility as members of the profession for respecting codes of conduct. Lastly, the PS Council has responsibility to ensure the independence of the Editors and provide agreed-upon support to maintain the high quality and standards of the publications.

The science of paleontology reveals fundamental processes about the history and evolution of life on Earth and how life responds to environmental change over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. The PS Council and the Editors, authors, and reviewers for the PS journals have significant ethical responsibilities to publish trusted scientific results to the scientific community and public. This document outlines ethical guidelines to ensure and sustain the trust of the public and the scientific community in the integrity of the science and of the published works in PS journals. Authors, editors, and reviewers are urged to stay updated on guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (http://publicationethics.org/) and the Coalition for Publishing Data in the Earth and Space Sciences (http://www.copdess.org/).  This document draws text and inspiration from section VI of Scientific Integrity and Professional Ethics by AGU (https://www.agu.org/).

B. Ethical Obligations of Editors of Scientific Journals and Special Publications

To uphold integrity in the PS publishing process, PS Editors and Associate Editors are expected to do the following:

1. Provide unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits without regard to ethnic origin, race, religion, citizenship, language, political or other opinion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, appearance, age or economic class, professional rank, status, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).

2. Process all manuscripts promptly, with fairness, equity, and respect.

3. Take full responsibility for acceptance or rejection of a manuscript, working in the best interests of science and excellence, and honestly weighing the recommendations of peer reviewers. Editor’s decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the papers importance, originality, clarity, and the study’s validity and relevance to the scope and content of the journal. Editors may consult with Associate Editors or reviewers to aid in this decision.

4. Adhere to the editorial decisions of previous editors to accept and publish a submission unless serious, previously unrecognized problems are identified.

5. Ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected for submissions (i.e., individuals who are able to judge the work and are free from disqualifying competing interests).

6. Ensure the peer review process is objective, fair, and thorough. Require potential reviewers to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission. Be vigilant in avoiding conflict of interest, bias, discrimination, harassment, bullying or ad hominem attacks among reviewers and authors.

7. Respect requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission, if these are well-reasoned and practicable.

8. Never disclose information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought. An Editor may disclose manuscript titles and names of authors of papers that have been accepted for publication.

9. Respect the intellectual independence of authors. Results that are at variance with the dominant paradigm should be given full and equal consideration based upon the criteria of importance, originality, clarity, and relevance.

10. In instances of potential conflicts of interest, fully delegate responsibility of a manuscript to another Editor or Associate Editor. Possible instances include manuscripts authored by the Editor, manuscripts authored by scientists with whom the Editor has a close relationship, or a manuscript closely related to the research of the Editor.

11. Never use unpublished information or interpretations from a submitted manuscript, or a review of a manuscript, for their own research, except with the consent of the author.

12. Quickly publish errata (corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies) to correct erroneous information in a published report.

13. Investigate claims that a submitted article is under consideration elsewhere or has already been published.

14. Investigate allegations of scientific misconduct. This duty extends both to papers previously published and manuscripts submitted for possible review and publication. If such a case occurs, editors should make all reasonable efforts to ensure a proper investigation into the alleged misconduct.

15. Respond promptly to dissatisfied authors and ensure there is a way for them to appeal decisions they think are unfair. This mechanism should be made clear to authors.

16. Adhere to the Paleontological Society Policy on Non-Discrimination and Member Code of Conduct.

C. Ethical Obligations of Authors and Contributors

To contribute the highest quality science to PS publications, authors are expected to do the following:

1. Not submit a manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously.

2. Not submit previously published work, nor work which is based in substance on previously published work, either in part or whole.

3. Include as coauthors only those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work and determine order of authorship in a manner appropriate to these contributions. Pay careful attention to inclusion and appropriate attribution of student work. All coauthors share responsibility for the quality and integrity of the submitted and published manuscript.

4. Present a precise and accurate account of the original research performed and a clear, objective discussion of its significance.

5. Include sufficient detail and reference to sources of information in a manuscript to permit the author’s peers to repeat the work. If there are any limitations on use of or access to data, these must be clearly identified.

6. Identify sources of all information and cite those publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work and that guide the reader quickly to the primary and other earlier work essential for understanding the present investigation. Information obtained privately, as in conversation or correspondence, should not be used or reported without explicit permission from the source. Proper credit should also be given to holders of indigenous knowledge.

7. Carefully document methodology, assumptions, and uncertainty.

8. Follow the most recent acknowledged governing standards for ethics of work done with human or animal subjects.

9. Never plagiarize the work of others or the author’s previous work. Always provide appropriate citation.

10. Avoid unnecessary scientific fragmentation or redundant publication of research reports to artificially increase the number of publications.

11. Not include personal criticism in a written piece of work, or in any correspondence with editors, associate editors, copy editors, and other volunteers or employees of Cambridge University Press involved in the publication of PS journals.


12. Report to the Editor any changes made to the manuscript after acceptance.

13. Reveal to the Editor any potential conflict of interest that might be affected by publication of the results contained in a manuscript or in the development of the research.

14. In the role of corresponding author, ensure that all coauthors are fully cognizant of the steps and agree to all changes from first draft to the final version of the manuscript.

15. If asked to provide a list of reviewers, authors must provide the correct details for suitable reviewers with the appropriate experience to review, ensuring that the suggested reviewers do not have conflicts of interest.

16. Disclose all sources of funding for the research reported in the paper, and where appropriate all collecting permits required to complete the research.

17. All materials, data, code, and associated protocols necessary to reproduce the science presented in a paper should be readily available in the published paper and any related supplemental data files. Any restrictions on the availability of materials or information must be disclosed to the editors at the time of submission and in the submitted manuscript.

18. Unless otherwise noted, all illustrated and type specimens must be deposited in a publicly accessible, permanently curated museum or institutional repository and assigned unique catalog numbers. The status of additional material used must also be recorded.

19. Authors are expected to adhere to the Paleontological Society Policy on Non-Discrimination and Member Code of Conduct. (provide link to this).

D. Ethical Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts

To ensure the highest quality science in PS publications, reviewers are expected to do the following:

1. Provide clearly written, unbiased feedback in a timely manner on the scholarly merits and scientific value of the work, together with a documented basis for the reviewer’s opinion. Judge the paper on its merits without regard to personal bias, ethnic origin, race, religion, citizenship, language, political or other opinion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, appearance, age, or economic class, professional rank, status, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).

2. Thoroughly address all review criteria provided by the journal.

3. Decline to review manuscripts for which the reviewer lacks sufficient time, is not qualified, or has a conflict of interest with any of the authors, including personal or competitive relationships.

4. Inform the journal promptly if circumstances change and they cannot fulfill the original agreement or require an extension.

5. Explain and support judgments adequately so that Editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement by a reviewer on an observation, derivation, or argument that has been previously published should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

6. Provide citations to relevant work by other scientists as appropriate. Reviewers should not use their reviews as an opportunity to enhance their own, or other authors, citation index.

7. Alert the Editor to any significant similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper or manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal. Report any apparent plagiarism or the appearance of plagiarism.

8. Do not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author.

9. Do not use information obtained during the review process for your own or another’s advantage, or disadvantage or to discredit others.

10. Do not include personal criticism of the author in reviewing a manuscript. In addition, confidential comments to the editor is not the place for denigration or accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see the comments.

11. Be aware of sensitivities surrounding language issues that result from the authors writing in a language that is not their first or most proficient language, and phrase feedback appropriately and with due respect.

12. Keep the peer review process confidential; information or correspondence about a manuscript should not be shared with anyone outside of the peer review process.

13. Report to the editorial team any observed irregularities with respect to research and publication ethics.

14. Follow the journals’ instructions for writing and posting the review.

15. Prepare reviews without assistance in most instances. Upon a written request to the editors, the reviewer may receive permission to involve another person in the review of a manuscript, such as a student, in which case the reviewer must still prepare the final review of the manuscript submitted to the editors.

16. Reviewers are expected to adhere to the Paleontological Society Policy on Non-Discrimination and Member Code of Conduct..

E. Ethical Obligations of Authors Publishing for the General Public

Any communication of research to the general public, including social media communications such as blogs and related platforms, should adhere to the same levels of accuracy and empirical support for results as do scientific communications. Authors writing for the public are expected to do the following:

1. Maintain accuracy of the science when using common words or simplifying concepts to be understood.

2. Announce a discovery to the public only when the experimental, statistical, or theoretical support for it is of sufficient strength to warrant publication in the scientific literature. Ensure submission of such work as quickly as possible.

3. Maintain scientific accuracy while using analogies that are emotionally compelling or that relate to popularly understood concepts or themes.

F. Ethical Obligations of PS Toward Its Editors

To maintain honesty and trust in the PS publishing process, the officers and staff of PS are expected to do the following:

1. Fully inform PS journal Editors of their responsibilities, authorities, terms of appointment, and mechanisms for resolving conflict.

2. Not interfere in the evaluation, selection, or editing of individual articles, and respect that Editors have authority over the editorial content of the journal, generally referred to as “editorial independence.”

3. Support editorial decisions made based on the clarity, originality, importance, and relevance to the journal’s audience including manuscripts that are critical of the current paradigm.

4. Protect the editorial, peer review, and publishing process from influence of commercial interest, personal self-interest, political influence, or other nonscientific influences.

5. Responsibly use the right to appoint and terminate Editors, subject to provisions conveyed in the Paleontological Society By-Laws. Cause for dismissal should be for substantial reasons such as scientific misconduct, irresponsible decisions, personal behavior contrary to the ethical standards of the profession including violations of the PS Code of Conduct, or failure to fulfill responsibilities as Editors.

Additional Resources

NOAA Administrative Order on Scientific Integrity (2011), http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/ames/administrative_orders/chapter_202/202-735-D.html.

Statement by publisher Taylor and Francis UK, http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pdf/announcements/tmph_guidelines06.pdf. 


Publication Ethics for Medical Journals of the World Association of Medical Editors, http://www.wame.org/resources/ethics-resources/publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals. 


The Council of Scientific Editors White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications by CSE Editorial Policy Committee 2008-9, http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/files/public/entire_whitepaper.pdf. 


The Committee on Publication Ethics at http://www.publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts and http://www.publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf.