Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica is committed to maintaining high standards of editorial independence, research integrity, transparency, and publication ethics, and to preventing publication malpractice.
The journal's policies are based on internationally recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including the guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing developed by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA, and WAME.
The following Editorial Policy and Publication Ethics Statement describes the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors and the procedures followed by the journal in matters concerning publication ethics and research integrity. Where ethical concerns or allegations arise, the journal follows relevant COPE guidance.
Authorship and Contributorship
Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, execution, analysis, or interpretation of the reported work. All authors should approve the final version of the manuscript and accept responsibility for their own contributions and for the integrity of the work.
Contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged appropriately. Any changes to authorship after submission should be justified and agreed by all affected authors. Disputes concerning authorship will be handled in accordance with relevant COPE guidance.
Authors should disclose any financial, personal, professional, or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their work. Where applicable, sources of research funding should also be clearly acknowledged.
Reviewers are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest when responding to a review invitation in Editorial Manager and should decline the invitation where a conflict could affect their impartiality. Editors should not handle manuscripts where a conflict of interest could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their objectivity. Where necessary, responsibility for the manuscript will be assigned to another editor.
Research Integrity, Publication Malpractice and Allegations of Misconduct
The journal does not tolerate plagiarism, fabrication or falsification of data, citation manipulation, duplicate or redundant publication, inappropriate authorship, or other forms of research and publication misconduct. Submitted manuscripts may be checked for originality and potential plagiarism.
Allegations of misconduct concerning submitted or published work will be examined carefully and, where appropriate, handled in accordance with COPE guidance and procedures. The journal may request explanations or supporting information from the authors and may contact relevant institutions where this is necessary to investigate a serious concern. Editorial action may include rejection, correction, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the nature and severity of the issue.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their research has been conducted in accordance with applicable ethical, legal, institutional, and professional standards. Where research requires approval by an ethics committee, informed consent, permission to use confidential or proprietary information, or another form of regulatory or institutional authorization, the appropriate approval or consent should be obtained and reported in the manuscript.
Although research published in the journal will not normally involve medical research with human participants, where such research is submitted it should comply with internationally recognized ethical standards, including, where applicable, the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.
Authors are encouraged to make the data supporting the results of their research available in an appropriate repository or as supplementary material whenever this is reasonably possible. Sufficient information should be provided in the manuscript to allow readers to understand the methods and assess the validity and reproducibility of the reported results.
Where data cannot be made publicly available for legal, ethical, confidentiality, privacy, contractual, commercial, or other justified reasons, authors should explain the applicable restrictions.
Where access to supporting data or other relevant material is necessary to assess the validity or integrity of the research, the journal may request such material as part of the editorial or peer-review process. Any material provided for this purpose will be treated as confidential. Where the information necessary for a reliable scientific assessment cannot be made available, the journal may be unable to proceed with the evaluation or publication of the manuscript.
Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that a significant scientific or procedural error occurred during the peer-review or editorial process. An appeal should provide a clear and reasoned justification and identify the grounds on which reconsideration is requested.
The Editor-in-Chief will assess the appeal and may consult another member of the Editorial Board or seek additional independent expert advice where appropriate. If an appeal is considered justified, the editorial decision may be reconsidered and the manuscript may be returned to the editorial or peer-review process.
Complaints concerning the conduct of reviewers, editors, or the editorial process will be investigated by the Editor-in-Chief and handled in accordance with relevant COPE guidance. Where the Editor-in-Chief is personally involved in the matter, the complaint or appeal should be handled by another suitably independent editor.
Authors publishing in Studia Geotechnica et Mechanica retain copyright to their articles. Published articles are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Detailed terms concerning copyright and permitted reuse are provided in the journal's Copyright and Open Access policies.
Authors are responsible for obtaining any permissions required to reproduce copyrighted material owned by third parties and for appropriately acknowledging the original source.
Post-publication Discussion, Corrections, and Retractions
Readers, authors, and other interested parties may contact the journal to raise substantive concerns or comments regarding published articles. Such matters will be considered by the editorial team and, where appropriate, the authors will be given an opportunity to respond.
Errors that materially affect the interpretation or record of an article may be corrected through an appropriate published notice. Where serious problems undermine the reliability or integrity of a published article, the journal may issue an expression of concern or retract the article. Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions will be handled in accordance with relevant COPE guidance and will be clearly linked to the original publication.
Use of Artificial Intelligence and Automated Tools
Authors should disclose the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted technologies beyond routine language editing, spelling, grammar, or formatting assistance. AI and automated tools cannot be credited as authors. Generative AI cannot be cited as a source of information or evidence supporting the scientific claims of the manuscript. Authors remain responsible for verifying the accuracy and validity of any output produced by such tools and retain full responsibility for the content, originality, and integrity of their manuscript.
Peer reviewers and editors should not use generative AI to create or substantially produce their assessments of manuscripts. Manuscripts, reviewer reports, and other unpublished or confidential material must not be uploaded to external generative AI systems where this could compromise confidentiality. Limited use of AI-assisted tools for language editing or rewriting may be acceptable provided that confidentiality is preserved and such use is disclosed where appropriate.
Any automated tools routinely used by the journal or publisher to support editorial screening or integrity checks should be appropriately tested and used under human oversight. Automated outputs, including similarity or integrity alerts and reviewer suggestions, should not replace editorial judgement.