1. Editorial Independence

Geocarbon Advances is committed to maintaining full editorial independence from its publisher, sponsoring institutions, and any commercial or political interests. Editorial decisions—including the acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts—are made solely on the basis of scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal’s scope.

The Editor-in-Chief has final authority over all editorial content. The publisher does not participate in editorial decisions and does not influence the selection of manuscripts, reviewers, or editorial board members. This policy aligns with the COPE Core Practices on journal management, which require a well-described and implemented infrastructure for the efficient running of an editorially independent journal. The journal’s editorial independence statement is publicly available on the journal website and is reviewed annually.

2. Peer Review Policy

2.1 Review Model

Geocarbon Advances operates a single-blind peer review model by default: reviewers know the identities of authors, but authors do not know the identities of reviewers. Double-anonymized review may be used for selected submissions, special issues, or at the discretion of the handling editor. This approach balances rigorous evaluation with practical feasibility and is consistent with the practices of leading geoscience journals.

2.2 Review Process

All research articles, reviews, methods papers, case studies, and data descriptions undergo peer review. Editorials, commentaries, and replies may be assessed by the editorial team rather than sent for external review. The review process comprises the following stages:

Initial editorial assessment: The Editor-in-Chief or a designated handling editor evaluates each submission for scope alignment, scientific quality, completeness, and adherence to author guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be desk-rejected without external review.

External peer review: Manuscripts that pass initial assessment are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers. The journal ensures that reviewers have relevant expertise, no conflicts of interest, and no involvement with the manuscript. Additional reviewers may be sought for interdisciplinary or statistically intensive submissions.

Reviewer reports: Reviewers provide structured assessments covering originality, significance, methodology, data quality, clarity, and ethical compliance. Reviewers recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

Editorial decision: The handling editor synthesizes reviewer reports and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who issues the final decision.

2.3 Transparency

The journal publishes a clear description of its peer review process on its website. All articles include submission, acceptance, and publication dates. Reviewers and editors are expected to complete their assessments within the agreed timeframe. Authors are notified of the status of their submission at each stage. This transparency is consistent with DOAJ requirements, which mandate that peer review by at least two independent reviewers be conducted and that the process be clearly described on the journal website.

2.4 Reviewer Recognition

The journal supports reviewer recognition through ORCID integration and, where feasible, offers Crossref reviewer acknowledgment. Reviewers who wish to be credited may request a verification of their review activity.

2.5 Appeals

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision. Appeals must include a clear rationale and address specific points from the reviewer reports. The Editor-in-Chief may consult additional editors or reviewers before making a final determination. Appeal decisions are final. The journal maintains a clearly described complaints and appeals process, consistent with COPE Core Practices.

3. Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Geocarbon Advances is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and follows the COPE Core Practices as the foundation of its ethical framework. The journal’s publication ethics and malpractice statement is publicly available and reviewed annually.

3.1 Authors’ Responsibilities

Authors are expected to:

Submit original work that has not been published previously and is not under consideration elsewhere.

Acknowledge all sources of funding and institutional support.

Disclose all potential conflicts of interest.

Ensure that all authors meet the ICMJE authorship criteria and have approved the submitted version.

Provide accurate and complete data and methods to allow replication.

Promptly notify the journal of any errors or inaccuracies discovered after publication.

3.2 Editors’ Responsibilities

Editors are expected to:

Evaluate manuscripts solely on academic merit, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.

Avoid processing manuscripts for which they have competing interests.

Maintain the confidentiality of all submitted materials and reviewer identities.

Take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers involving research misconduct.

Cooperate with investigations into suspected misconduct and retract or correct articles when appropriate.

3.3 Reviewers’ Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and its contents.

Provide objective, constructive, and timely assessments.

Declare any conflicts of interest that may affect their evaluation.

Decline to review if they lack the expertise or have a conflict of interest.

Not use generative AI tools to create their assessments, in line with DOAJ best practices.

3.4 Allegations of Misconduct

The journal takes seriously all allegations of research misconduct, whether brought before or after publication. Allegations should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief or the publisher’s ethics team. The journal will follow COPE flowcharts and guidelines for handling misconduct allegations. The process includes:

Preliminary assessment of the allegation.

Consultation with relevant parties.

Formation of an investigation panel if warranted.

Determination of appropriate action, which may include correction, retraction, or notification of the authors’ institution.

The journal maintains a clearly described process for handling allegations, including protections for whistleblowers.

4. Research Integrity

4.1 Plagiarism

The journal screens all submissions for textual similarity using iThenticate or an equivalent service. Manuscripts with excessive similarity to previously published work may be rejected or returned for revision. Self-plagiarism from the authors’ own prior work is acceptable only when appropriately cited and when it does not constitute duplicate publication.

4.2 Duplicate Publication

Manuscripts that have been published elsewhere, in whole or in substantial part, are not eligible for publication. Conference papers may be considered if they are significantly expanded and the original conference paper is cited. Translations of previously published articles are not eligible unless they add substantial new content and are clearly identified as translations.

4.3 Image and Data Integrity

Authors must ensure that figures and data are accurate and not misleading. Image manipulation, selective cropping, and inappropriate enhancement are prohibited. The journal may request original, unprocessed data and images at any stage of the review or post-publication process. All experimental details and computational parameters must be reported with sufficient detail to allow independent replication.

4.4 Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation—including excessive self-citation, coercive citation by editors or reviewers, and citation stacking—is prohibited. The journal monitors citation patterns and takes corrective action when manipulation is detected. Editors and reviewers may not require authors to cite their own work unless scientifically justified.

5. Data, Code, and Materials Policy

5.1 Data Availability

A data availability statement is mandatory for all research articles and data descriptions. Authors must indicate how the data underlying their findings can be accessed. Acceptable statements include:

Data are openly available in a public repository at a specific DOI.

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Data are subject to legal or ethical restrictions that prevent public release.

Authors are strongly encouraged to deposit data in FAIR-compliant repositories (such as Zenodo, Figshare, PANGAEA, or domain-specific repositories) and to cite datasets with DOIs. This policy aligns with DOAJ criteria, which require journals to have a clear open access statement and to make content freely available.

5.2 Code Availability

A code availability statement is mandatory for any manuscript reporting custom code, algorithms, or computational models. Code should be deposited in a public repository (such as GitHub, GitLab, or Zenodo) with a persistent DOI where possible. Authors should include information on the software license and dependencies.

5.3 Materials Availability

Authors are encouraged to provide a materials availability statement for unique materials, samples, or geological specimens. Where specimens cannot be shared due to legal, ethical, or logistical constraints, authors should explain the reasons and describe how other researchers may access comparable materials.

5.4 Supplementary Data

Supplementary datasets, extended methods, and additional figures should be submitted as supplementary files and cited in the main text. Supplementary files are published alongside the article and are not copyedited.

6. Authorship and Contributorship

6.1 Authorship Criteria

Authorship is limited to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported research and who have approved the final version. All authors must meet the ICMJE authorship criteria. Contributors who do not meet these criteria should be acknowledged in an Acknowledgments section.

6.2 Contributor Roles

Authors should report their contributions using the CRediT taxonomy: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, and Writing – review & editing.

6.3 Corresponding Author

The corresponding author is responsible for:

Managing communication with the journal throughout the submission and review process.

Confirming that all authors have approved the submission and any subsequent revisions.

Ensuring that all authorship and conflict-of-interest information is accurate.

Providing a current email address and ORCID iD.

6.4 Changes to Authorship

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief with approval from all affected authors. The journal will not make changes to authorship without documented consent from all parties.

6.5 Authorship Disputes

Authorship disputes are referred to the Editor-in-Chief, who may request documentation of each author’s contribution. If a dispute cannot be resolved, the journal may decline to publish the manuscript or may publish it with a clearly stated authorship attribution. The journal follows COPE guidance on authorship disputes.

7. Conflict of Interest Policy

7.1 Author Disclosures

All authors must disclose any financial or non-financial interests that could be perceived as influencing the reported work. Financial interests include employment, consultancies, honoraria, grants, patents, and stock ownership. Non-financial interests include personal relationships, academic commitments, and intellectual property claims.

Disclosures should cover the three-year period prior to submission. Interests outside this period must be disclosed if they could reasonably be perceived as relevant. Disclosures should be provided in the manuscript and in the submission system.

7.2 Editor and Reviewer Disclosures

Editors and reviewers must declare any competing interests and must recuse themselves from handling or reviewing manuscripts where a conflict exists. This includes personal relationships, institutional affiliations, recent collaborations, and competing research interests. The journal maintains a conflict-of-interest register and provides training to editors and reviewers on identifying and managing conflicts.

7.3 Journal Staff Disclosures

Editorial board members and journal staff must disclose any competing interests related to their editorial roles. They may not use their positions to gain research advantage or to influence editorial decisions improperly.

8. Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools Policy

In line with evolving international standards, Geocarbon Advances has established a clear AI policy:

8.1 Authors’ Use of AI

Authors must disclose the use of generative AI tools beyond straightforward language correction, editing, and formatting. Disclosure should specify the tool used, the purpose, and the extent of its application. AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Generative AI should not be cited as a source. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the content.

8.2 Reviewers’ and Editors’ Use of AI

Reviewers and editors must not use generative AI to create their assessments or evaluations. The journal is transparent about its use of automated tools in manuscript screening and validates all tools with human oversight.

8.3 Publisher’s Use of AI

The publisher may use automated tools for plagiarism detection, image screening, and metadata enrichment. All automated screening outputs are subject to human review before editorial action is taken. The journal maintains records of automated tool usage and reviews its AI policy annually.

9. Open Access and Copyright Policy

9.1 Open Access

Geocarbon Advances is a fully open access journal. All articles are freely available online immediately upon publication without embargo or subscription barriers. The journal does not publish hybrid content. This policy complies with DOAJ’s requirement that journals maintain a full open access model and make all content freely available without delay.

9.2 Copyright and Licensing

Authors retain copyright of their published work. Articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license unless otherwise approved by the Editor-in-Chief. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The journal’s copyright and licensing terms are publicly available on the journal website and must not contradict the journal’s open access policy. Copyright terms are stated on every published article.

9.3 Archiving

The journal deposits all published content in a recognized digital preservation archive (such as CLOCKSS, LOCKSS, or Portico) to ensure long-term accessibility. The journal also maintains its own archive of all published articles. This commitment to preservation supports the journal’s eligibility for DOAJ Seal recognition.

10. Publication Charges

10.1 Article Processing Charges

The journal may charge an article processing charge (APC) to cover the costs of open access publication, editorial services, and archiving. The current APC schedule is publicly available on the journal website. The journal does not charge submission fees.

10.2 Waivers and Discounts

The journal offers waivers and discounts for authors from low- and lower-middle-income countries, as defined by the World Bank. Waivers may also be available for authors without institutional funding, early-career researchers, and invited contributions. Waiver requests are evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the editorial office and do not influence editorial decisions.

10.3 Transparency

The journal’s APC policy is publicly available, clearly stated on the journal website, and provided to authors before submission. The journal does not charge for manuscript revisions or color figures.

11. Editorial Board Policy

11.1 Composition

The editorial board comprises distinguished researchers from diverse geographic regions and disciplinary backgrounds relevant to the journal’s scope. The board includes subject editors, associate editors, and an international advisory board. The size and composition of the board are consistent with the volume and breadth of the journal’s publication output.

11.2 Roles and Responsibilities

Editorial board members are expected to:

Provide guidance on journal scope, policies, and strategic direction.

Review manuscripts within their areas of expertise.

Assist in the selection of peer reviewers.

Promote the journal within their professional networks.

Declare any competing interests.

Editorial board members are not involved in editorial decisions on manuscripts they have co-authored or on manuscripts where a competing interest exists.

11.3 International Diversity

The journal is committed to maintaining geographic and institutional diversity on its editorial board. The affiliation, country, and ORCID iD of each board member are publicly listed on the journal website. Board members’ publication records and expertise must be consistent with the journal’s scope and published content. This aligns with Scopus criteria, which require diversity in the geographical distribution of editorsand Web of Science requirements for editorial affiliation details.

11.4 Board Membership and Terms

Editorial board members serve renewable terms of three years. Appointments are made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the publisher. Board members may resign at any time. The journal maintains a record of board members’ contributions and reviews its board composition annually.

11.5 Guest Editors

Guest editors for special issues must be approved by the Editor-in-Chief and must comply with the journal’s editorial policies. Guest editors’ names, affiliations, and ORCID iDs are published on the journal website and in the special issue. All special issue articles undergo the same peer review process as regular submissions.

12. Complaints and Appeals

The journal maintains a clearly described process for handling complaints against the journal, its staff, editorial board, or publisher. Complaints should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief or the publisher’s ethics office. The journal will acknowledge receipt of complaints within 5 working days and will provide a substantive response within 30 days. If the complaint concerns the Editor-in-Chief, it should be directed to the publisher’s designated ethics officer. All complaints are documented and reviewed by the editorial leadership to identify opportunities for process improvement.

13. Corrections and Retractions

13.1 Corrections

Errors discovered after publication that do not affect the scientific conclusions will be corrected through a published correction notice linked to the original article. Corrections are prepared by the authors and approved by the Editor-in-Chief.

13.2 Retractions

Articles will be retracted when:

There is clear evidence of unreliable findings due to misconduct or honest error.

The findings have been previously published elsewhere without proper attribution.

The article contains plagiarism or other ethical violations.

The authors fail to disclose a material conflict of interest that affects the interpretation of the results.

Retraction notices are published and linked to the original article, clearly stating the reason for retraction. The retracted article remains online and is marked as retracted. The journal follows COPE retraction guidelines.

13.3 Expressions of Concern

An expression of concern may be published when:

There is inconclusive evidence of misconduct but concerns remain about the integrity of the published work.

An investigation is ongoing and the outcome is not yet known.

The authors and editors disagree on the appropriate action.

Expressions of concern are linked to the original article and are updated or replaced once the investigation concludes.

14. Post-Publication Discussions

The journal supports post-publication discussion and correction. Readers may submit comments on published articles through the journal’s online platform or by contacting the editorial office. Comments that raise substantive scientific or ethical concerns will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, if appropriate, published alongside the original article. The journal also monitors PubPeer and other post-publication review platforms and will respond to substantive concerns raised there.

15. Archiving and Preservation

The journal is committed to the long-term preservation of its content. All published articles are deposited in a recognized digital preservation archive. The journal also maintains a complete electronic archive of all published content on its website. Metadata for all articles is registered with Crossref, including DOIs, ORCID iDs, funding information, and license information. This ensures that published content remains discoverable and accessible over time.

16. Journal Metrics and Performance

16.1 Transparency

The journal publishes key editorial metrics on its website, including:

Submission-to-first-decision time

Acceptance rate

Time to publication after acceptance

Number of reviewers per manuscript

These metrics are updated annually and are intended to provide transparency to authors, readers, and indexing services.

16.2 Indexing

Geocarbon Advances is committed to meeting the standards required for inclusion in major indexing databases. The journal’s editorial policies, publication ethics statement, peer review process, and editorial board composition are designed to comply with the requirements of DOAJ, Scopus, and Web of Science. The journal will apply for inclusion in these databases once it has established a sufficient publication record, in accordance with the requirement of at least two years of publication history for Scopus evaluation.

16.3 Continuous Improvement

The journal reviews its editorial policies, procedures, and performance metrics annually. Feedback from authors, reviewers, readers, and indexing services is actively sought and incorporated into policy revisions. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for ensuring that the journal maintains the highest standards of editorial rigor and publishing best practice.

17. Policy Review and Updates

This Editorial Policy is reviewed annually by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the editorial board and publisher. Updates are made in response to changes in international publishing standards, indexing criteria, and community expectations. All revisions are documented, dated, and published on the journal website. The current version of this policy is effective from the date of publication and supersedes all previous versions.

This Editorial Policy is aligned with the COPE Core Practices, DOAJ Criteria for Inclusion, Scopus Content Policy and Selection Criteria, and Web of Science Journal Evaluation Process and Selection Criteria. It is intended to support the journal’s application for indexing in DOAJ, Scopus, and the Web of Science Core Collection.