National Academy publications are the vehicle in which the results of scientific inquiry, guided by the scientific method, are shared with other geoscience researchers and made available to a wider public audience. Results presented in this journal advance research, inform governmental policy decisions, educate students, and assist the private sector in a wide range of endeavors. Thus it is important to maintain a high level of quality and integrity in its publications, which is a responsibility that rests with all those involved in the publication process – authors, reviewers, and editors. Adherence to these guidelines should promote fair treatment of manuscripts through the peer review process.

Authors and Co-authors
3.1. Manuscripts should contain original, new results, data, ideas and/or interpretations not previously published or under consideration for publication elsewhere (including electronic media and databases).
3.2. Authors should be encouraged to avoid fragmentation of their work where practical, so that the submitted manuscript is as comprehensive and authoritative as possible.
3.3. Authors should inform the Editor of related manuscripts under consideration elsewhere and provide copies if requested.
3.4. Fabrication of data, results, selective reporting of data, theft of intellectual property of others, and plagiarism are unethical practices and unacceptable.
3.5. Information obtained privately (e.g., in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) should be avoided as it is not in the public domain and is thus unverifiable. If considered necessary, it should not be used or reported in a manuscript without explicit permission from the party with whom the information originated. Information obtained in the course of confidential services (e.g., refereeing manuscripts or grant applications) should be treated similarly.
3.6. Manuscripts will contain proper citation of works by others, especially publications of the original hypotheses, ideas, and/or data upon which manuscript is based or addresses.
3.7. Data and/or samples (especially unusual or rare materials) upon which a publication is based should be made available to other scientists, except in special circumstances (patent protection, privacy, etc.), in the manuscript or through accessible data repositories, databases, museum collections, or other means when requested.
3.8. Authorship
  3.8.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the work reported in a manuscript; others who have contributed should be acknowledged;
  3.8.2. Author order should be agreed on by all authors as should any changes in authors and order that occur while the manuscript is under review or revision. Changes in authorship must be submitted to the Editor in writing and must be signed by all authors involved.
  3.8.3. Authors and co-authors should review and ensure the accuracy and validity of results prior to submission; co-authors should have opportunity to review manuscript before submission.
3.9. Authors should reveal to the Editor any potential conflict of interest (e.g., a consulting or financial interest in a company) that might be affected by publication of the results contained in a manuscript. The authors should ensure that no contractual relations or proprietary considerations exist that would affect the publication of information in a submitted manuscript.
3.10. Authors are encouraged to disclose major funding sources (e.g., government agencies, private foundations, private industry, universities) for reported research.

4. Reviewers
4.1. A reviewer should disclose real or perceived conflict of interests to the Editor before agreeing to write a review. Examples include, but are not restricted to, past (within the last 5 years) or current collaboration, close friend, employer or employee, family relationship, institutional relationship, past or present graduate advisor or advisee, someone with whom the reviewer has had past or ongoing acrimonious relations, or situations where the reviewer could stand to gain economically by publication or rejection of the manuscript. The Editor will decide if the conflict is severe enough to prevent the reviewer from writing a fair, objective review.
4.2. A reviewer should decline to review a manuscript if she/he feels technically unqualified, if a timely review cannot be done, or if the manuscript is from a scientific competitor with whom the reviewer has had an acrimonious professional relationship, or a conflict of interest as defined above (section 4.1).
4.3. Reviewers should be encouraged, but not required, to sign reviews. The Editor will preserve anonymity of reviewers should a reviewer elect to remain anonymous.
4.4. Reviewers must treat the manuscript as confidential.
4.5. Reviewers must ask the Editor for permission to discuss the paper with others for specific advice, giving names and reasons for such consultation.
4.6. Reviewers must not pass the manuscript to another to carry out the review without permission from the Editor.
4.7. Reviewers must not use information, data, theories, or interpretations of the manuscript in their own work until that manuscript is in press or published unless the author has given permission to do so.
4.8. Reviewers should clearly support and justify the basis for their review analysis.
4.9. Reviewers should alert the Editor to similar manuscripts published or under consideration for publication elsewhere in the event they are aware of such. However, it is the responsibility of the Editor, not the reviewer, to decide on the proper course of action once so informed.