Publishing Ethics

The following are the standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in publishing in the Space Colonization Journal: for authors, editor-in-chief, editorial board, reviewers and publisher. These guidelines are based on existing policies in accordance with [1], [2], [3], [5] and [5].

I. Open access.
All articles in open access the space Colonization Journal which are published by Space Colonization Ltd have undergone peer-review and upon acceptance are immediately free for everyone to read.

II. Duties of the Editor-in-chief and Editorial Board.

2.1. Publication decisions.
The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published and the editorial board makes the final decision about the articles to be published. The editor is guided by the editorial board policies and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief may consult with editorial board or reviewers in decision making.

2.2. Fair play.
The editor-in-chief should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

2.3. Confidentiality.
The editor-in-chief 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.

III. Duties of Reviewers.

3.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions.
Peer review assists the editor-in-chief in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the work.

3.2. Promptness.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor-in-chief and excuse himself from the review process.

3.3. Confidentiality.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others.

3.4. Standards of Objectivity.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

2.5. 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 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 works.

IV. Duties of Authors.

4.1. Reporting standards.
Authors of reports of original research should provide the results of their research, with links to primary sources as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the work. A work should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

4.2. Originality and Plagiarism.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s work as the author’s own work, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s work (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4.3. 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. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

4.4. Acknowledgement of Sources.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source.

4.5. Authorship of the Paper.
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 acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the work, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the work and have agreed to its submission for publication.

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

4.7. Fundamental errors in published works.
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in own published work, it is his/her obligation to promptly notify the journal editor-in-chief or publisher and cooperate with them to retract or correct the work.

V. Anti-plagiarism.
All submitted articles are checked for known content, plagiarism and self-plagiarism. If the new content constitutes less than 50 per cent of the article it must be returned for revision.