GPPS Editorial Policies


The GPPS expects authors to use the ICMJE’s criteria for authorship. All authors should meet these requirements, and all contributors who meet these requirements should be listed as authors. The criteria are:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  • Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  • Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Contributors who do not meet all four criteria for authorship should be mentioned in the acknowledgements.

Declaration of interest

Authors must disclose any potential conflict of interest as part of the submission.

A conflict of interest, or competing interest, is anything that may, or may be perceived to, influence the authors’ work. Conflicts of interest typically stem from financial, personal or professional relationships, but may have other sources as well. Declarations of interest are published with each article.

Editors and reviewers are also required to declare any competing interest that may influence their evaluation of the manuscript and, where appropriate, recuse themselves.

All authors must disclose any potential conflict of interest, and it is the submitting author’s responsibility to gather disclosure statements from all authors. Authors who have no competing interests should state so explicitly.

Research integrity and publishing ethics

The GPPS adheres to the COPE recommendations and upholds the highest standards in publication ethics and research integrity. We do not tolerate data or figure manipulation, plagiarism, redundant publication, inaccurate or incomplete declarations of interest or other irregularities. Listing authors who do not meet our authorship requirements as well as tampering with the peer review process also constitute unacceptable breaches of publication ethics. We will deal with allegations of misconduct in accordance with COPE’s guidelines, and issue corrections or retractions of articles as necessary. Investigations may be entrusted to the authors’ institution in complex cases.

For further details see Wager E. & Kleinert S. (2011). Responsible research publication: international standards for authors, in: Mayer T. & Steneck N. (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press / World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 309-16).

Duplicate publications

Manuscripts submitted to the GPPS must be original. The GPPS will not consider studies that have already been published in peer-reviewed literature or that are under consideration for publication elsewhere.

We welcome the submission of manuscripts available on preprint repositories and of papers presented at conferences.

Data and material sharing

The GPPS requests that, where applicable, authors make the data, method or materials underlying their research available to readers free of charge in accordance with best practice in their discipline. Examples include experimental or computational datasets, videos or CAD drawings.

Authors can upload small amounts of data (up to 100 Mb per file) as supporting information on our platform. The preferred way to share large quantities of primary data, material or algorithms is through deposition in public repositories (e.g. Dryad, Figshare).

Relevant DOI, accession or reference numbers should be provided in the manuscript, preferably in a section at the end of the paper.

The GPPS appreciates that authors may not wish to release their data publicly before publication of their manuscript. However, they must ensure that it is made available to reviewers upon request. Reviewers have a duty to treat the manuscript and data confidentially.

Disclosure of funding sources

All sources of funding for the research submitted should be acknowledged separately from the declaration of interest section. A funding statement will also be included in the article.

Peer review

The review process helps filter out unsuitable submissions, but it should also help authors improve their manuscript. In that spirit, we ask that reviewers provide clear, detailed and constructive comments as well as practical guidance to the authors. Opinions and recommendations should be explained and objectively grounded. Insensitive or offensive wording must be avoided.

Reviewers should be unbiased and rigorous. If reviewers cannot evaluate a manuscript with impartiality for whatever reason, we ask that they decline the review. For further details please see the Committee on Publication Ethics’ ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.

The GPPS operates a single-blind review system. Reviewers are anonymous to the authors at all times.

Reviewers are selected by Associate Editors on the basis of their expertise. Associate Editors will strive to invite reviewers who have no obvious conflict of interest or direct relationship with any of the authors of a manuscript (such as working in the same department, or having collaborated on a project or authored a publication together in the past three years).

Authors may suggest reviewers; in such cases editors are responsible for ensuring the suitability of suggested reviewers and are under no obligation to invite them.

Manuscripts under review are treated by the GPPS in strict confidence (except in cases of misconduct investigation, where we may send manuscripts to third parties). Reviewers must not share manuscripts or information pertaining to submissions with anyone, nor make use of the manuscript content without express permission from the journal.

Editorial decisions

Editorial decisions are made by the journal’s Editor in Chief based on the Associate Editors and reviewers’ reports. In some cases, the Editor in Chief may make a decision without the help of a reviewer. The GPPS staff may also decide to reject manuscripts after its initial quality-control check (scope, language etc.) before it is assigned to an editor.

A peer review statement on the published articles (both in HTML and PDF) clearly identifies articles that have been peer reviewed.

The GPPS fosters editorial independence: it has no sway on the reviewers’ recommendations and editors’ decisions.

Third-party material

Authors who reproduce non-original material in their manuscript should ensure it is appropriately attributed to the original authors and sources. The rights holder may have specific instructions on how to credit the source.

If that material is under copyright, it can only be reproduced with the permission of the rights holder. Authors are responsible for obtaining such permissions and will be required to provide them to us before publication. When requesting permission to reuse content, such as figures, tables, text etc., the authors should make sure they clearly stipulate the intended use for that content (e.g. reproduce in an Open Access article).

Permissions can be sent to at any time during the editorial process.

Retractions and corrections

Articles published by the GPPS form part of the scholarly record, the integrity and completeness of which must be protected. As such, published articles cannot be simply amended or removed. If articles are found to contain errors or pose problems, we will issue a correction, expression of concern or retraction notice after investigation, in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics’ guidelines (see Wager et al., Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Version 1, September 2009). Specifically, these guidelines state that:
Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if:

  • they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
  • the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
  • it constitutes plagiarism
  • it reports unethical research

Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if:

  • they receive inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors
  • there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case
  • they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair and impartial or conclusive
  • an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time

Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if:

  • a small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error)
  • the author/contributor list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included)

Only the journal’s editor can decide to retract an article or publish a correction. Retraction or correction notices will contain the reason for the notice, who's issuing it, and will clearly identify the publication affected.

Should the publisher introduce errors in the article, it will issue an erratum.

In any case, the original manuscript will remain available online, with a clear message indicating its retracted or corrected status. The GPPS participates in the CrossMark scheme, a multi-publisher initiative to provide a standard way for readers to locate the current version of a piece of content. By applying the CrossMark logo the GPPS is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes, such as corrections and retractions, if and when they occur. Clicking on the CrossMark logo will tell you the current status of a document as well as the additional publication record information about the document (namely funding, license, copyright, peer review details and publication history).

In very rare cases, chiefly relating to legal issues, articles may be removed from the record (i.e. no longer available, although their metadata will remain).

Small inconsequential errors (e.g. some typos) may be corrected in the published article without issuance of a correction notice.


Authors who deem that an unfair and inappropriate decision has been made on their manuscript can appeal to the publisher by contacting the Editor in Chief. The Editor in Chief may, at his/her discretion, appoint a new Associate Editor and/or reviewers to adjudicate.