Open Palaeontology is an inclusive community. We will not tolerate abuse or intimidation in any form. We expect our representatives, and those engaging with us, to behave in a professional and courteous manner. We expect those who interact with Open Palaeontology in any way to abide by the following code of conduct: 

Everyone

1.1. Harassment, sexism, racism, or exclusionary/offensive/inappropriate comments will not be tolerated. Please consider that what you find appropriate may not be acceptable to others. Ignorance is not an excuse for unacceptable behaviour.  

1.2. You should be respectful when communicating with anyone during Open Palaeontology business of any kind. Everyone should ask themselves the question “am I being a good colleague?” A good colleague is critical in a way that is thoughtful, constructive, respectful, and truthful.

1.3. Anyone asked to stop unacceptable behaviour by a representative of Open Palaeontology is expected to immediately cease and desist.

1.4. Plagiarism of any kind will not be tolerated.

1.5. Anyone (author, reviewer, or Open Palaeontology team member) who suspects a breach of the code of conduct has occurred during Open Palaeontology business is encouraged to report the incident via email to any member of the Steering Committee or anonymously via the online form. The incident will then be reported to the Steering Committee and a subcommittee will be formed to address the issue. This subcommittee will include two trusted individuals external to the OPal team. Anyone found to have breached the code of conduct may face disciplinary action, decided on a case by case basis by the Steering Committee. Disciplinary action may include retraction of a/all publication/s and/or a temporary or permanent ban on contributing to Open Palaeontology. In the event that a reported incident relates to an Open Palaeontology team member, the team member will be temporarily relieved of duty while the incident is being reviewed.   

Authors

2.1. Authorship order should be based on relative contributions and must be agreed amongst the authors prior to submission. 

First author(s): The individual(s) who conducted the largest share of the work and contributed the most to the manuscript preparation, including writing. Additional first authors should be specified in the ‘Author contributions’ and’ List of authors’ sections of the manuscript.    

Corresponding author(s): The individual(s) responsible for communication with the journal during manuscript processing. As such, corresponding authors must be available from submission through to publication in order to provide timely responses to editorial queries. They are also responsible for addressing responses, such as critiques or queries, following publication. Typically, the first author and/or the principal investigator take on the role of the corresponding author. 

2.2. Authorship should be extended to anyone who has made a significant contribution to one of the 14 roles identified by CRediT.

2.3. Contributors that have not made significant contributions to any of the 14 roles identified by CRediT should be acknowledged in the ‘Acknowledgements’ section of the manuscript. Their contributions should be specified clearly. 

2.4. All authors must approve the manuscript at submission and must approve the proofs prior to publication.

2.5. Manuscripts must constitute original work. Manuscripts submitted to, currently in review at, or published with Open Palaeontology cannot be submitted, in review or published elsewhere. This excludes preprints, which Open Palaeontology supports the publication of prior to peer review, either through Open Palaeontology itself or other open access platforms. 

2.6. Manuscripts must be appropriately cited (see the Guide for authors page for further details).

2.7. All research, including fieldwork and experiments using animals, must be undertaken with appropriate legal and ethical approval. In the case of collaborative international research, all research including fieldwork and experiments using animals must abide by the legal and ethical practices of all participating host institutions and countries. If standards between participating host institutions/countries disagree, the most stringent standards should be applied. A confirmation that appropriate protocols and permissions have been followed should be included as part of an ‘Ethics and AI use statement’ and relevant permits and permissions should be included in the supplementary information where appropriate. 

2.8. Specimens used in research and accompanying field data must be accessioned in permanent institutions with publicly available collections. Accession numbers should be reported in the manuscript and/or supplementary data.

2.9. Manuscripts referencing new specimens not reposited in their countries of origin should report all relevant collection and exportation permits.

2.10. We will not accept any manuscript, based in whole or in part, on any fossil specimens purchased from sources in Myanmar after June 2017 when the Myanmar military began its campaign to seize control of the amber mining.

2.11. Open Palaeontology seeks to minimise animal experimentation. We are committed to ensure the research we publish aligns with the principles of the 3R’s: Replacement, Reduction and Revision of animal experimentation. Consequently, we urge authors to explore alternative non-animal experiments whenever feasible, decrease the frequency of animal experiments, and update animal experimental protocols based on the latest research to mitigate unnecessary cruelty. Authors must provide justification for the use of animal experimentation in the ‘Ethics and AI use statement’. Manuscripts deemed to have employed unnecessary animal experimentation or undue animal cruelty will be rejected. 

2.12. Manuscripts arising from research involving animals should provide information on the provenance of animals, details of housing and husbandry conditions, and details of animal care and monitoring, and describe any interventions or steps taken in the experimental protocols to reduce pain, suffering and distress. Expected or unexpected adverse events should be reported. The manuscript should describe the humane endpoints established for the study, the signs that were monitored, and the frequency of monitoring. If the study did not have humane endpoints, state this. See the ARRIVE guidelines for further details. 

2.13. Use of AI in research and/or manuscript preparation must be clearly outlined as part of the ‘Ethics and AI use statement’. Use of AI-generated imagery will typically not be tolerated, unless it is an integral part of the research. This policy will be kept under continuous review.  

2.14. All data necessary to understand, evaluate and replicate the research must be made available and accessible following FAIR principles.

2.15. Authors must not alter their data in any manner. This includes, but is not limited to, fabrication, falsification, selective reporting, or any form of manipulation that affects data integrity. 

2.16. An Open Palaeontology representative who is an author on a manuscript submitted to Open Palaeontology will not be involved at any stage of the manuscript processing and must not use their position to track or alter the review process.

2.17. Deceased authors may be included. In such cases, the corresponding authors should include a short statement at manuscript submission to request the inclusion of the deceased author, highlighting their contribution. Corresponding authors must agree to provide a point of contact for issues relating to the deceased author.

2.18. If any author becomes aware of a significant error in their work published by Open Palaeontology, they must notify an editorial staff member as soon as possible. The author will discuss with the Open Palaeontology representative whether it is appropriate to retract the published work or issue a corrigendum or erratum.

Reviewers and editors

3.1. Potential reviewers or editors should declare any suspected conflict(s) of interest to the relevant Handling Editor prior to accepting a review request. Similarly, editors should decline to handle manuscripts if they identify a conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest could include, but are not limited to: reviewing/editing a manuscript from a recent student/employer/employee/collaborator; reviewing/editing a manuscript from a colleague currently at the same institution; reviewing/editing a manuscript from a family member or partner; reviewing/editing a manuscript that could financially, professionally, or otherwise benefit you based on your decision (for example, choosing to reject a manuscript that disproves your previous highly cited publication may benefit you professionally). 

3.2. Reviewer and editor duties should be completed in a timely manner. We expect reviews to be completed within four weeks of accepting the request, although we appreciate this may not always be possible. Following acceptance of a review request, if a reviewer finds they cannot complete their duties within four weeks they should contact the Handling Editor assigned to the manuscript. 

3.3. Reviewers and editors should attempt to be objective and impartial in their assessment of a manuscript. Any potential biases should be acknowledged and mitigated where possible. Assessments should be based on the scope and scientific merit of the manuscript, its originality, clarity, validity, replicability and ethicality. The author(s)' gender, race, age, career stage, ethnic origin or citizenship, religious beliefs, disabilities, or political or scientific alignment should not influence consideration. 

3.4. Reviewers and editors should respect the intellectual independence of authors. For example, disagreeing due to a difference of opinion does not merit rejection.  

3.5. Reviews considered in breach of the code of conduct may be disregarded in full or in part by the Handling Editor and broader editorial staff members.