Peer-reviewed technical articles describe previously unpublished research shedding new light on subjects of gemmological interest. Articles are not normally accepted which have already been published elsewhere in English (including on the Internet), and an article is accepted only on the understanding that:

• Full information as to any previous publication (including online, whether in English or another language) has been given;
• It is not under consideration for publication elsewhere;
• It will not be published elsewhere for at least three months without the consent of the Editor-in-Chief, and a reference to the original publication in The Journal of Gemmology must be provided.

Article types include:

Articles should be submitted as a Word document by email to brendan@gem-a.com. The text should be formatted in the manner of recent issues of The Journal and in conformity with the information described below. Papers may be of various length, but long manuscripts of more than 10,000 words (unless capable of division into parts or of exceptional importance) are unlikely to be acceptable, whereas a short paper of 1,000 words may achieve early publication.

If English is not your first language, manuscripts should be checked by an expert translator before they are submitted to The Journal for consideration.

All articles and Gemmological Briefs are typically sent to at least three reviewers and are also subject to copy editing. Authors may indicate reviewers who they feel would be appropriate, and they can also suggest reviewers who they prefer to exclude from the review process due to possible conflicts of scientific interest. Reviewers need not be limited to The Journal’s Associate Editors. The decisions of the editors are final. Authors are given the opportunity to review the page proofs of their article and are held responsible for its content. Authors who publish in The Journal of Gemmology receive a total of 25 offprints of their article free of charge. 

The following guidelines apply to all Articles and Gemmological Briefs:

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The Journal of Gemmology is published by the Gemmological Association of Great Britain (Gem-A). The Journal of Gemmology (the Journal) adheres to the principles outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (http://publicationethics.org). Conformance to standards of ethical behaviour is therefore expected of authors, editors and reviewers.

Responsibilities of Authors

Reporting Standards

Authors 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. The results of research should be recorded and maintained in a form that allows analysis and review. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical scholarly behaviour and is unacceptable. Information obtained by private communication, correspondence or discussions with third parties should not be used without consent of the correspondent source.

Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.

Multiple or Concurrent Publications

Authors should not in general publish articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Publication in different languages in more than one journal is acceptable, provided that the primary reference is cited in the secondary publication.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgement of the work of others used in a research project must always be given.

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 mentioned in the Acknowledgements section.

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.

Disclosure of Financial Support

All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Acknowledgements

All sources of support (financial and technical) and details thereof should be named in the Acknowledgements section. These include grants, honoraria, industrial and academic support.

Errors in Published Work

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 or publisher and cooperate to retract or correct the contribution.

Responsibilities of Editors

Publication Decisions

The editor-in-chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the Journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions.

Fair Play

The editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editors and the editorial staff should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

The Journal does not disclose reviewers’ identities. However, if reviewers wish to disclose their names, this is permitted.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

The editors must not use unpublished materials for their own research without the express written consent of the author. If they feel unable to handle a submission in an unbiased way, the editors should excuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Corrections

When genuine errors in published work are pointed out by readers, authors, or editors, which do not render the work invalid, a correction (or erratum) will be published as soon as possible. The online version of the paper may be corrected with a note indicating an appropriate resolution to the problem.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Members of the editorial board of the Journal (Associate Editors) are committed to ensuring ethics in publication and the high quality of articles.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

All articles published in the Journal are subjected to double-blind peer review. Peer reviewers should be experts in the scientific topic addressed in the articles they review, and should be selected for their objectivity and scientific knowledge. Peer review assists the editor-in-chief in making editorial decisions and through anonymous communications with the authors may also assist the author in improving the contribution.

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.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts 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-in-chief.

Standards of Objectivity

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

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should point out relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. A reviewer should also call to the editor-in-chief’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which he/she has personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must not be 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 papers.