Publication Ethics and Articles Statement:


Journal of Hydrogeomorphology is a double-blind peer reviewed journal. This statement describes the ethical conduct of all parties involved in the publication of articles for this journal, i.e. authors, editors, reviewers and the publisher. This guideline is based on the (COPE) statement for journal editors, Authors and Reviewers.    

All participants in the peer review and publication process—authors, reviewers, editorial board members and editors of journals—must consider their conflicts of interest when fulfilling their roles in the peer review and publication process and must disclose all potential conflicts of interest.


DUTIES OF EDITORS - Decision on the Publication of Articles:

  • The Editor of journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles accepted for publication after undergoing double blind peer review should be published. the journal subject to such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. However, Editor does not have the authority to influence the reviewers who are conducting the blind review of the articles submitted for peer review.
  • Articles shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit without regard to authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
  • The journal utilizes a double blind peer review process. The Editor in Chief and members of the Editorial board ensure the integrity of the publication review process by not revealing either the identity of authors of articles to the reviewers, or the identity of reviewers to authors.
  • level of similarity and the level accepted by the journal should be less than 15%. In this review, the publication uses the Sina Web similarity finder (


  • The journal may detect major overlap (same data or very similar data to other authors). In this case, the journal will ask the author to satisfy us that the submitted work has not been published elsewhere with acceptable pieces of evidence. After this, the author may respond or not. if they respond, the response may be unsatisfactory or the author may admit their guilt.

In the case of guilt acceptance, hydrogeomorphology will inform the author of rejecting the submission, explain to them about the position and prospective expected behavior. The next step is to inform the author’s superior or else body responsible for research governance and let the author know about our action. If the journal would not receive any response from the author, hydrogeomorphology will contact all other authors.

Again, there are two possibilities; receiving a response (which the following steps have been explained before) or not receiving a response. In the second case, hydrogeomorphology will inform the author’s superior or else body responsible for the research governance and keep on trying to obtain the acknowledgment of our letter. Either in this case or the case of receiving a satisfactory response (honest error, very junior researcher, etc.), hydrogeomorphology will let the author(s) know about rejecting submission.

  • Editors shall conduct proper and fair investigation into ethical complaints, and shall avoid participating in the investigation in case they have a potential conflict of interest with the authors involved.


         Duties/ Responsibilities of Authors:

  • By submitting a manuscript to Journal of Hydrogeomorphology , as an author you agree to comply with the following Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
  • Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain enough detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and is unacceptable.
  • All Submitted articles must be the original work of authors and not plagiarism. A zero tolerance approach will be taken to plagiarized manuscripts.
  • Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this must be appropriately cited or quoted.
  • Avoid self-plagiarism; do not copy portions of one's own published or copyrighted work without proper citation;
  • Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such, if practicable, and should in any event, be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 behaviour and is unacceptable.
  • When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the Editor and cooperate with the editors to retract or correct the paper.
  • The Corresponding Author: The Corresponding Author is the author responsible for communicating with the journal for publication. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.


  • Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data does not justify authorship. General supervision of the research group is not sufficient for authorship. Each contributor should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content of the manuscript. The order of naming the contributors should be based on the relative contribution of the contributor towards the study and writing the manuscript.

All authors of submitting articles to the journal must disclose any conflict of interest they may have with an institution or product that is mentioned in the manuscript and/or is important to the outcome of the study presented. Authors should also disclose conflict of interest with products that compete with those mentioned in their manuscript. The Editor will discuss with the authors on an individual basis the method by which any conflicts of interest will be communicated to the readers(

  • Any change in authors after initial submission must be approved by all authors. This applies to additions, deletions, a change of order to the authors’ names or a change to the attribution of contributions. Any alterations must be explained to the Editor. The Editor may contact any of the authors and/or contributors to ascertain whether they have agreed to any alteration.


Duties of Reviewers:


  • Double Blind Peer review assists the reviewers in making editorial decisions, while editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. The reviewers don't know the author's identity, as any identifying information will be stripped from the document before review. Reviewers' comments to the editors are confidential and before passing on to the author will be made anonymous. The names of the reviewers remain strictly confidential; with their identities known only to Editor.


  • Papers received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with, others except as authorized by the Editor.


  • Reviewers conduct their business of review objectively, with no personal criticism of the author.


  • Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the Editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process.


  • Reviewers should complete their reviews within the journal stipulated timeframe.


  • Reviewers should not review 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 papers.


  • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the Editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.


  • Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments that will constructively guide the editorial decision by the Editor in Chief or his or her nominee.