About the Journal
Aims & Scope
Glass Europe is a cost-free, peer-reviewed, open access journal, built by the community of European glass scientists and glass technologists.
Glass Europe publishes results of original research, as well as reviews and perspective articles. Potential topics include - but are not limited to – physics, chemistry, properties, structure, applications, sustainability, forming, recycling, quality and history of glasses, glass-ceramics and melts.
The main objective of this international open access journal is to provide a cost-free, easy-to-operate and timely-publishing service, for high quality novel research and technological developments in glass.
Glass Europe is published by Deutsche Glastechnische Gesellschaft e.V. (DGG) and Union pour la Science et la Technologie Verrières (USTV).
Glass Europe is an open-access journal. This means all content can be accessed immediately after publication free of charge. Authors retain copyright and all content can be reused unrestrictedly according to the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. Preprints (pre-review manuscripts), post prints (authors accepted manuscripts, AAM), and the version of record (VoR) can be deposited without restrictions.
Please find further information on license and copyright on the page Submissions.
- Screening stage: Upon receipt of a manuscript, the chief editor in charge (allocated per calendar week) will evaluate whether it fits within the specific journal’s publishing profile and meets basic standards of quality
- If the manuscript passes the preliminary editorial review, the next step is a single-anonymous peer review by an independent peer who hold a relevant doctoral degree or equivalent and are familiar with the actual topic(s). The reviewers are anonymous. Peers and editors are not remunerated for their work on behalf of the journal.
- In addition to an in-depth evaluation of the scholarly merit of the manuscript, the reviewer will be asked to evaluate:
- The logical coherence, structure and legibility of the manuscript,
- The current interest, value and relevance of the manuscript,
- Whether the issues addressed are discussed and analysed in a proper way,
- Whether the conclusions are supported by sources and data,
- Whether the use of sources is conscientious and methodologically acceptable,
- Whether the references are satisfactory and in accordance with the editorial instructions.
The peer will also be asked whether he/she recommends publication; publication after improvements; or does not recommend publication. Authors receive anonymized copies of reviewer comments. The journal’s editors make the final decision regarding acceptance/rejection of the manuscript.
Data and other underlying material
Research output is not just text (journal articles, books, or conference papers), but also data, model code, software, etc. All of these outputs deserve acknowledgement and should be as open and FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable) as possible. All materials (data, code, etc.) supporting the findings presented in submitted manuscripts should therefore be deposited in a FAIR-aligned public repository. A registry to find suitable data repositories is re3data.org. Whenever no ethical or legal constrains apply, unrestricted access to all underlying data and other material should be provided. In addition, data (and other material underpinning the findings) need to be cited in the text and the respective reference must be included in the manuscript’s reference list. Please refer to the data citation principles of FORCE11 or the FORCE11 software citation principles, respectively. Every author should include a data availability statement in their manuscript describing how the data underlying the findings of their contribution can be accessed and reused. If the submission is not based on data or the data it is based on is restricted (third-party data, legal or ethical constraints), this should be explained in the data availability statement, too. Reciprocal linking of data and other underlying material and the contribution through persistent identifiers (e.g. DOIs) is best practice.
All content published in Glass Europe is archived long-term through the TIB.
Standards on ethics in publishing safeguard that publications are high quality, credible, and that authors receive appropriate credit for their works. For authors, it is therefore crucial to avoid
- Data fabrication and falsification: Data fabrication means the scientist did not actually do the research, but made up the presented data. Data falsification means the manipulation of data (e.g. removing inconvenient data points) in order to provide a false impression. Data fabrication and falsification is scientific misconduct.
- Plagiarism: Using the thoughts and works, even small pieces, of another person without providing appropriate credit is fraudulent.
- Multiple submissions: It is dishonest to submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. This practise waste time of editors and reviewers and can harm the reputation of the respective journals.
- Redundant publications (or 'salami' publications): This means publishing various (often very similar) papers based on the same research.
- Improper author contribution or attribution: The author list must only contain persons who contributed significantly (in a scientific sense) to the presented work. Likewise, all persons who made such contribution must be included.
- Citation manipulation: excessive author and journal self-citations, honorary citations, and any form of citation stacking is scientific malpractice.
In accordance with the COPE position statement on Authorship and AI tools, AI tools (such as ChatGPT) cannot be listed as authors of a paper. These tools cannot take responsibility for the submitted work and hence do not meet the requirements for authorship such as the ability to declare competing interests or to agree to the license agreement.
Not only authors need to adhere to ethical standards, but also editors and reviewers:
- Editors and reviewers must give unbiased consideration to all submitted manuscripts, review each on its merits without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
- Editors and reviewers must not handle manuscripts they are directly affiliated with.
- Editors and reviewers must avoid any real or perceived conflict of interests.
- Editors and reviewers must respect the intellectual independence of authors.
- Editors and reviewers must respect confidentially of any non-pubic information they see during peer review.
TIB Open Publishing plans to become a COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) member. Therefore, OCP subscribes to the COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors as well as the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers as best practice.
Glass Europe uses Cossref’s Similarity Check to detect plagiarism in the submitted manuscripts. It is up to the editors to decide whether any manuscript is rejected because of plagiarism.
Competing interest, also known as conflicts of interest (COIs), arise when issues outside research may fairly be viewed as impacting the work's neutrality or the objectivity of it’s assessment. This can happen at any point of the research cycle. Competing interest include
- Financial: funding and other payments, goods and services received or expected by the authors relating to the subject of the work or from an organization with an interest in the outcome of the work
- Affiliations: being employed by, on the advisory board for, or a member of an organization with an interest in the outcome of the work
- Intellectual property: patents or trademarks owned by someone or their organization
- Personal: friends, family, relationships, and other close personal connections
- Ideology: beliefs or activism, for example, political or religious, relevant to the work
- Academic: competitors or someone whose work is critiqued Competing interests do not necessarily prevent the publication of research, or prohibit the participation of someone in the review process. However, competing interests do need to be recorded. A straightforward explanation of all potential issues – whether they have had an impact or not – helps to make informed judgements about the research and its review.
Handling of misconduct
There are two distinct circumstances to be noted: misconduct (i.e. serious scientific fraud such as data fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism) and honest errors. Errors may be due to inattentiveness (e.g. mistake in methods) and are not to be regarded as misconduct. DEA Panel will follow the COPE flowcharts in cases of suspected or proven misconduct. Glass Europe will take steps to correct the scientific record if it considers clear proof of misconduct.
Please find further information on post-publication corrections on the page Submissions.
Any complaints should be directed to the editors.
Any opinions expressed and information presented in Glass Europe are the views of the authors and not of the editors or TIB Open Publishing. The publication of contributions does not constitute endorsement or approval by the journal and/or its publisher. Glass Europe and TIB Open Publishing cannot be held responsible for any errors or for any consequences arising from the use of the information contained in this series. While every effort is made by the editors to make sure that no erroneous or false data, view, or statement is published in this journal, TIB Open Publishing and the editors accept no liability of any kind for the consequences of any such inaccurate or misleading data, information, opinion, or statement.
Glass Europe is financed by Deutsche Glastechnische Gesellschaft e.V. (DGG) and Union pour la Science et la Technologie Verrières (USTV).